EPA 910/9-91-038
Puget Sound Estuary Program
Beyond the Border:
Environmental Management
in Washington and British Columbia
-------
BEYOND THE BORDER
Environmental Management in
British Columbia and Washington
By
Christine Nasser
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, Office of Coastal Waters
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
January 1,1992
EPA 910/9-91-038
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
PART I. INTRODUCTION 1
PART II. INTRODUCTION TO CANADIAN GOVERNMENT 4
A. Parliament 6
B. The National Government 7
C. The Justice System 8
D. Elections and Political Parties 9
E. Provincial and Territorial Government 9
PART III. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND PROTECTION IN BRITISH
COLUMBIA 13
A. Constitutional Powers 13
B. Major National Environmental Legislation and Initiatives 14
C. Federal Environmental Agencies 17
D. Major Provincial Environmental Legislation and Initiatives 21
E. Provincial Environmental Regulatory Agencies 24
F. Environmental Protection in the Territories 27
PART IV. INTRODUCTION TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 29
A. Federal Judicial Branch 29
B. Executive Branch 31
C. Legislative Branch 32
D. Elections and Political Parties 32
E. Washington State Government 33
PART V. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND PROTECTION
IN WASHINGTON 37
A. Major Federal Environmental Legislation and Initiatives 37
B. Federal Environmental Agencies 38
C. Major State Environmental Legislation and Initiatives 43
D. State Environmental Regulatory Agencies 45
PART VI. BRIEF COMPARISON OF U.S. AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENTAL
SYSTEMS 50
i
-------
PART VII. ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 52
A. Point Source Pollution Control 53
Canada/B.C 53
U.S./Washington 57
1. Pulp and Paper Effluent Control 60
Canada/B.C 60
U.S./Washington 62
2. Mining and Smelting Effluent Control 63
Canada/B.C 64
U.S./Washington 65
3. Municipal Sewage Effluent Control 67
Canada/B.C 67
U.S./Washington 69
B. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 71
Canada/B.C 71
U.S./Washington 73
C. Pleasure Craft Discharges 76
Canada/B.C 76
U.S./Washington 78
D. Oil Spill Response 79
Canada/B.C 79
U.S./Washington 81
Joint Efforts 83
E. Dredging 84
Canada/B.C 84
U.S./Washington 86
F. Ocean Dumping/Dredged Material Disposal 87
Canada/B.C 87
U.S./Washington 90
G. Wetlands Protection 93
Canada/B.C 94
U.S./Washington 96
H. Estuary Management Programs 99
Fraser River Estuary Management Program 99
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan 102
I. Marine Protected Areas 105
Canada/B.C 106
U.S./Washington 108
-------
PARTVIII. WATER QUALITY MONITORING 112
A. Canada/B.C. Water Quality Monitoring 112
Federal Programs 112
Provincial Programs 113
B. U.S./Washington Water Quality Monitoring 115
Federal Programs 115
State Programs 115
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) 116
Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines 119
PART IX. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES 120
A. Canadian Federal Review Processes 121
B. Coordinated Environmental Review Processes 125
C. Provincial Environmental Review Processes 126
D. U.S. Federal Environmental Review Processes 130
E. Washington State Environmental Review Processes . ..' 131
PARTX. TOWARD CONTINUED TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION 135
A. International Treaties 135
B. State/Provincial Arrangements v 137
C. Cooperation Along Other Parts of the International Border 139
PART XI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 140
PART XII. REFERENCES 142
III
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Washington State and Southern British Columbia 2
Figure 2. Organization of the Canadian Federal Government 5
Figure 3. Organization of the Government of British Columbia 11
Figure 4. Organization of Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection,
Pacific and Yukon Region 19
Figure 5. Organization of B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks,
Environmental Programming 25
Figure 6. Organization of the U.S. Federal Government 30
Figure 7. Organization of Washington State Government 34
Figure 8. Organization of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 40
Figure 9. Organization of the Washington State Department of Ecology 47
Figure 10. Bodies of Water for Which Water Quality Objectives Have
Been Set (B.C) 56
Figure 11. Ocean Dump Sites in Southern British Columbia 88
Figure 12. Locations of Openwater Disposal Sites in Puget Sound 91
Figure 13. The Fraser River Estuary 100
Figure 14. The Area Addressed in the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan 103
Figure 15. The 29 Marine Regions of Canada's National Park System 107
Figure 16. Approximate Location of Proposed Sanctuaries and
Study Areas (U.S.) 109
Figure 17. Comparison of EARP and the Proposed Assessment and
Review Process 123-124
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared as part of a summer graduate internship with the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Coastal Waters, under the
supervision of Dr. John Armstrong. Review comments provided by numerous
individuals in federal, state, and provincial agencies are gratefully acknowledged.
While many who assisted in this project are listed as contacts throughout the
document, the author greatly appreciates the additional assistance and support of
Earle Anthony (Environment Canada), Robert Burd (EPA Region 10), Andrea Copping
(formerly of Puget Sound Water Quality Authority), Fred Felleman (American Oceans
Campaign), Jack Gakstatter (EPA Region 10), Carol Jolly (WA Department of Ecology),
Linda Maxson (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Bruce Morgan
(BC Environment, Lands and Parks), Tim Ransom (Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority), William Sinclair (Environment Canada), and Steve Samis (Fisheries and
Oceans Canada).
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent international issues such as Victoria's sewage treatment practices, the effects
of British Columbia industries on the environmental quality of the Columbia River and
Lake Roosevelt, the impacts in British Columbia of Nooksack River flooding, and
cross-border flows of air pollutants, have raised transboundary environmental
concerns to the forefront of public debate in the Pacific Northwest.
Citizens and regulators on both sides of the border have begun working together to
develop effective solutions to these and other international environmental issues. For
their efforts to be successful, a common understanding must exist concerning the
approaches to environmental governance in Washington and British Columbia.
Meetings between state, provincial and federal officials during the past year have
revealed that the awareness of political, administrative and regulatory structures and
processes of both neighbors needs to be improved.
This report, Beyond the Border, provides an introduction to U.S. and Canadian
systems of government as well as an overview of the major environmental agencies
and laws in Washington and British Columbia. It summarizes the regulations and
policies regarding different aspects of water quality and resource management, and
highlights differences and similarities between the programs implemented. Final
sections of the report feature existing transboundary cooperative agreements and
recommend other areas in which additional cooperative efforts would benefit
environmental management in both nations.
Beyond the Border, was written for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
10, Office of Coastal Waters. The contents of this report primarily address surface
water quality, although other important transboundary issues such as air pollution,
hazardous waste transportation, ground water contamination, and shared biological
resources also exist. Beyond general discussion of governments, specific topics
discussed in the report include:
Point Source Pollution Control
Pulp and Paper Effluent
Mining and Smelting Effluent
Municipal Sewage Effluent
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Pleasure Craft Discharges
Oil Spill Response
Dredging Regulations
Ocean Dumping/ Dredged Materials Disposal
Wetlands Protection
Estuary Management Programs
Marine Protected Areas
Environmental Monitoring
Environmental Review Processes
vi
-------
This report provides comprehensive overviews of these topics, and provides the
names of contacts in both countries for those readers who may need additional
information on specific topics. Beyond the Border seeks to provide the reader with the
appropriate background to investigate, understand, and work toward solving regional
environmental problems. As governments and citizens become increasingly aware of
the international nature of many environmental issues, it will become more important
for individuals to look beyond their borders to resolve these concerns. This report
should help us all move forward in that direction.
VII
-------
PART I. INTRODUCTION
Canada and the United States share one of the largest undefended borders in the world.
Millions of Americans and Canadians cross the international boundary each year to
vacation, visit friends, or conduct business. Free trade agreements between the two
nations seek to ensure continued exchanges of commercial activity and investment, and
help provide similar goods and services to consumers of both countries. A shared
language, democratic governments, and previous colonial ties with Europe also
contribute to a sense of commonality. Despite these apparent similarities, however, the
two nations are governed by different political systems and political ideologies ~
differences that go beyond the color of paper money or the design of national flags.
The political distinctions between the two nations sometimes startle citizens and
government officials on both sides of the border, who may know little about how
policies, laws or regulations are developed in the other nation.
In the Pacific Northwest, the shared natural environment is a matter of concern and
interest to citizens groups and government officials. In 1988 an oil slick from a barge
off the coast of southern Washington reached the shores of Vancouver Island, B.C. The
incident effectively illustrated that pollution does not recognize the international
boundary, and sparked a commitment to cooperative management and prevention of oil
spills among authorities in Washington and British Columbia (the resulting agreement
was later signed by the other states along the Pacific Coast), This cooperative venture
was similar in spirit to existing international agreements between the U.S. and Canada
in the Pacific Northwest, such as the Columbia River Treaty, the Pacific Salmon Treaty,
and the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards' traffic control system for shipping in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the Strait of Georgia.
Despite the existence of these cooperative agreements, international environmental
pollution remains an issue of concern in the Northwest, especially as it pertains to water
quality. The 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan addresses water quality
issues in Washington's inland marine waters, and notes that the same issues relevant to
Puget Sound are also significant to British Columbia's inland coastal waters. The Plan
recognizes that Washington and British Columbia ultimately share these inland marine
waters (Figure 1), and that each must manage the shared resources, both living and
nonliving, in a responsible manner. Specific marine water quality concerns on both sides
of the border include industrial and municipal discharges; nonpoint source pollution;
hazardous materials transportation; oil spill prevention and response; the contribution of
the region's major rivers to pollution in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound; and
contaminated sediments and dredging. While the Puget Sound Plan emphasizes shared
marine waters, other areas along the international border recognize common
groundwater supplies and transboundary river systems as well as associated pollution
problems.
-------
« jpv'f K ,?-*"/??" S.^ $ ^
Vancouver
Victoria
Figure 1:
Washington State and Southern British Columbia
-------
Recent concerns regarding international issues such as Victoria's sewage treatment
practices, the effects of British Columbia industries on the environmental quality of the
Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt, the impacts in British Columbia of Nooksack River
flooding, and cross-border flows of air pollutants, have raised transboundary
environmental concerns to the forefront of public debate in the region. Citizens and
regulators on both sides of the border have begun working together to develop effective
solutions to these and other environmental issues. For their efforts to be successful, a
common understanding must exist concerning the approaches to environmental
governance in Washington and British Columbia. Meetings between state, provincial
and federal officials during the past year have already revealed that the understanding of
political, administrative and regulatory structures and processes of both neighbors needs
to be improved.
To help inform government regulators as well as citizen groups and other interested
parties in both Washington and British Columbia, Beyond the Border was written for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. It serves as a first source of
information for those concerned with how the environment is managed on either side of
the border, and lays the foundation for understanding the differences and similarities
between the two regulatory systems. The report provides an introduction to U.S. and
Canadian government as well as an overview of the major environmental agencies and
laws in Washington and British Columbia. It summarizes the regulations and policies
regarding different aspects of water quality and resource management, and highlights
differences and similarities between the programs implemented. Final sections of the
report feature existing transboundary cooperative agreements and recommend other
areas in which cooperation would benefit environmental management in both nations.
Readers interested in specific issues are encouraged to refer directly to applicable
sections of the report- some may choose to skip over those topics with which they are
already familiar. While most of this report is relevant to current transboundary issues in
Washington and British Columbia, many of the broader aspects of Beyond the Border
(such as government structure and federal regulations) may also be useful to
environmental officials concerned with Alaska and the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Beyond the Border focuses primarily on topics pertaining to surface water quality,
although other important transboundary issues such as air pollution, hazardous waste
transportation, and ground water contamination also exist. In this report it was not
possible to cover all issues relevant to water quality, and the exclusion of some topics
should not be considered a sign of their relative importance or unimportance. This
report provides a comprehensive overview of the major issues discussed, and provides
the names of contacts for those readers who may need additional information. Beyond
the Border does not attempt to analyze or rigorously compare the environmental policies
of British Columbia and Washington, but seeks to provide the reader with the
appropriate background to investigate, understand, and work toward solving regional
environmental problems.
-------
PART II. INTRODUCTION TO CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
The Dominion of Canada was established in 1867 by the British North America Act, as
a loose confederation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and southern Ontario and
Quebec. This confederation combined three British colonies into one, and provided a
mechanism for other British territories in North America to be absorbed into the new
Canadian colony (Gibbins 1988). A major stimulus to this union was the emergence of
a more powerful United States after the Civil War, which some believed provided a
threat of annexation to the British colonies. In 1871, the people of British Columbia
joined the confederation, with promises of a federal railway connecting them to the east.
By 1949, when Newfoundland joined the nation, Canada encompassed the ten provinces
and two territories that it does today.
Although political independence from Great Britain was established in 1931, the
monarchy of England still plays a symbolic role as sovereign. In 1982, Canada's
constitutional reform culminated in the signing of the Constitution Act, which
established the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, redefined the functions and powers of
the federal and provincial governments, contained the Meech Lake Accord (which
sought to recognize Quebec as a distinct society), and established that amendments to
the constitution did not require approval by the British Parliament (as they had
previously). With the Constitution Act of 1982, Canada achieved final political
independence from Great Britain, although still sharing the symbol of the monarchy.
The Canadian Constitution defines a federal system of government, in which the
authority to make laws is divided between the Parliament of Canada (the federal
government) and the Provincial legislatures (similar to the State legislatures in the U.S.).
The Constitution defines the jurisdictions of the provinces and federal government, and
declares that all powers not specifically mentioned are vested in the national or federal
government. Jurisdictional divisions between the provinces and federal government will
be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
Due to its historically close affiliation with Great Britain, Canada has retained a
parliamentary form of government (Figure 2). The Canadian Parliament consists of the
Sovereign of Canada, the House of Commons, and the Senate. The Prime Minister is
the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, nominated by the members
of the party. From the elected members of the majority party, the Prime Minister
chooses a Cabinet, those ministers who will head specific government departments or
commissions. The Prime Minister and Cabinet essentially lead the nation's government
and set the country's legislative agenda.
When one speaks of "the government" in Canada or British Columbia, the term
commonly refers to the Prime Minister and Cabinet or the provincial Premier and
Cabinet. Canada's independent judicial system is shared between the federal and
provincial levels of government.
-------
Flguni
Canadian Federal Government
Organization of the Government of Canada
April 1,1990
Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II)
Governor General
I
Houses of Parliament
Senate
I
I
Government
Judicial Branch
| House of Commons |-
I Opposition Party |
Commissioner of
Official Languages
LJbrary of Parliament
| Governing Party \
Office of the Auditor General
Office of (he Solicitor General
Pubic Service Commission
Canadan Human Rights Commission
Information Commissioner
Public Staff Relations Board
j Prime Minister
| Cabinet Ministers
Office of the Prime Minister
Federal-Provincial Relations Office
Privy Council Office
Minsters of State and Leaders of the
Government in the House of
Commons
Canadian Intergovernmental
Conference Secretariat
Economic Cound of Canada
Office of the Commissioner of
Official Languages
Security Intelligence Review
Committee
CanacfanJucfcial
Council
Court Martial Appeal
Court of Canada
Federal Court of
Supreme Court of
Canada
Tax Court of Canada
Federal Ministries
Department of Agriculture
Department of Communications
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Department of Employment and Immigration
Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources
Department of Environment
Department of External Affairs
Department of Finance
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Department of Forestry
Department of Health and Welfare
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of National Defense
Department of Public Works
Department of National Revenue
Department of Secretary of State
Department of Science, Technology, and Industry
Department of Supply and Services
Department of Transportation
Department of Veteran's Affairs
Adapted torn Chart by Treason Board Secretariat, Ottawa. Ontario.
Government Dinaory with International Oi^ 1SSO
-------
The Canadian political system is multi-party, and promotes government stability through
strong party ties and no limits on reelection. During the leadership of Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau, the United States was governed by the administrations of Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan. Members of the House of Commons are popularly
elected, but Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister.
The following sections of Part n will describe in more detail how the Parliament, the
Government, the parties, and provincial governments function in Canada.
A. PARLIAMENT
The House of Commons:
Within the House of Commons, 295 seats are apportioned according to geographical
units (provinces) based mainly upon population. Members of Parliament (MP's) are
directly elected on the principle of representation by population. As in the United
States, Canadians elect a single member of the House per electoral district in one round
of balloting. Elections take place at least every five years, with the entire House of
Commons up for election at the same time.
The House of Commons has the ability to pass legislation and participate in
constitutional amendments. Its authority to ask for a vote of no-confidence allows the
House of Commons to keep a reign on the Cabinet and Prime Ministerif a majority of
the members of the House of Commons vote that they have lost confidence in the
government, the Prime Minister must resign or ask for a national election to be
scheduled.
Rarely will an individual Member of Parliament vote against his or her party. This party
solidarity, known as the "Principle of Party Discipline," ensures that legislation promoted
by the majority party will usually be passed, effectively building coalitions along party
lines. The larger provinces (i.e. Ontario, Quebec) may have "federal cliques" with which
members may affiliate themselves in some instances, rather than associating strictly by
party. Opposition (minority party) members of Parliament essentially serve to keep the
Government accountable for its actions, since the minority party can influence public
opinion through debate and the introduction of new ideas to the government. The
largest minority party in the House is formally known as Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition.
The Senate:
The Senate serves as a constitutional check on the House of Commons. This legislative
body consists of 104 members appointed by the Prime Minister according to a regional
allotment. Once appointed, Senators may continue to serve until they are 75 years of
age. The Senate performs the technical function of reviewing legislation passed up from
the House of Commons, but it does not commonly use its authority to veto or introduce
new bills.
-------
The Crown:
An overview of the Parliament would not be complete without a discussion of the
Crown's (the Monarchy of England's) role. The Queen of England continues today to
act as the symbolic head of the Commonwealth to which Canada belongs. The
Governor General of Canada is appointed by the Queen, under the recommendation of
the Prime Minister, to serve as the Queen's representative. The duties of the Governor
General, although mostly symbolic and ceremonial, include protecting the best interests
of the Canadian people. With this responsibility, the Governor General can dissolve
Parliament if an impropriety or criminal action by the government occurs. This
authority has seldom been wielded. If a party has obtained a majority of the seats in the
House of Commons, the Governor General typically asks the leader of that party to
form a government. If no majority party exists, the Governor General may choose a
party to lead or may help establish a coalition government.
Although the Governor General officially summons and dissolves Parliament, this is
done on the initiative of the Prime Minister. The Governor General delivers the
"Speech from the Throne" to begin a new Parliament (much like the State of the Union
Address in the U.S.), but the Prime Minister, in consultation with key advisors and
ministers, determines the contents of the speech. The Governor General's final major
political act is to approve or reject bills that pass both the Commons and the Senate.
The Governor General's signature completes the legislative process and symbolically
transforms the legislation into an Act of Parliament. All legislation passed by the
Parliament refers within its text to the Governor General as the "Governor-in-Council."
Each province has a Lieutenant Governor who is appointed by the Governor General
under the recommendation of the Provincial government. For the most part, the
activities of the Lieutenant Governor mirror those of the Queen's national
representative. The Lieutenant Governor is directly responsible to the federal
government and may refuse to sign provincial legislation or may refer it to the federal
Cabinet if the legislation is not in the best interests of the people of the province or the
nation (White 1988). The Lieutenant Governor seldom uses this authority, and the day-
to-day functions of this position are primarily symbolic.
B. THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Prime Minister and Cabinet;
The Government of Canada consists of the Cabinet, or the Prime Minister and the
Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister. (As mentioned previously, in Canada, the
"Government" refers to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as opposed to its broad
definition in the U.S.) After a national election, the leader of the party that holds the
greatest number of representatives in the House of Commons becomes Prime Minister.
-------
The Prime Minister determines which members of Parliament, of the same party, will
function as Ministers (i.e. Minister of Defense, or the Environment). A "Minister
without Portfolio" refers to a cabinet member chosen for certain expertise but who does
not serve as the head of any Ministry (this term may also be used to describe Ministers
with the Provincial government). The major national governmental agencies are called
Departments (as opposed to the Provincial Ministries) but are popularly referred to with
the term "Canada" inserted into the title. For example, the department of the
Environment is known as Environment Canada, and the department of Fisheries and
Oceans is called Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet, and decides who will occupy the national
policy-making and administrative posts. The Prime Minister alone can determine the
timing of an election within the five year term of Parliament, and has authority to
reorganize government bureaucracy. Because the Prime Minister and Cabinet are drawn
from the majority party in the House of Commons and can rely upon the principle of
party discipline, Cabinet often dominates the legislative process as well as directs the
executive branch (Gibbins 1988).
Cabinet members are collectively responsible for each and every decision reached by the
Cabinet as a whole. Ministers who disagree with a consensus vote must publicly support
the vote or resign from the cabinet. The internal cooperation among the Cabinet and
the external coordination among the different parts of the Parliament generally enable
the Prime Minister's proposed policies to sail smoothly through the legislative process.
Although in theory the Cabinet is responsible to the Parliament, the House of Commons
and the Senate have less input on legislation than does the Government. In fact,
Cabinet members have the exclusive right to introduce tax legislation or legislation
calling for the expenditure of public funds (Gibbins 1988). It has been observed that
"Parliament debates government legislation before passing it, rather than debating to
determine whether it should pass (Gibbins 1988)." Parliament's rejection of an executive
proposal could lead to a vote of no-confidence and a national election (Jackson 1990).
C. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
In the parliamentary democracy of Canada, the judicial system is separate from the
legislative and executive branches of government. The provinces are responsible for
prosecuting some violations of the federal criminal code, and define and administer civil
law. At the federal level, the Supreme Court of Canada and Federal Court of Canada
have national jurisdiction (White 1988). All crucial decisions concerning constitutional,
criminal, and civil law are ultimately made in the Supreme Court. The court has eight
cabinet-appointed judges and one Chief Justice. The Federal Court has a Chief Justice
and an Associate Chief Justice. The twelve judges of the Federal Court's trial division
hear cases in which citizens have a claim against the Crown, while the nine judges of the
appeals division may hear appeals on decisions of the trial division. The appeals
division may also hear appeals from federal agencies whose "decisions are challenged on
the grounds of not adhering to accepted legal procedures and principles" (White 1988).
It was not until 1949 that the Supreme Court of Canada became the final court of
8
-------
appeal (before then, all appeals on constitutional cases could be made to a council in
the United Kingdom), and the Canadian Supreme Court has thus had less of an
opportunity to create an important role for itself in the Constitutional process (White
1988).
D. ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTIES
In Canada, national elections are held at least every five years. The Prime Minister
dissolves Parliament and calls the elections at the most favorable opportunity for the
governing party, usually within the fourth year after the last national vote. If timed
correctly (i.e. when the party's policies have public support), this tradition helps to
ensure that members of the government will be returned to office. A vote of no-
confidence by the House of Commons could force the Prime Minister to resign or call
for an election at an inopportune moment.
The Canadian political system is multi-party, with two consistently prominent national
parties. These two dominant parties at the national level are the center-left Liberals,
supporters of some public ownership with an emphasis on social legislation, and the
center-right Progressive Conservatives, supporters of a laissez-faire philosophy with an
emphasis on the private sector. From the early part of the century until 1984, the
Liberals were the dominant party in the Parliament. Since 1984, however, the
Progressive Conservatives have led the nation.
Over the last fifty years, the New Democratic Party (NDP) has also remained a firmly
lodged political entity. This party is on the moderate left of the Canadian political
spectrum and often acts as the nation's social conscience. It tends to initiate innovative
ideas for social programs, like national health care, which may be too extreme for the
major parties to support. Over time, however, these ideas are often developed into the
Liberal or Conservative party platforms. The Social Credit Party (Socred) is further
right in the political spectrum.
Although these minor parties have not had much federal success, they can be major
players in provincial governments. For example, the New Democratic Party currently
forms the government of British Columbia (the provincial Liberal Party has emerged as
a political force for the first time in 30 years, forming the official opposition party),
while the Social Credit party was previously in power in the province. In addition to
these two parties, many smaller parties may be represented in Parliament or in
legislative bodies around the nation.
E. PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
British Columbia;
The provincial government of British Columbia is structurally similar to the Canadian
federal government, although the provincial parliament is a single-house legislature with
-------
no Senate (Figure 3). The province of British Columbia has 75 ridings (legislative
districts), and thus has 75 elected members to the Legislative Assembly. The Members
of the Legislative Assembly (MLA's) typically stem from the New Democratic Party
(NDP), the Liberal Party, and the Social Credit Party (Socreds). As in any
parliamentary system, the Premier is the leader of the majority party. Elections must be
held every five years or sooner, at the discretion of the Premier and party.
The Premier appoints between 18-20 people to the cabinet, most of whom serve as the
heads of specific Ministries. Due to the structure of the B.C. government, Cabinet
members have more power to put forward legislation than do the individual members of
the Legislative Assembly.
B.C. is divided into regional districts and municipalities, each of which has its own
elected local officials. Municipalities are incorporated areas. Residents of
unincorporated areas are governed in Districts, similar to "Counties" in the U.S. In
1990, an estimated three million people lived in British Columbia's 934,000 square
kilometers (359,000 square miles), more than two-thirds of whom lived in the Fraser
River Basin. The land mass of British Columbia represented about 10% of Canada, and
its population of three million people represented about 11% of the nation's total.
The justice system is structured in three levels: the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court,
and Provincial Court.
The Yukon:
In the Yukon, 16 representatives are elected to the Territorial Legislative Assembly.
The party with the most votes selects the Premier. In conjunction with the party caucus,
the Premier appoints 5 other cabinet members, each of whom, including the Premier,
direct two or three departments.
By constitution, the Yukon must hold an election every four years, but in the
Parliamentary tradition they may call an election anytime. In the Yukon, the New
Democratic Party currently forms the government, and the Progressive Conservatives are
the opposition. In 1989, a estimated 25,700 people lived in the Yukon, the land area of
which represented about 5% of the nation's total.
The Northwest Territories:
The Northwest Territories (N.W.T.) comprises 34% of Canada's land area but is home
to less than 60,000 people. More than half of these residents are native people, with
whom the Federal government is currently drawing up land claims (transferring land to
native ownership). Once these claims are settled, N.W.T. will most likely be sub-
divided into several smaller units.
In the N.W.T., there are 24 elected members of the Territorial Legislative Assembly.
The territory does not have a party system, rather, the legislature works through
10
-------
Government of British Columbia
Organization of the Government of British Columbia
December 13,1991
Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II)
Lieutenant Governor
J_
Legislative Assembly
Opposition Party
J_
Executive Council
Governing Party
Premier
Cabinet Ministers
Provincial Ministries
I
I
Aboriginal Affairs
Advanced Education, Training, and Technology
Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food
Attorney General
Economic Development, Small Business, and Trade
Education, Multiculturalism, and Human Rights
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
Environment, Lands and Parks
Finance and Corporate Relations
Forests
Government Services
Health
Labour and Consumer Services
Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing
Social Services
Tourism and Culture
Transportation and Highways
Women's Equality
-------
consensus, and the Government Leader and the eight cabinet ministers are chosen by
the entire Assembly (NWT 1990).
Both the Northwest and Yukon Territories have voting representatives in the Canadian
House of Commons. The federal government plays a much stronger role in the
management of these two entities than it does in any of the Provinces.
12
-------
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND PROTECTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
A. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS
The following section delineates the constitutional precedence for addressing pollution
issues and natural resource management in British Columbia. While the Canadian
Constitution specifically lists the resources over which the Provinces have control, the
issue of which order of government has ultimate jurisdiction over environmental
protection is one of constant debate.
Federal Powers;
The division of jurisdictional authority between federal and provincial levels of
government in Canada was first laid out in the British North America Act of 1867,
which was replaced by the Canadian Constitution Act, enacted by the Parliament of
Canada in 1982 (FREMP 1990a). Environmental protection is managed under the
Canadian Constitution Act which gives the federal government responsibility for
navigation and shipping, seacoast and inland fisheries, lands reserved for indians,
international relations, federal lands, and works "for the advantage of Canada" (Hunter
1987). These mandates, and the clause allowing Canadian Parliament to make laws for
"peace, order and good government," give the federal government jurisdiction over
migratory birds and issues of national concern such as ocean dumping, international and
interprovincial pollution, and regulating all aspects of toxic chemicals.
Provincial Powers;
Under Canada's Constitution, the province has proprietary jurisdiction over all land,
water, forests, minerals (non-renewable resources), and land covered by water, as well as
the foreshore (land between low and high tides) and beds of inland coastal waters
(FREMP 1990a). In British Columbia, about 90% of the land is provincially managed,
or "owned by the Crown in right of the province," and the province has jurisdiction over
most of the natural resources within it. In addition to jurisdiction over non-living
resources, the Canadian Constitution also gives the provinces responsibility for "property
and civil rights in the province." By common law, property has been determined to
include fish (once they have been landed) and other living resources.
Thus, while the Constitution Act may give the provincial governments dominance in
areas likely to affect (for example) air quality, the federal government may use its
commerce and international responsibilities to also exercise control (Sinclair 1990). By
way of their proprietary interest in natural resources, the provinces have jurisdiction over
water. The federal government is also concerned with water quality through its
jurisdictional responsibilities pertaining to navigation, northern development, fisheries,
and authority for maintaining peace, order and good government (Sinclair 1990).
13
-------
Some legal authorities have allocated control to the province for pollution management
and other environmental issues:"...because pollution primarily affects property rights, ^ the
provincial governments must be regarded as having primary legislative responsibility"
(Carroll 1979). Others have claimed that Parliament could and should assert authority
with regard to pollution in the interests of general health, northern development,
fisheries, and navigation (Sinclair 1990). Through the Constitution's "peace, order, and
good government clause" recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions have granted
authority over aspects related to marine pollution to the federal government.
The ambiguity of the Constitution regarding environmental regulation as well as
'overlapping jurisdiction in many areas of environmental management," has created a
regulatory system characterized by cooperative management through protocol
agreements, memos of understanding, and federal-provincial accords" (FREMP 1990a).
As a result of concurrent authority, both levels of government have long been involved
in the management of industrial and municipal wastes (FREMP 1990a).
B. MAJOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND INITIATIVES
Although many federal laws and initiatives govern environmental protection at a
national level, the following discussion summarizes three most significant to water
quality protection.
The Fisheries Act;
The Fisheries Act, originating in the 1870's and revised as recently as 1991, is one of the
"most significant federal statutes for controlling water pollution" (Hunter 1987). Section
36 of the Act states that "no person shall deposit a deleterious substance of any type in
waters frequented by fish..." Deleterious substances are defined as those which would
cause significant harm to fish or fish habitat if added to the water, and can include a
variety of materials, from sediments to toxic contaminants. This section of the Act gives
the federal government authority to regulate and monitor water quality, and has led to
promulgation of a variety of federal regulations and guidelines, to be discussed in detail
in this report.
The Fisheries Act defines fish as "shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals... and the eggs,
sperm, spawn, larvae spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans, or marine
animals." The federal government is responsible for marine and tidewater fisheries,
marine fish habitat management, and freshwater habitat used by anadromous species,
while in British Columbia, the federal government and province jointly manage
freshwater sport fisheries. In the province, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and
Oceans actively manages freshwater fish habitat, the provincial Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks regulates recreational freshwater fisheries, and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food manages freshwater commercial fisheries.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, and the public share the ability to
invoke the Fisheries Act, however Fisheries and Oceans Canada has delegated much of
14
-------
the lead administrative authority for Section 36 of this Act to Environment Canada.
Because the Province has significant constitutional jurisdiction over managing water
quality, Environment Canada consults with the province when considering legal action
under Section 36 of the Fisheries Act.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act:
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was enacted in 1988 and
supersedes the Canadian Clean Air Act, Environmental Contaminants Act, Ocean
Dumping Act, and Part III of the Canada Water Act. It is one of the most
comprehensive federal environmental laws in Canada, and gives the federal government
stronger jurisdiction over protecting the environment than the Fisheries Act alone
provides.
CEPA serves as enabling legislation, allowing the federal environmental regulatory
agency, Environment Canada, to design objectives, guidelines, and codes of practice for
activities that affect the environment. It gives the federal government power to regulate
44 toxic substances listed as "priority chemicals" in the Act. Each "priority substance"
must be assessed for toxicity by February 1994 to determine whether it should be placed
on the List of Toxic Substances for possible regulation. CEPA gives Environment
Canada authority to control all aspects of the life cycle of toxic substances, from
development to their manufacture and ultimately to their disposal (Env. Can. 1988).
Prior to CEPA, Canadian industry could introduce a new substance into the country
without informing the federal government (except pesticides, which were regulated under
the Pest Control Products Act). Under CEPA, Environment Canada must assess all new
substances for health and environmental safety and must establish or consider controls
before the new substance can be used. CEPA also gives the federal government the
authority to obtain information on, and require testing of, substances already existing
(Env. Can. 1988).
CEPA prohibits ocean dumping except under the terms of a permit issued by
Environment Canada. It also authorizes Environment Canada to research and collect
data on air pollutants and to establish national ambient air quality objectives (FREMP
1990a). Under CEPA, air pollution can be controlled by the federal government if a
violation of an international agreement results, or where the air pollution affects another
country and reciprocal legislation exists to control the sources of the pollution.
Other authorities given the federal government under CEPA include:
authority to regulate fuels and components of fuels;
authority to regulate emissions, effluent, waste handling, and disposal
practices of federal departments, boards, agencies, and Crown Corporations;
provisions to create guidelines and codes for environmentally sound practices
as well as objectives setting desirable levels of environmental quality;
provisions to control nutrients in water conditioners or cleaning products which
15
-------
can interfere with the use of waters by humans, animals, fish or plants
(Env.Can 1988).
In addition the legislation authorizes the Minister of Environment to recognize
provincial requirements as equivalent to regulations promulgated under CEPA. The
federal and provincial governments will enter into agreements to ensure enforcement of
the equivalent requirements. Where equivalent requirements do not exist, the federal
government may enforce any national regulations that may be promulgated under the
Act (Env. Can. 1988). Thus, through CEPA, Environment Canada (assisted in some
cases by Health and Welfare Canada) may promulgate water quality guidelines, and
must work with provincial governments to cooperatively manage water resources and
share water quality monitoring activities.
CEPA gives Canadians a greater participatory role in environmental protection than
they had previously. Any Canadian citizen can ask that a suspected toxic substance be
added to the Priority Substances List and the government is required to act on the
request and report its actions and findings. If an assessment determines that a substance
should not be controlled, Canadian citizens can request a review of that decision.
The Green Plan;
Canada's Green Plan was released in 1990 and serves as a comprehensive plan of action
for environmental protection by all federal government departments and agencies. It
was developed by the Canadian Minister of the Environment, with consultation from a
National Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from a variety of
backgrounds and organizations.
The document lays out broad-based recommendations for improving environmental
management, and provides for three billion dollars to be appropriated for
implementation. Major objectives are divided into the following categories:
Clean air, water, and land ($850 million);
Sustainable use of renewable resources ($350 million);
Protection of spaces and species ($175 million);
Preserving the integrity of the northern territories ($100 million);
Global environmental security ($575 million);
Environmentally responsible decision-making at all levels of society ($500
million);
Minimizing the impacts of environmental emergencies ($175 million); and
Promoting environmental policies within federal government ($275 million)
For each objective, several targets are described, such as a "50 percent reduction in
Canada's generation of waste by the year 2000," or "virtual elimination of the discharge
of persistent toxic substances into the environment." One element of the Green Plan is
the Fraser River Basin Action Plan, which addresses the clean-up and protection of the
Fraser River in British Columbia. This Action plan is designed to bring together
16
-------
federal, provincial and local governments, as well as communities and industry to
develop targets and schedules for remedial action plans.
Federal departments are expected to design methods for attaining the Green Plan's
objectives. Although the Government of Canada is verbally committed to the Plan,
actual implementation may be based upon budget constraints and higher priority
political pressures.
C. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
Environment Canada;
The Canadian Department of the Environment, or Environment Canada, is the primary
coordinator of federal policies and programs directed at the protection and restoration
of environmental quality. This department is responsible for the Environmental
Assessment Review Process and is authorized to act in a manner consistent with the
following federal legislation:
Fisheries Act
Canada Water Act
Canada Wildlife Act
Canadian Environmental Week Act
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
Game Export Act
Historic Sites and Monuments Act
International River Improvements Act
Lake of the Woods Control Board Act
Migratory Birds Convention Act
Weather Modification Information Act
As well as the authorities given it by federal law, Environment Canada administers some
programs that have a national perspective such as meteorological services, collection of
some environmental data, research, as well as environmental issues of international
concern.
Headquartered in Ottawa, the federal Environment Department has five regional offices
throughout the country. The Pacific and Yukon Office in Vancouver administers federal
programs in B.C. and the Yukon, while the Western and Northern Office is located in
Edmonton and oversees federal laws in the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories.
At the national level the Minister of the Environment heads the organization. The
Deputy Minister serves as the senior, non-elected official responsible for the
management of the Department. Environment Canada is separated into three major
entities-Conservation and Protection, Atmospheric and Environmental Services, and the
Canadian Parks Service. These three elements are each headed by an Assistant Deputy
17
-------
Minister (ADM) in Ottawa, each of whom has five regional directors (one for each
region) who report to them. In the Pacific and Yukon Region, then, three major
elements of Environment Canada exist, with a Regional Director General of
Conservation and Protection, a Regional Director General of Atmospheric and
Environmental Services, and a Regional Director General of the Park Service. These
three Director Generals meet regularly as the Council of Regional Executives (CORE),
and work together to implement the national programs of the Department of the
Environment. Figure 4 shows the organizational structure of the Pacific and Yukon
Region's Conservation and Protection, the Service whose programs are most relevant to
this report. The functions of these three services are briefly described below.
1. The Atmospheric Environment Service provides information on weather, climate, sea
state, ice conditions, and air quality.
2. Conservation and Protection is the major program in Environment Canada concerned
with environmental regulation. This service promotes conservation and protection of
inland waters, lands, and wildlife against the harmful effects of pollutants. Its jurisdiction
includes water quantity and quality monitoring, aquatic research, flood damage
reduction, river basin planing, land resources development, management of migratory
birds, the protection of threatened and endangered species, and other national and
international water and wildlife issues.
2a. The Environmental Protection subgroup of Conservation and Protection deals
with air and water pollution and the release of toxic substances into the environment.
The topic areas it addresses include agricultural and forestry pesticides; toxic chemicals;
auto emissions; wastes from smelters, pulp and paper mills, mines, oil refineries, and
other industry; ocean dumping; and broader issues of global warming, sustainable
development, and "state of environment" reporting. This subgroup also implements and
enforces the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the pollution control
provisions of the Fisheries Act.
2b. The Inland Waters Directorate works with provincial, territorial, and U.S.
water management agencies to ensure that water development and use on either side of
the border is not detrimental to downstream jurisdictions. It carries out river basin
planning and flood damage reduction programs in cooperation with provincial
governments. It is solely responsible for monitoring the quality and quantity of the
aquatic environment, and has the responsibility to plan and conduct federal-provincial,
inter-provincial, and international water management programs.
2c. The Canadian Wildlife Service protects migratory birds and their habitat,
particularly through land acquisitions, hunting regulations, and monitoring toxic
substances in waters used by migratory birds. The Service's focus on birds is a direct
result of the Canada/U.S. Migratory Birds Convention, which makes the protection of
migratory birds a federal responsibility.
3. The Canadian Parks Service establishes, develops and manages national parks,
national historic parks, sites, canals and co-operative heritage areas.
18
-------
DIRECTOR GENERAL
E. ANTHONY
(W4) M4-5MI
OIIIECTOR
COMMUNICATOR
S. RITCHIE
(tM) 6M-f tm
DIRECT OH
PERSONNEL
f. GMMARO
(«04) BM-MO]
DIRECTOR
CANADIAN WILOUFE
SERVICE
A. MARTELL
(MM)MMSM
DIRECTOR
INLAND WATERS
DIRECTORATE
V. NCMELA
(504)6W-3367
OmECTOH
ENVIRONMENTAL
PfNnECTION
MANAOM
nNANCBk
ADMM9TRATION
CHKF
EVALUATION ft
RESEARCH
S. WETHOm
CHIEF
MORATORY
BIRDS MOT.
Q. TOWNSEND
(B04) 946-CSW
CHIEF
NORTHERN CONSERVATION
D. RUSSELL
(40O4)M*-22M
MANAGER
CkP LABORATORIES
P. KLUCKNER
(B04) 6M-«7e7
MANAGCR
ENVIRONMENTAL
SURVEYS
G.TOFTE
(B04)M«-3«0«
MANAGER
PLAN.. EVAL.
SOE REPORTMG
L.M. CHURCHLAND
(B04)M4-»00«
MANAGER
INTEOnATED
PROOnAMS
c.a PHARO
(«M) IM-t3»
A/MANAGER
ENV. ASSESSMENT
J. MN.LEN
(MH)M»0(7D
MANAGER
AUTHORIZATIONS
a no
(C006M-27W
MANAGER
ENFORCEMENT A
REGULATIONS
C.E. WVKES
DIRECTOR
YUKON
G. MMKEMDE-OMEVG
MANAGER
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
MANAGER.
PROGRAM FtANNMG
* COORDINATION
IU>. STEVENS
APRIL \y>\
Figure 4:
Organization of Environment Canada, Conservation & Protection, Pacific & Yukon Region
-------
Other Federal Agencies:
Although Environment Canada has the main responsibility for environmental protection,
all federal agencies are responsible for the environmental impacts of their activities, and
some have major programs with important environmental objectives (Green Plan 1990).
Other federal departments with significant roles in environmental regulation are listed
below.
Transport Canada plays a significant role in the environmental review process. Due to
the federal environmental review process, this department evaluates development
permits for projects that may interfere with navigation. Because the term "navigable
waters" is broadly defined, this department receives permit applications for many
projects potentially affecting water and habitat quality. Transport Canada sends all
permit applications to Environment Canada for comment, and requests that the
applicant take into account the recommendations made by Environment Canada.
Because the federal government might not otherwise have input on development
permits, the role of Transport Canada helps to facilitate federal participation in
development projects. Transport Canada is also responsible for administering the
Canada Shipping Act, which contains measures to control pollution caused by maritime
transportation and recreational boating. It is the lead federal agency on all marine
spills, while Environment Canada provides support and advice regarding the
environmental aspects of emergencies.
Agriculture Canada works with provincial governments and producers to preserve the
agricultural resource base. It promotes soil conservation practices through programs like
the National Soil Conservation Program, and administers the Pest Control Products Act
by regulating pesticide registration, labelling, usage, and storage.
Energy, Mines, and Resources Canada funds projects that encourage energy efficiency,
alternative energy, technology development, geological surveying, mapping, remote
sensing, mineral recycling, waste management, and environmental assessment.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada administers the Fisheries Act, which authorizes the
conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. Through a memorandum of
understanding, Environment Canada assumes the lead administrative role for
implementing the pollution control provisions of the Act. The Department of Fisheries
and Oceans (DFO) has responsibilities in enforcement, habitat and fish stock
management, enhancement, and fisheries and habitat research. DFO participates in
joint management initiatives such as the Fraser River Estuary Management Program as
well as in international activities. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans also
monitors marine mammal populations and is responsible for inspection of fish products
for the consumer market.
Forestry Canada assists provincial governments with large-scale reforestation projects
and also invests in research programs to improve and implement more economical and
environmentally sensitive methods of managing forest ecosystems and controlling forest
insects and diseases.
20
-------
Health and Welfare Canada carries out health protection and medical services programs
which include public awareness of the effects of pollutants on human health and the
development of national guidelines on drinking water quality. Because environmental
contaminants harm human health as well as the environment, Health and Welfare
Canada also helps develop regulations for toxic substances under CEPA.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada works to advance northern social economic and
political development in conjunction with the territorial governments and through the
co-ordination of federal policies and activities of federal departments and agencies.
It is responsible for monitoring and developing strategies for federal/territorial relations,
is involved in comprehensive land use planning, manages the natural resources of the
territories (excluding forests and wildlife), and coordinates the development of oil and
gas production. It places special emphasis on conserving and protecting the territories'
environment. This department undertakes programs to enable Indian and Inuit people
to respond to environmental problems affecting their reserve lands, waters, or traditional
land-use areas.
The Harbor Commissions are largely autonomous federal entities, with provincial,
federal, and local representation. These commissions manage development and
dredging projects along some of the province's major waterways, and may also take the
lead in some permit review processes. The Fraser River Harbor Commission and North
Fraser Harbor Commission participate in issues related to the Fraser River.
Canadian Council of Ministers of th'e Environment (CCME) provides a forum for
intergovernmental review and coordination of national and international environmental
issues, and promotes consistent environmental policies across the nation. Environmental
ministers from the ten provinces, two territories, and the federal government comprise
the CCME. This council and its staff work to coordinate environmental policies across
the nation, and helps to facilitate exchanges of ideas on federal and provincial policies.
The CCME develops guidelines and recommendations upon which the provinces base
their policies and legislation. For example, the CCME prepared a National Packaging
Protocol requiring all jurisdictions to reduce packaging by 50% by the year 2000, is
responsible for determining the allocation of sulphur dioxide reductions across the
nation (to comply with the U.S./Canada Air Quality Treaty), and prepared national
water quality guidelines that the provinces use in developing their water quality
objectives.
D. MAJOR PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND INITIATIVES
Because the province of British Columbia has jurisdiction over 90% of the lands within
its boundaries, as well as the rights to most of the natural resources, the provincial
government plays a major role in environmental management. Within the provinces, the
federal government's regulatory powers pertain to federally owned lands, such as
national parks, military bases and harbors, as well as those mandates included in the
Constitution Act (navigation, international issues, peace-order-good government, etc.).
21
-------
Although the Fisheries Act gives the federal government considerable latitude over
water pollution from forestry, agriculture, and heavy industry, when "the federal
government seeks to exercise this assumed power, it has frequently come into conflict
with provincial governments, protective of their right to control their own resources
(Foster & Sewell 1981).
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1988 gives the federal government
greater control over regulating environmental pollution, and recent court decisions
regarding the federal Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP) expand the
Canadian government's oversight authorities (see Part IX, Environmental Review
Processes). Still, the tradition of provincial jurisdiction over provincial environmental
matters still exists, and it is evident that some uncertainty continues concerning the
responsibilities of the different levels of government in environmental matters.
Environmental legislation in British Columbia provides an administrative and regulatory
framework for specific areas of environmental concern such as water management, waste
management and wildlife management. Individual pieces of legislation provide for the
development of regulations (which carry the force of law), or guidelines or standards
(which are policy tools). Although the enforcement of environmental legislation and
regulations is consistent throughout the Province, the application of guidelines or
standards may vary to reflect site-specific or regional considerations.
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks, the province's primary environmental ministry, is
undertaking a comprehensive review of all environmental protection legislation under its
jurisdiction. The primary objective of the review is tb ensure that Ministry programs are
supported by modern and effective legislation. The review exercise will also examine
methods of enhancing program integration as well as the possibility of consolidating
some Ministry statutes. The following section summarizes those provincial laws and
initiatives currently most significant to managing water quality.
The Environmental Management Act. 1981:
This Act, in combination with the Ministry of Environment Act, serves as the enabling
legislation for British Columbia's Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. It includes
"provisions to develop environmental management plans and environmental guidelines,
to require environmental impact assessment and to take action to prevent environmental
damage." The Act also provides the Ministry with the authority to recover costs for
environmental emergencies and to hold public hearings and inquiries (Harding 1987).
The Water Act. 1979;
Under this Act, the province "retains all rights to water except where the right to its use
is granted by a water license issued by the Water Management Branch" of B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks (Harding 1987). This Act governs the use of water in
the province, including surface water, lakes, streams, and groundwater.
22
-------
The Waste Management Act. 1982;
The Waste Management Act gives the B.C. Ministry of the Environment, Lands and
Parks authority to control the discharge of contaminants to land, water, or air. Under
this Act, the Ministry can define what constitutes a polluted condition of water, land, or
air and prescribe limits for discharge of various types of emissions and effluent (FREMP
1990a). Among other things, the Act enables the Ministry to regulate the confinement,
storage, disposal and transportation of potentially hazardous wastes; to regulate spill
prevention and reporting activities; to regulate certain contaminated site remediation
activities; and to develop and operate an internal appeal process and an appeal process
to the Environmental Appeal Board.
Permits issued under the Act contain terms and conditions under which discharges can
occur, including effluent limits and monitoring requirements (FREMP 1990a). This Act
formed the legislative basis for the formation of regional districts to address waste
management (i.e. the Greater Vancouver Regional District and its Liquid Waste
Management Plan).
The Wildlife Act. 1982;
The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks manages and protects the province's
wildlife resources (with the exception of some fish resources managed by the federal
government). To manage the wildlife, B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks can acquire
and administer land as well as improvements on land and timber, timber rights, and
other rights on private land. Specific duties under this act include development of
regulations protecting wildlife, declaration and protection of endangered species,
issuance of sport licenses, and the establishment and enforcement of quotas (B.C. Env.
1991a).
Environment 2001:
Although this program is not an "act of law," it is a significant government initiative
released in 1991 by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Similar in
concept to Canada's Green Plan, Environment 2001 outlines British Columbia's
commitment to a cleaner environment, performs a comparative risk assessment, and lists
priorities for action. "Strategic actions and directions" include the following:
a new and comprehensive B.C. Environmental Protection Act;
more stringent waste management standards for solid, liquid, and hazardous
wastes;
an improved process for environmental impact assessment;
a new Water Management Act (pertaining to quantity and allocation); and,
consolidation of legislation covering wildlife and freshwater fisheries
emphasizing sensitive habitats and endangered species.
23
-------
Because this initiative was developed by the former B.C. government, officials are not
certain which portions of the intiative, if any, will be relevant to the government elected
in the fall of 1991.
E. PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
The major provincial environmental player in British Columbia is the Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, but several other provincial Ministries manage and
regulate environmental quality. B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks and those other
provincial entities are discussed in detail below.
B.C. Environment. Lands and Parks;
This agency is similar in function to Washington's Department of Ecology, but also has
responsibility for fish and wildlife protection and managing provincial lands, parks,
recreational areas and ecological reserves. Under the provincial Environment
Management Act (1981), the Ministry's specific legislated duties include research and
investigative activities; developing environmental policies; and planning, designing,
constructing, operating, and maintaining the required activities for the management,
protection and enhancement of the environment. Major legislation affecting the
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks includes:
Ministry of Environment Act, 1980
Environment and Land Use Act, 1979
Environment Management Act, 1981
Pesticide Control Act, 1979
Waste Management Act, 1982
Water Act, 1979
Wildlife Act, 1982
Fisheries Act (Canada), 1991
Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act, Bill 38- 1990
The Premier of British Columbia appoints the Minister of Environment, Lands and
Parks. The Deputy Minister is one of the highest career civil servants and may be a
political appointee. The Ministry is a consolidation of two ministries (Ministry of
Environment and Ministry of Crown Lands and Parks) that existed prior to elections and
government reorganization in October 1991. The structure of the new Ministry has not
been finalized, but is partially outlined in Figure 5. B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
is divided into departments, including the Management Services Department, which
takes care of administration and personnel, and policy development. Three departments
are described below. As of this publication, it is not known how Lands and Parks will
be assimilated into the Ministry.
24
-------
FlgureS:
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks - Environmental Programming
ENVIRONMENTAL MANWEMENT
DEPARTMENT
AMMMt Dtputy MlnMw
JonORMui
Ewcutlra Contibutor
PMySlwlon
CerponM Policy, Planning
LtgWitton Brinch
Hnctor.JMifeAloy
REGIONAL OPERATIONS I
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
Ai*M«M D^HJty MlnMw
ShtliWynn
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
AHUUM Dtputy MkiMw
GragKbyl
FISHERIES. WILDLIFE*
INTEGRATED
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
AMkum Diputy Mlnhw
-------
1. The Environmental Management Department consists of four major divisions:
la. Environmental Protection is chiefly responsible for waste discharge control
and monitoring, solid and liquid waste management plan reviews, hazardous waste
control, clean-up of contaminated sites and spills, enforcement of pollution regulations,
and the development of air quality objectives.
Ib. The Water Management Division regulates water quality and supply and
works to control and reduce flooding and erosion.
Ic. The Pesticide Control Branch promotes integrated pest management strategies
and regulates pesticide use.
Id. The Environmental Assessment Branch presents a Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks position on major project proposals by soliciting, reconciling, and
explaining the comments of various potentially concerned branches of the Ministry. This
branch represents the Ministry on energy project reviews, mining reviews, forestry
development reviews, and regular permit applications for effluent and solid waste
discharge, land and water development, and others.
2. Fisheries. Wildlife and Integrated Management Department, among other objectives,
protects and enhances fish and wildlife habitat while managing species. This
Department manages freshwater recreational fisheries, excepting salmon, and works to
protect the province's wetlands.
3. Regional Operations and Enforcement Department manages the Ministry's programs
at a more local level within the six regions of the Province. This department also
contains the Enforcement Branch of the Ministry as well as the Environmental
Emergency Services Branch, which responds to spills of hazardous materials.
Other Provincial Agencies;
The policies and responsibilities of other Ministries also address environmental
protection and management. The following provincial Ministries are the most significant
with respect to the environment.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promotes markets and regulates quality and
prices for agricultural and fish products. It plays a role in environmental management
through development of soil and water conservation guidelines; education on pesticide,
fertilizer, and herbicide use; and assisting in the design of agricultural waste
management regulations (MoAF 1990). The Ministry also regulates freshwater
commercial fishing and all aquaculture activities.
Ministry of Forests administers provincial forests, which comprise 87 percent of British
Columbia's land base. The ministry integrates the management of timber, range,
26
-------
recreation, water, fish, wildlife, and others. Its primary concern is protection,
management, and harvest of timber resources.
Ministry of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors has responsibility for such
things as drinking water supplied by purveyors, quality of bathing beaches, and sewage
discharges up to 5,000 gallons/day.
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ensures that the province's energy
and mineral resources are developed and used in a safe, efficient and environmentally
sound manner for the economic benefit of the province. The ministry provides advice
and technical services to aid in the development of the province's metals, minerals, coal,
petroleum, natural gas and other energy and mineral resources.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada;
In both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, most of the land is federally owned, and
is managed by the Canadian Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, under the
Northern Inland Waters Act and Territorial Lands Act. Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada has jurisdiction over the natural resources of the territories, excluding wildlife,
and is the senior federal presence in the territories (NWT 1990).
Environment Canada:
Environment Canada plays a secondary federal role in natural resource protection in the
Territories. Much of its mandate in the territories comes from the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act and from the Fisheries Act. This department also has
jurisdiction over transboundary hazardous waste transportation and environmental
assessments. Environment Canada's Pacific and Yukon Regional Office addresses issues
in the Yukon, while the Western and Northern Regional Office, located in Edmonton,
addresses issues in the Northwest Territories.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans:
Under the Fisheries Act, the DFO manages fish and fish habitat, including water quality,
from its Pacific, and Central and Arctic Region Offices.
Department of Renewable Resources;
This territorial Department exists in both Territories to manage and regulate the
sustainable development of wildlife and to provide environmental protection measures,
mainly with regards to health and safety (NWT 1990). When a wildlife population
migrates across territorial or international boundaries, it becomes a federal as well as
territorial responsibility.
27
-------
In May 1991, the Yukon government enacted an Environmental Protection Act, which
enables the government to regulate activities on Yukon lands. Yukon lands are mainly
those lands surrounding municipalities (the federal government manages other lands).
The Environmental Protection Act addresses issues such as air and water quality, waste
management, and litter. As part of the Green Plan, Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada drew up the Arctic Environmental Strategy Action Plan, which pertains to
federal lands and federal activities. In both territories, the Minister of Renewable
Resources serves as the representative on the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (CCME) and this Minister communicates with Federal, Provincial, and
Territorial environmental officials.
28
-------
PART IV. INTRODUCTION TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
In 1776 the thirteen British colonies in America united to formally declare their
independence from Great Britain. The colonies won their liberty after several years of
war, and the United States Constitution was ratified in 1789, about 80 years prior to the
formal establishment of Canada. This constitution divided the power to make laws
between the central government and the states and outlined a government notable for
its separation of powers and system of checks and balances.
One hundred years after the nation's government was formally organized, the state of
Washington was admitted to the Union. The U.S.'s fiftieth and most recent state,
Hawaii, was admitted in 1959. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and America's
territories, (Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands) have some voting rights in
the U.S. Congress, while the Trust Republic of Palau, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated
States of Micronesia participate in some U.S. government programs, but lack voting
rights.
The U.S. Constitution proclaims the powers of the national government and the
jurisdictions of the states, and declares that all powers not specifically given to the
national government nor prohibited to the states are under the jurisdiction of the states.
Even so, the federal government of the U.S. plays a strong role in the affairs of the
states, particularly regarding environmental protection, as will be discussed later.
The basic powers of government in the United States are divided among three
independent but equal branches (Figure 6). These branches are known as the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches. They are tied together through a complex
system of checks or restraints that each may use against the other. The writers of the
U.S. Constitution saw this division of power as necessary to avoid the "accumulation of
powers into the same hands", which they considered "tyranny" (McClenaghan 1988).
Unlike the. Canadian Parliamentary system, which allows the electorate to vote for only
one national office, in the U.S., citizens vote for three representatives at the national
level: one Senator, one member of the House of Representatives, and the President.
Members of the federal judicial branch are appointed by the President rather than
elected by the people.
A. FEDERAL JUDICIAL BRANCH
The judicial branch of government includes the nation's courts. The highest courts have
the power of judicial review-the power to decide whether government activities comply
with the Constitution. Federal judges are appointed by the President, but must be
approved by the Senate. Among the courts' many objectives, the judicial branch can be
used by federal agencies and citizen groups to ensure that laws passed by Congress are
implemented by federal agencies.
29
-------
Figure 6:
Organization of the U.S. Government (from U.S. Government Manual, 1989)
r
GU"A
THE CONMCII
Archtttcl Of tt*
(Mtol
UnHttf Stftn Bonn* Garitn
Owtrt Attounflng OfYt
Ubfvy of Cofttjnm
Office of Ttcftnoloijy Asseumenl
Cotgrvulonil BwJflet Offw
Untttd Stlttt Tu Cowl
1
DEpAFirKin OF
AkWCULTOTE
1
WPAHlKEJn Of
TrKMTtMOr)
1
DEPAHTIIEin OF
comEKt
XI
1
AdTlttHTOF
film
THE CONSTITUTION
EXECUTtVf BflANCM
THEFHEOOdTT
EieMM Omte M He Pinllnl
VrNte How Office Kigonei cmcti Mnnns comdi -
Office ol Uanegenwil end lulgel Office ol n U.S Tnde Ret'tsentilhe
Con* ol Economic Advtsers Cound on Enifr-onmenlil Ouemy
Nnonel Secumy Conol Office ol Sdmce end Technology Pokey
Office ol Pokey De»eluptfffy ant) Heafth n««.*« Co^wnnaon MMoiut MtAibon Boird
Ffdr« ftatrvt SfWun fcuft) 04 Go-wnon * int Natoruf fta*THd PtiMixW
F«oenf Rrfctmunt It-nfl eVwnunnn 6o*rt Cofp«"»on (Amiiak)
^MVIUI AAnmB NaWn* Tnmcnrtaton S«l(l> Boj'd
brtrr Amvncan fotmdnon
InttrrtUt Conrnrc* Coflvmuon
Mfrtl Srnmi ProtacMn Boartf
Naton* AmnMka jnd Soao
FeaeiH Convrmcmoiu ConmMion Adn.wnwi
Fedeni Deposit kvurmee Copomon
Natonat AnAvtt and tVconh
FeoerU Elerton Conmsskjn Asmrwmon
Ptnswn B*oe*l Guinnty CwpontKm
PosW fUe Conwi.,TUon
Rjrifoad ftefrtmeni Board
ResoiuMn Trial Corpotibon
Secunim m9 Eicfunge Commnuon
S***rtw Service Syitcm
Ococeaonil Silety md Meenti »»«. TenneMee Vefcy Aumo.it,
C&rtmstn u ^ Amv Contiol end Oniiirumeni Aomo
Office ol Government Erne! U S Mormeton Agency
Office Ol Ptnonnel Mjnjgemenl
Office ol Soeoi Conn*
Overvgnt AoM
Psnirne Cmel Convnss«n
U S InKmrtonK Development
Cooper itnr
U S mtematw
US Potu Se<
Agency
u lr«« Ovrt
VK«
TtK-on
1
AnTllEIIT OF
Mt ANDinlAII
rmon«E»T
"~1
PAJtmtllT OF
ERMI AFTAIKI
-------
B. FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH
President and Vice President;
The President and Vice President of the United States run for office together and are
elected for a four year term. Presidential candidates are nominated by the major parties
(see below) at separate National Conventions. The Vice Presidential candidates are
usually selected by the nominated Presidential candidate in a strategic effort to garner
more electoral votes, often with less consideration given to qualifications (McClenaghan
1988). Once elected, the President is not allowed to serve more than two consecutive
terms.
The President's powers stem from the Constitution, acts of Congress, and from historical
convention. The President appoints and removes major cabinet officers, makes treaties
and conducts foreign relations, keeps peace between the states, acts as Commander in
Chief of the military, directs administration, and executes and enforces the law. The
President also has the ability to recommend legislation and to approve or veto acts of
Congress. If the President chooses to veto a bill, the measure is sent back to Congress.
Congress can pass the bill over the President's veto by a two-thirds vote of the members
present, but it is typically difficult for the bill's proponents to garner this number of
votes to override a veto (McClenaghan 1988). The President's veto power gives the
executive branch great influence over legislation, as members of Congress may try to
tailor a bill to conform closely to the President's wishes in order to avoid excess delay in
its passage. Although the President may allow a bill to become law without signing it, a
bill automatically becomes law with the President's signature.
The Vice President succeeds to the Presidency if the President is no longer able to carry
out the duties of office. The Vice President typically carries out social, political,
diplomatic, and administrative chores for the President (McClenaghan 1988). In
addition to these responsibilities, the Vice President serves as the Presiding Officer of
the Senate.
Cabinet;
The President appoints most of the top-ranking officials of the Federal Government,
with Senate consent. Among these politically appointed government employees are
cabinet members, known as Secretaries, and the heads of independent agencies (like the
Environmental Protection Agency). Currently there are fourteen executive departments
and thus fourteen cabinet members. Cabinet members do not serve as the only political
advisors to the President; other advisory officials include the Chief of Staff, the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Vice President (McClenaghan 1988).
31
-------
C. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The legislative branch of the national government consists of the two houses of
Congress-the Senate and the House of Representatives. Members of both houses are
elected directly by the people, Senators for six year terms and Representatives for two
year terms.
The Senate;
The U.S. Senate is composed of 100 members, two from each state. Terms are
staggered, one third of the Senate is up for election every two years. Under the
Constitution, the Senate is granted power to approve or disapprove certain Presidential
appointments by a majority vote, and must also concur to any treaty by a two-thirds vote
before it becomes ratified.
The House of Representatives;
The House consists of 435 members, apportioned among the states according to
population, with each state guaranteed at least one Representative. Each member is
elected for a two-year term, and members are up for election at the same time. The
House of Representatives has the power of originating all bills for the raising of
revenue, a power that the Senate does not have.
The work of preparing and considering legislation is done mainly by committees of both
houses of Congress. In 1989, there were 16 standing committees in the Senate and 22 in
the House of Representatives. Membership into each House's standing committees is
voted upon by the entire body of the relevant house. Members of other types of
Committees (i.e. investigative, joint, etc.) are appointed according to the legislation
establishing the committee (US OFR 1989). Each proposed bill and resolution is
usually referred to the appropriate committee, which may or may not amend the bill, or
may choose not to send it out of committee, effectively killing it (US OFR 1989). All
bills and joint resolutions must pass both the House and the Senate. If the President
vetoes the bill, it must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress in
order to become law without the President's signature.
Together, the Senate and House of Representatives comprise the United States
Congress, the branch of U.S. government closest to the people and thus the most
influenced by public opinion and interest groups. Members of the U.S. political parties
generally do not share the same strong party loyalties of their Canadian counterparts,
resulting in a less expedient political process, and one more open to outside interests.
D. ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTIES
In the U.S., elections for President are held every four years. Senators serve six year
terms, and Representatives must run every two years. Thus, elections for national
32
-------
offices typically occur on a more frequent basis than in Canada, where all members of
Parliament run at once, in national elections that occur every four or five years (unless a
vote of no-confidence occurs or the Prime Minister calls an election when support is
high). Elected officials remain in office for the duration of their term, regardless of
public support or the popularity of their political party. Although the President is
restricted to two terms in office, Senators and Representatives may be in Congress for
their entire careers.
The President and Vice President are not elected by popular vote but rather through the
"electoral college." Every state has a number of electoral votes based upon the number
of representatives it has in Congress (2 for the Senate and one for each member of the
House). Voters.in each state vote for the electors, rather than directly for the
candidates. The electors in each state are members of the political party that wins the
majority of votes in that state. About one month after the popular election, the electors
vote for their candidates. Thus, the Presidential candidates receive blocks of electoral
votes, such as 11 votes from Washington, or 48 from California, and are elected based
upon who has the majority of electoral votes. Although it has not happened in the
twentieth century, it is possible for a President to win a majority of electoral votes
without winning the popular vote.
The American political system is a two-party system, dominated by the Democratic and
Republican parties. Although other parties exist, in the typical election (whether
national, state, or local), a member of one of the two major parties has the best chance
of winning (McClenaghan 1988). In some cases, a candidate may run as an
Independent, unaffiliated with a political party (the current Governor of Alaska, Walter
Hickel, was an Independent candidate).
The Republican party is the more conservative of the two parties, historically favoring
private enterprise and a lesser role for government in the economy. Both Ronald
Reagan, the United States President from 1980-1988 and George Bush, President since
1988, are leaders of the Republican party. The more liberal Democrats have held the
majority of seats in Congress during the last ten years, creating friction between the
legislative and executive branches.
E. WASHINGTON STATE GOVERNMENT
According to the United States Constitution, "the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people." Washington became a state in 1889, with Olympia as its
capital. Modeled after the federal government, every state has three separate but equal
branches of government. Washington has a two-house legislature, a court system, and
an executive branch consisting of a governor, lieutenant governor, and seven elected
department heads (LWV 1988).
33
-------
Figure 7:
Washington State Government
[ t
! ItPiMlcLM*
Department of
Natural Resources
Itttinmntmt
Legislative Branch
Eiecutlve Branch
Legislative Budget Committee
Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program
Legislative Transportation Committee
Office of the Stale Actuary
Joint Leg'Slative Systems Committee
Reoistricting Commission
hmmct UautBMl
tHtm tfmmmit
Department of Ecology Office ol Financial Management
Efficiency and
Energy Office Aaounooility Commission
Eneify Facility Site
Evaluation Council Department ol
General Administration
Department ot Agriculture
«i,uas conuTxxiry Dewrtmeni ol Hevenue
Department ot Fisheries
Department ol Wildlife
Wildlife Commission
Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority
imeragency Committee
lor Outdoor Recreation
Pollution Liability
Reinsurance Program
Slate Parks and Recreation
Commission
Department ol Retirement Systems
Department ot inlormation Services
Lottery Commission
Liouoi Control Board
MiliUry Department
Public Primer
Office ol Administrative Hearings
Eucatto
Personnel Board
Oearsnern ol Personnel
Environmental Hearings Office Personnel Appeals Board
Pollution Control Hearings Board
Shorelines Hearings Board Utilities and Transportation Commission
Forest Practices tuxak Bar a
Hyamiic /tppeas Board
nignei coutdtioii reM^Hu 5o»u
State Conservation Commission Committee hx Deterred Compensation
1
SUtiwMf EltcM Onictn
Trnonr ' Goranr ' . AtbmffBMm i
! i j | '
Puota Deposil . 1
Protection j omodlkf i
Commrssion Govw '
Eiteuthra ippoliM kr ttt Sown*
TlMUlllllll taWnorfltaM.Stnrtc.i
Washington Slate Patrol
Department ol Licensing
includes regulatory boards
Iraftic Safety Commission
ippoliM IT a koarf wWc* li *f
Transportation Commission
Department ol Transportation
Board of Pilotage Commissioners
Marine Employees' Commission
A:r Ti«uf»*j;iCii Ci-T'SS:
Slate Maritime Commission
Columbia River Gorge Commission Public Employment
Relations Commission
Winter Recreation Commission
Board ol Natural Resources
,
Board ol Tai Appeals
Pubk Disclosure Commission
Board tor Volunteer Firelighters
Board ol Accountancy
Gambling Commission
Horse Facing Commission
Professional Athletic Commission
Stale Investment Board
Statute Law Committee
Code Reviser
Municipal Research Council
Economic and Revenue
Forecast Council
Death Investigations Council
Judicial Council
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Cilums Commission on
Salaries lor Elected Officiate
Slate Capilol Committee
State Finance Committee
Department ol Social
and Health Services
Department ol
Labor ar
-------
Judicial Branch:
The courts of the state constitute the judicial branch of government. Nine justices
comprise the state of Washington's Supreme Court, which has administrative power over
all other state courts. The judicial branch interprets the law and determines compliance
with and constitutionality of laws, in addition to resolving conflicts over legal rights and
determining punishments for crimes (LWV 1988).
Executive Branch;
The executive branch administers state agencies and enforces state laws, and is headed
by nine independently elected officials, including the Governor (Figure 7). Elections
occur in presidential election years. All executive branch officials serve four year terms,
with no limit on number of terms served (LWV 1988).
Governor: The Governor is the counterpart to the Premier in British Columbia. The
governor's office executes and enforces the laws and management of state governmental
activities not assigned to the other eight officers or to an independent agency. Between
elections, the Governor appoints a successor to any vacancy in the other elective offices.
The governor has the power to appoint over 600 public officials, and to call special
sessions of the legislature. The budget for the branches of state government originates
in the governor's office (LWV 1988).
The governor has legislative powers, as all bills that the legislature passes must be
approved by the Governor before becoming law. The governor in Washington has the
authority to veto an entire piece of legislation or single sections or subjects (LWV 1988).
Most of the functions of the executive branch are carried out by administrative
departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Except for the seven elected officials,
heads of these agencies are appointed by the Governor (some must be confirmed by the
Senate), and can be fired by the governor. Most of these administrative entities can be
abolished by the state legislature (LWV 1988).
Lieutenant Governor: The Lieutenant Governor is independently elected (unlike the
U.S. Vice President), is president of the state Senate, chairs the Senate Rules
Committee, and is first in line to assume the duties of governor in case of death,
disability, or removal from office. This person acts as governor, with all the powers of
the governor, when the governor is out of the state (LWV 1988).
Other independently elected officials in the Executive Branch include:
Commissioner of Public Lands
Secretary of State
Treasurer
Auditor
Attorney General
35
-------
Superintendent of Public Instruction, and
Insurance Commissioner
The budgets of these offices are controlled by the legislature and the governor. Under
the state constitution, the legislature can, at its discretion, abolish the offices of
Lieutenant Governor, Auditor, and Commissioner of Public Lands (LWV 1988).
Legislative Branch;
The legislature consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. State
representatives serve two year terms and are elected in even numbered years. Senators
are elected every four years, with overlapping terms so that half of the Senate is elected
every two years. There are 98 members of the House, and 49 members of the Senate
(LWV 1988).
The Lieutenant Governor serves as the President of the Senate. The Speaker of the
House of Representatives is selected by the caucus of the majority party in the House.
Legislators are assigned to committees by the parties' leadership, with committee chairs
being members of the majority party. When legislation is introduced in either house,
the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate sends it immediately to an
appropriate committee for debate and review. Legislative committees hold public
hearings on the bills, and may amend them or draft substitute bills. Bills must be
accepted by both houses in order to go to the governor to be signed. The governor's
signature makes the bill a law (LWV 1988).
The Washington State Constitution gives voters two direct legislative powers~the
initiative and the referendum. An initiative allows anyone to place a proposed law on
the ballot, with a required amount of signatures of registered voters. A referendum
empowers the voters to reject laws enacted by the legislature, in most circumstances. A
referendum bill is placed on the ballot by legislative action, while a referendum measure
is placed on the ballot by petitions signed by citizens (LWV 1988).
36
-------
PART V. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND PROTECTION IN WASHINGTON
In some cases, apparent distinctions in the ways that pollution control policies are
designed or enforced in British Columbia and Washington may be due to different
regulatory ideologies between the U.S. and Canada. In the U.S., environmental
legislation gives regulating agencies less discretion than the Canadian regulatory agencies
have, and U.S. private groups and individuals are much more apt to use the court system
to enforce the law (Lipset 1990). Canadian regulation, on the other hand, tends to "trust
the public service to use its expert judgement to protect legitimate interests" (Lipset
1990). At any rate, comprehensive environmental laws in the U.S. determine the roles
and actions of environmental agencies, at both the state and national level. Part V of
this report summarizes the major state and national environmental laws and government
agencies that exist in Washington.
A. MAJOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND INITIATIVES
In the U.S. national environmental laws abound. Some such laws have become quite
complex and all encompassing, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. In
many cases, the federal laws outline national requirements or standards, and rely upon
the states for implementation. The most significant piece of national legislation
concerning water quality is the Clean Water Act of 1972 and its subsequent
amendments, which, along with the National Environmental Policy Act, will be discussed
below. Other important national laws that directly impact water quality include:
Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972);
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968);
National Fishing Enhancement Act (1984);
Deepwater Port Act (1974);
Coastal Zone Management Act (1972);
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (1972);
Safe Drinking Water Act (1974);
The Clean Water Act and Amendments;
The Clean Water Act is the most comprehensive national legislation protecting water
quality in the United States. The Act has been amended several times since it was
passed in 1972, the most extensive amendments creating what is known as the Water
Quality Act of 1987. The Clean Water Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to regulate industrial and municipal discharges of conventional, toxic, and certain
nonconventional pollutants (Jessup 1990).
To comply with this direction, the EPA establishes uniform guidelines across SOME
industrial sources, known as technology-based standards. These standards delineate the
quantities of pollutants allowable in effluent, based upon the technological and
economical capacity of specific industries to reduce certain pollutants. The Act also
37
-------
requires the states to establish (and review every three years) receiving water quality
standards which include the use-classification of a body of water and the water quality
criteria that must be met to support the use. These standards, along with EPAs effluent
guidelines, establish discharge limits that apply to individual wastewater sources.
The Act and its amendments encompass a number of programs including:
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), requiring
all industrial, municipal, and government sources that discharge effluent to
comply with discharge permits;
Section 404, which gives the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredge and fill materials in all waters of the U.S., and provides a
basis for wetlands protection at the federal level;
federal support to state revolving loan funds through which local governments
can borrow money for waste water treatment facility construction and
improvements;
permits for industrial stormwater discharge permits and city storm sewer
systems;
strong requirements concerning the control of toxic pollutants; and
the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program (Jessup
1990).
Many of these programs will be discussed further in Part VII of this report.
National Environmental Policy Act;
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) "declares that each person has a right
to a healthful environment, and that it is in part the responsibility of the Federal
Government to ensure that the environment is protected" (Orloff 1978)). It "establishes
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a small agency in the Executive Office of
the President, whose head is the President's advisor on the environment" (Orloff 1978).
NEPA also establishes the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, whereby each
federal agency is required to include a description of the adverse environmental impacts
of a proposed action. The impact statement process is described further in Part IX.
B. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES
Due to NEPA requirements, all federal agencies must formally consider the
environmental impacts of their activities. The following section describes those federal
departments and agencies most involved in the design, implementation, and enforcement
of environmental regulations.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ);
This Council is headed by three members appointed by the U.S. President, and serves to
advise the President on environmental matters. It was created under the National
38
-------
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and its major responsibilities are to gather timely
and authoritative information concerning the conditions and trends in the quality of the
environment, both current and prospective; to develop and recommend national policies
to the President; and to review and appraise the various programs of the federal
government to determine with what extent they comply with environmental
requirements. The amount of influence that the CEQ wields in the nation's
environmental policy debates depends upon the importance that individual Presidents
place upon it (Rosenbaum 1985).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
The EPA was created as an independent agency by an Executive Order of President
Nixon in 1970. It "endeavors to abate and control pollution systematically...to coordinate
and support research and anti-pollution activities by State and local
governments...reinforce efforts among other Federal agencies with respect to the impact
of their operations...(and) serve as the public's advocate for a livable environment" (EPA
1990). Thus, the EPA is responsible for most of the nation's major environmental
programs, including:
Clean Water Act (1972);
Safe Drinking Water Act (1974);
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972);
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976);
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (1976);
Clean Air Act (1970);
Noise Control Act;
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (1982); and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) (1980).
The Administrator of the Agency is appointed by the President. The EPA consists of a
headquarters office in Washington D.C. and ten regional offices. Each regional office is
headed by a presidentially appointed Regional Administrator and a career civil servant,
the Deputy Regional Administrator. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska comprise
EPA's Region 10. Operations offices of EPA Region 10 are located in each of the four
states (each office has approximately ten people), and the central office (with
approximately 700 people) is located in Seattle. The Region 10 office implements policy
directives that stem from the headquarters office in Washington, D.C. In some
instances, federal programs are managed by state environmental protection agencies,
with the EPA providing oversight, as well as technical and financial assistance. In these
cases, the EPA's state operations offices provide direct assistance to the relevant state
agencies.
The Region 10 office is separated into divisions according to area of responsibility
(Figure 8). The Management Division encompasses personnel, administration, and
planning and policy development. The other four divisions are described below:
39
-------
Figure 8:
Organization of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Region 10
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington
Jmuuy19S2
Alaska Operations Office
Ewlng
Air & Waste Section (Vacant)
Water Quality Section (Robison)
State Operations Section (Torok)
Management Division
(Vacant) McAllister -Acting
Policy, Planning & Evaluation Branch
(Vacant) Crosson Acting
Human Resources Management Branch
(Davlson)
Administrative Management Branch
(Allamano)
Information Management Branch
(Peterson)
Information Services Section (Gonzalez)
Information Technology Section (Parlier)
Comptroller Branch
(Larsen)
Finance Section (Neuroth)
Grants Administration Section (Aurdal)
EEO Office
(Contreras)
Office of Regional Administrator
Dana A. Rasmussen, RA
Gerald A. Emlson, DRA
Idaho Operations Office
McKee
Water Section (McFall)
Hazardous Waste Section (Masarik)
Air Toxics Team (Farrell)
Administrative Management Team (Nettles)
Oregon Operations Office
Brooks
Water Programs Section (Sobolewski)
Hazardous Waste Section (Goodman)
Washington Operations Office
Hagensen
Water Team (Carroll)
Air & Hazardous Materials Team
(Hoytes - Kievit)
Environmental Services Division
Courson
Laboratory
(Johnston)
Inorganics Section (Rieck)
Organics Section (Blazevich)
Ambient Monitoring A Analysis Branch
(Euseblo)
Air Monitoring & Analysis Section
(Schweiss)
Water Monitoring & Analysis Section
(Cteland)
Geographic Information Section (Peterson)
Technical Support Branch
(Schmidt)
Engineering & Investigations Section
(Boys)
Health & Environmental Assessment
Section (Cirone)
Quality Assurance Management Branch
(Towns)
Technical Services Section (Fariow)
Sample Control Section (Osbom)
Water Division
Flndley
Office of Policy and Program Management
(Geren - Acting
Office of Groundwater (Mullen)
Office of Puget Sound (Gakstatter)
Office of Water Planning (Wilson)
Water Quality Section (Albright)
Nonpoint Source Section (Moore)
Drinking Water Branch
(Hastings)
UIC & Program Support Section (Steinbom)
Drinking Water Section (Worley)
Compliance Section (Dossett)
Water Permits & Compliance Branch
(Kellogg Acting
Water Permits Section (Kawabata)
Water Compliance Section (Rice - Actincfi
Ocean Programs Section (Schurr - Acting)
Environmental Evaluation Branch
(Lee)
Water Resources Assessment Section
Environmental Review Section (Opatz)
Municipal Facilities Branch (Mochnick)
Construction & Technology Section (Yim)
Program Management Section (Veil)
Hazardous Waste Division
Smith
Hazardous Waste Policy Office
(Teeter)
Community Relations Section (Loselte)
Federal Facilities Superfund Branch
(Holer)
Federal Facilities Section (Pierre)
Hantord Project Office
(Day)
Superfund Branch
(Millam)
Deputy for NPL Operations (Rushin)
Site Management Section 1 (Stoner)
Site Management Section 2 (Dates)
Site Management Section 3 (Krueger)
Program Management Office (Davidson)
Information Management Section(Robinson
Response & Investigations Section (Everts)
Waste Management Branch
(Gearheard)
Program Management Section (Wiese)
Compliance Section (Vacant)
Permits Section (Sikorski)
Solid Waste & Stales Program Section
(Bussel)
Office of Regional Counsel
Fox
Water Branch (Prezyna)
Hazardous Waste Branch (Lither)
Hazardous Waste Section I (Kirk)
Hazardous Waste Section II (Kowalski)
Air & Toxics Branch (Silver)
Air & Toxics Division
McCormlck
Air Programs Branch
rograms
(Abel)
Air Operations Section (Pontius)
Air Program Development Section (Vacant)
Pesticides & Toxic Substances Branch
(Feigner)
Pesticides Section (Parkin)
Toxic Substances Section (Haselberger)
-------
1. The Water Division manages and directs the development, coordination,
implementation and evaluation of the federal drinking water, ground-water protection,
water pollution control, and underground storage and leaking tank programs. The
Division contains five major sub-groups:
la. Office of the Deputy Director (formerly the Office of Policy and Program
Management) is responsible for federal initiatives regarding Puget Sound and other
coastal waters, as well as for groundwater, nonpoint source pollution controls, and water
planning.
Ib. Drinking Water Programs Branch monitors compliance with federal drinking
water laws and controls underground injections of fluids.
Ic. Water Permits and Compliance Branch manages the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and ensures permit compliance.
Id. Municipal Facilities Branch manages and directs the administration of the
municipal construction grants and the state revolving fund programs established in the
Clean Water Act.
le. Environmental Evaluation Branch prepares environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements on EPA's NPDES new source permits and construction
grant programs. The branch also administers EPA's ocean dumping program and
implements the Section 404 enforcement program for dredge and fill material.
2. The Air and Toxics Division consists of the Air Programs Branch and the Pesticides
and Toxic Substances Branch, and manages and directs Agency efforts for abatement,
control, permitting, and/or compliance in the air, toxic substances, pesticides and
radiation programs.
3. The Environmental Services Division contains the Ambient Monitoring and Analysis
Branch, the Technical Support Branch, and the Laboratory.
4. The Hazardous Waste Division deals with problems and issues that cut across
Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Responsibilities include
solid and hazardous waste management, regional hazardous waste policy development,
technical and financial assistance through grants to federal, state, and local agencies, and
technical assistance to industry.
Other Federal Environmental Agencies:
Other federal government agencies and departments include programs dedicated to
resource conservation and protection. The following federal agencies also play
significant roles in environmental protection and water quality management.
U.S. Department of the Interior "has responsibility for most of the nationally-owned
public lands and natural and cultural resources." This responsibility includes the
41
-------
management of federally owned land and water resources, fish and wildlife, national
parks and historical places, outdoor recreation areas, and energy and mineral resources.
The Department also "has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation
communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. Administration"
(USFWS 1991). The Secretary of the Interior is appointed by the President of the
United States and serves on the President's Cabinet.
The most significant environmental branches of the Interior Department for Washington
state are summarized below. Some of the Department of the Interior's functions are
similar to those carried out by Environment Canada and the B.C. Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks.
The National Park Service develops and implements park management plans and
staffs Washington's three national parks and several of its national recreation areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is "the principal agency through which the
federal government carries out its responsibilities to conserve, protect, and enhance the
nation's fish and wildlife and their habitat... The Service's major responsibilities are for
migratory birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals, and freshwater and
anadromous fish" (USFWS 1991).
The U.S. Geological Survey "classifies and manages mineral and water resources
on federal lands-conducts and sponsors research in areas including mapping, geography,
mineral and land resources, water resources, rangeland, wildlife and environmental
monitoring" (Rosenbaum 1985).
The Bureau of Reclamation is a major actor in the eastern half of the state. The
Bureau manages, develops, and protects water quality and quantity and related
resources, particularly with regard to irrigation.
Department of Agriculture is part of the Executive Branch of U.S. Government. The
Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, typically a political
appointee with a natural resources background, is responsible for administering the
policies of the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service.
The U.S. Forest Service manages commercial and protected national forests in
Washington and throughout the U.S. The Forest Service is responsible for ensuring
compliance with the state's water quality standards and Forest Practices Act by writing
Best Management Practices into forest contract permits. National Forest Management
Plans outline future management strategies for each forest, and must undergo federal
environmental review.
The Soil Conservation Service was established in 1935 to "carry out a continuing
program of soil and water conservation on private lands" (PSWQA 1986b). The
Service's priorities are to reduce soil erosion, improve irrigation water management,
reduce upstream flooding, improve water quality, improve forest and range management.
It provides "technical assistance to private individuals, community and watershed groups,
42
-------
and public agencies through a federal-local partnership with Conservation districts," of
which there are 48 in Washington state (PSWQA 1986b).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the U.S. Department
of Commerce, "gathers data, conducts research, and makes predictions about the
environment..." (NOAA 1989). The Western Regional Center, in Seattle, Washington,
houses many regional NOAA offices relevant to water quality protection. In addition to
the services and branches listed below, other technical and scientific offices exist in the
Western Regional Center.
The northwest office of the National Marine Fisheries Service establishes sound
fishery management practices and supports and conducts fisheries research. It is also
responsible for conserving marine mammals and protected species, including whales,
porpoises, seals, and sea turtles.
The Hazardous Material Response Branch provides technical assistance to the
U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies in responding to oil spills and other spills in the
marine environment.
The National Ocean Service is the federal government's oldest scientific and
technical organization. In the Western Regional Office it operates and maintains a fleet
of research vessels and collects and analyzes marine hydrographic data. In addition, the
Service provides data atlases of coastal regions, tide predictions, and nautical charts.
The National Geodetic Reference System, within the National Ocean Service, provides a
precise geographic framework for oceanographic and aeronautic mapping and charting.
The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, also within the NOS, researches the feasibility of
nationally designated marine protected areas, and, once established, manages them. The
Service's Status and Trends monitoring program is located in Washington, D.C.
United States Coast Guard (USCG), under the Department of Transportation,
investigates, monitors, and/or supervises the clean-up of pollution or hazardous chemical
spills to the navigable waters of the U.S.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Department of Defense, "regulates all
construction projects in the navigable waters of the U.S. and promulgates regulations
governing the transportation and dumping of dredged materials in navigable waters..."
(Rosenbaum 1985). The Corps plays a significant role in regulating dredging activities,
managing ocean dumping, and wetlands protection.
C. MAJOR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND INITIATIVES
Major state environmental policies and programs stem from national laws which require
the states to comply with certain requirements and regulations. Some of the more
significant legislation is summarized below.
43
-------
State Water Pollution Control Act:
This Act "provides the principal statutory authority for the State's water quality
program." This includes authority to administer the programs of the Federal Clean
Water Act and the establishment of an anti-degradation policy reflected in the state
water quality standards (Ecology 1989).
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA);
SEPA requires "all state and local government agencies to review the environmental
effects of all governmental actions, such as permits, which are not categorically exempt
as determined by guidelines issued by the Department of Ecology" (PSWQA 1986b). As
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an environmental impact
statement may be required for some projects and actions. If unacceptable adverse
impacts cannot be mitigated, a project proposal may be denied by Ecology. The
environmental review process is discussed in greater detail in Part IX of this report.
Shoreline Management Act;
The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 established both a planning process and a
permit process for the state's shorelines. This process requires substantial development
permits (for projects costing over $2500) to comply with local shoreline plans, and
applies to all water areas of the state and their associated wetlands except for lakes less
than 20 acres in size and stream segments upstream of a point where mean annual flow
is 20 cubic feet per second or less (PSWQA 1986b). This state legislation complies with
the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Act;
In 1985, the Washington State Legislature created the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority as "a single entity with adequate resources to develop a comprehensive plan
for water quality protection in Puget Sound to be implemented by existing state and
local governments" (RCW 90.70.001). The principle responsibility of the Authority is to
develop, adopt, and oversee the implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan (discussed in Part VII, Estuary Management Programs). State
agencies and local governments evaluate and incorporate applicable provisions of the
plan into their policies and activities. The Authority was originally meant to revise the
plan every two years and was to terminate in 1991, but recent amendments to the
authorizing legislation called for an extension of the Authority until 1995 and for a four-
year plan update cycle following the adoption of the 1991 plan.
Washington Environment 2010;
This 1990 document identifies the major environmental challenges facing the State of
Washington and makes a number of recommendations for addressing those challenges.
It was developed by a public advisory committee and a steering committee comprised of
the directors of the state and federal environmental and resource management agencies
44
-------
in Washington. It is meant to focus attention on specific issues rather than serve as a
"detailed blueprint for policy." Two of the top priority items listed by the document are
point and nonpoint source discharges to water. Key recommendations regarding water
quality include the following:
develop local plans to protect whole watersheds from the effects of nonpoint
source pollution;
monitor on-site sewage systems and upgrade inadequate systems;
explore use of economic incentives and disincentives to promote the
use of better land management practices;
establish local stormwater management programs;
improve upon the wastewater discharge permits system, increase permit fees
and make fees correspond to volume and toxicity of discharges;
promote manufacture and use of unbleached paper;
develop groundwater protection program; and
develop a comprehensive statewide wetlands protection and management plan.
Other legislation promulgated by the Washington legislature and relevant to protecting
water quality include the Washington Forest Practices Act, the Aquatic Lands Act, and
the Water Resources Act.
D. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
The following government entities play significant roles in protecting Washington state's
environment and natural resources.
Department of Ecology;
When the Department of Ecology (Ecology) was established in 1970, the legislature
proclaimed that "it is a fundamental and inalienable right of the people of Washington
to live in a healthful and pleasant environment and to benefit from the proper
development of its natural resources." The Department of Ecology is Washington's chief
environmental regulatory agency, comparable in many respects to British Columbia's
Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks.
The governor appoints the Director and the seven-member Ecological Commission,
which advises the Director, and has limited approval authority over the department's
regulations (LWV 1988). Ecology administers the state laws for pollution control, such
as the State Environmental Policy Act, the Water Pollution Control Act, and the
Shoreline Management Act, and implements a variety of federal laws.
Ecology has four regional offices: the Northwest Regional Office (in Redmond), the
Southwest Regional Office (in Tumwater), the Eastern Regional Office (in Spokane),
and the Central Regional Office (in Yakima). Each regional office has primary
responsibility for permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement of the state's
environmental quality as well as many resource management laws. Each region has its
45
-------
own priorities, programmatic emphases, and corresponding technical capabilities
(Ecology 1991).
The Department of Ecology is divided into three major program areas: Central
Programs and Enforcement, Water and Shorelands, and Waste Management (Figure 9).
The major functions of these three programs are summarized below.
1. The Office of Water and Shorelands addresses water quality and quantity issues and
consists of four major programs.
la. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management administers the state Shoreline
Management Act of 1971 and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
Within this program activities relate to floodplain management, wetlands, and the
Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, and shellfish bed protection, among
others.
Ib. Water Quality Financial Assistance distributes water quality and pollution
prevention grants and loans to public organizations. The program also helps with
design, planning, and the construction of projects.
Ic. Water Quality contains the Point Source Management Section which issues
waste water discharge permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, and assigns fees for dischargers. Other sections include the Nonpoint Source
Management, Basin Planning and Standards, and Administration and Information
Management.
Id. Water Resources regulates water allocation, monitors water uses in
accordance with established rights, and promotes conservation.
2. Central Programs and Enforcement contains three major programs. The Central
Programs Section of this program addresses oil spills, enforcement activities, and state
environmental reviews (as administered under the State Environmental Policy Act). The
Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program is the technical and
investigative arm of Ecology. It primarily analyzes environmental samples, investigates
contamination problems, and carries out inspections of discharges. The Air Programs
Section writes industrial air emissions permits and works to reduce air pollution.
3- Waste Management contains five major sections. These sections are Toxics Cleanup;
Nuclear and Mixed Waste Management; Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Litter
Control; Waste Management Grants; and Solid and Hazardous Waste.
Other State Agencies;
Department of Fisheries "preserves, protect, perpetuate, manage, and enhance the food
fish and shellfish resources of Washington" (PSWQA 1990). The department works with
the Department of Wildlife to enforce the Hydraulics Code (See Part VII, Wetlands
Protection) and is responsible for other fisheries laws.
46
-------
JUNE 1991
OPP1CB OP ATTORNEY OBNHRAL
SENIOR HOST. ATTORNEY OBNBMt
JNPHARRIS
SEVJOUEV
49MIM
DIRECTOR
CHRISTINE GREGOIRE
DONNA VELEY
45MIM
DEPUTY DIRBCTOR
FRED OLSON
RENEEPACANA
4»fl70
PUBIJCINPOMUTION
AND EDUCATION
ASSISTANT DIRBCTOR
MELANC LUH
CAROLYN MOOMMNSEE
4594839
ICOUIATIVE*
INTBROOVBRNMBNTAL
RELATIONS
ASSISTANT DIRBCTOR
EARL TOWER
CONNIE SHUMATE
45M030
CENTRAL PROGRAMS
ANDUNPOROBMBNT
ASSISTAKT DWECTOR
STEVE HUNTER
PEGOVNOeLE
4&4OI2
ARPROORAMS
PROGRAM MANAOBR
JOCWU.UUIS
CEHTRAL PROGRAMS
PROGRAM MAHAOER
GREOSORLC
MMMCSMS
FINANCIAL.
PERSONNEL
* SUPPORT SERVICES
ASSISTANT DUBCTOR
JU MARTM
DWfCOLLNS
4M-7447
QUAUtY CONTROL
MPORMATION MOMT.
COMr.PLANNINO
ASSISTAKT DIRBCTOR
MKEREEO
ECOLOGICAL
COMMISSION
a urn
FRED IMIOSMCI
NUCLEAR
WASTR ADVISORY-
COUNCI.CHAK
WARREN BMHOP
lunaer. ACCOUKTVNI
A SUPPORT SKXVKBS
PROGRAM MAN ACER
BU. WHEELER
CHAOLEHE HEISOH
PIJUONNEL SERVICES
MANAOER
LARRY KELLER
HELfNUCSHMOY
CENTRAL
RBOIONALOPFICfl
RBOIONAtDMilCroR
PATSPURGIN
JUDYWESTON
4»6l4»
SOUTHWEST
RBOIONAL OPnCE
RBOIONAL DKBCTOR
PAT LEE
SMtAHBAflae
rstfTor
WATER AND
SHORBLANDS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TERRY HUSSEMAN
OCiYNNEmOY
4M-74M
SHORBLANDS AND
COASTAL ZONE MOT
PROGRAM MAHAOBR
ROD MACK
BNVIRONMBNTAL
[KVESTUAT1ONS*
LABORATORY SERVICES
PROGRAM MANAGER
LYNN SMQLETON
OAYLAOVUIOND
7S3-lf34
WATER QUALITY
FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM MANAGER
CHERYL STRANGE
ONOER EVANS
WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM MANAGER
MIKE LLEWELYN
LARECRUSH
WATER RESOURCES
PROGRAM MANAGER
MEDIA ADELSM AN
TOXICS CLEANUP
PROGRAM MANAOBR
CAROL FLESKES
CAHOlPEOEi
WASTE REDUCTION.
RECYCLING * UTTER
ODNTROI.
PROGRAM MANAGER
BLLALKHE
HELEN FOX
4M7I45
Figure 9:
Organization of the Washington State Department of Ecology
WASTE MOMT GRANTS SECTION
OANSVVENSON
CHEROORD
4X7474
-------
Department of Wildlife protects and manages "all birds, mammals, and game fish along
with all those marine, estuarine, freshwater, and terrestrial species not classified for
human consumption" (PSWQA 1990). The department protects fish and wildlife habitat
through the Hydraulics Code, and manages a number of wildlife protection programs.
State Parks and Recreation Commission has seven members appointed by the
Governor. A professional staff acquires, develops, maintains, and operates the state
parks system (LWV 1988). The Commission also administers the Scenic Rivers Act,
which encourages management plans to protect special features of the designated rivers
(PSWQA 1990).
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages five million acres of forest,
agricultural, urban and aquatic lands. It enforces laws regulating logging practices,
reforestation requirements, petroleum and natural gas exploration and surface mine
reclamation. It also manages state Natural Area Preserves and state Natural Resources
Conservation Areas, and runs the Natural Heritage program (which identifies and
locates rare and endangered species throughout the state). The DNR administers all
state-owned aquatic lands to benefit residents of Washington, and leases the lands for
shellfish harvesting, mineral development, aquaculture, and waterfront construction
(DNR 1991). The state owns the beds of all navigable lakes and rivers, the bed of all
marine waters within three miles of shore, and all the beds of Puget Sound.
Department of Health monitors shellfish beds in Washington's coastal waters and works
with Ecology to regulate, protect and restore recreational shellfish beds in Puget Sound.
This is accomplished through the Shellfish Office of its Environmental Health Programs.
DOH also administers regulations concerning on-site sewage treatment systems, and
provides technical, planning, and educational assistance to local health officials. The
Department is also responsible for monitoring drinking water and upholding drinking
water quality standards.
Department of Agriculture helps control nonpoint source pollution by defining and
regulating pesticide usage and coordinating with the Department of Ecology to eliminate
accumulation of unused pesticides (Ecology 1989). The Department is also responsible
for regulating the application of herbicides, pesticides, or therapeutic compounds to
aquaculture, giving it a direct role in water quality management. It is the Department of
Ecology, rather than Agriculture, that has primary responsibility for managing nonpoint
source pollution from agricultural lands.
Washington State Conservation Commission provides training, guidance and assistance
to the state's 48 conservation districts, which work one-on-one with local governments
and landowners to promote soil conservation practices. The Commission plays a key
role in developing and implementing nonpoint source pollution management plans
(Ecology 1989).
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority develops and updates the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan, a comprehensive plan for water quality protection in Puget
48
-------
Sound. This plan is to be implemented by existing state and local government agencies.
Its purpose is to restore and protect the water quality and biological health and diversity
of Puget Sound (PSWQA 1990). The eleven authority members include the Director of
the Department of Ecology, the Commissioner of Public Lands (or their appointees) and
nine gubernatorial appointments.
Treaty Indian Tribes are major players in state discussions of water quality, quantity and
habitat issues. This role stems in part from the treaty rights of western Washington
tribes and the Yakima tribe to take half of the fish resources, and the implication that
this entitles tribes to prevent degradation of fish habitat. This claim has been partially
supported by federal court, which ruled that the habitat issues must be resolved on a
case-by-case basis. Some tribes within Washington also have jurisdiction over water
quality on their reservations, playing the role of the state regarding implementation of
federal laws.
Port Districts provide facilities for all forms of terminals (air, land, water); capital
improvements for industrial and manufacturing activities; waterways through dredging,
filling, and bulkheading; waste disposal, sewers and other utilities not provided by other
government entities; and comprehensive plans for the district. Each of the 75 port
districts in Washington is governed by a three-person elected board of commissioners
(except Seattle and Tacoma which have five). Members serve six-year staggered terms.
Ports may play a role in water quality issues through their involvement in land-use
planning, dredging, nonpoint source pollution, and effluent discharge from vessels (LWV
1988).
49
-------
VI. BRIEF COMPARISON OF U.S. AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEMS
One of the key distinctions between the two governmental systems lies with the U.S.
concept of division of powers. Unlike the U.S. government, Canadian Cabinet ministers
at the head of the government comprise both its executive and legislative branches.
Party loyalty in Canada, on matters of substance, is expected, and thus the party in
power tightly controls federal authority in a manner unknown in the U.S. In Canada,
the federal government "speaks with one voice" (Carroll 1979). This is not true in the
United States, where the party controlling the executive branch does not always control
the legislative branch, and conflict constantly arises between the U.S. President (and
Cabinet) and the Congress (Carroll 1979). This basic difference in governmental
systems results in a Canadian legislative process that is "much more expeditious and
direct than that in the U.S" (Lucas 1977). Furthermore, because elected officials serve as
the head of Canadian government agencies, the Canadian bureaucracy serves as an
extension of a single party in power more so than does the politically-checked U.S.
bureaucracy (Lucas 1977).
The Canadian parliamentary system offers fewer pressure points for the public or
interest groups to affect legislation than does the U.S. system (Carroll 1989). In the
state of Washington, citizens elect state and national representatives at different
intervals for varying numbers of years. With the Parliamentary system, voters in British
Columbia vote for one national representative to the House of Commons and one
provincial representative to the Legislative Assembly. While an initiative or referenda
process to reform government decisions such as exists in Washington is not present in
British Columbia, provincial elected officials (MLA's) can be dismissed between
elections by public referenda. For the most part, however, if a Canadian interest group
is dissatisfied with a government program, it often must wait until major elections to
attempt to influence a course of action (PSWQA 1988).
While Canadian voters may be given fewer chances to formally express their opinions
through the polls or initiative process, the possibility of a vote of no-confidence helps to
keep the government in line with public opinion. In the United States, once an official
is elected, that person typically remains in office until their term expires, regardless of
popular opinion. In contrast with Canada, when the American chief executive is elected,
his or her tenure in office is in no way dependent on the fate of the legislative program
(Jackson 1990). When the government changes in Canada, the mechanism for reversing
policies and laws is more powerful than that which exists during a change in the
executive or legislative branches in the U.S. This is due to the power of the majority
party in the legislative and executive branches of Canadian government. In British
Columbia it is also more common for the government to reorganize and restructure its
Ministries (whether while assuming leadership or during leadership) than it is for the
Washington Governor or Legislature to reorganize.
Unlike the United States, interest group lobbying in Canada is least effective when the
policy concerned is already before the federal or provincial legislative bodies. This is
because, for the most part, policies are already formed before they reach Parliament or
50
-------
the Legislative Assembly. Thus, much lobbying in Canada occurs at the Cabinet level
(recall, however, that Cabinet members are also members of the legislative body) and
within the higher levels of the agencies (Jackson 1990). This contrasts starkly with the
intense lobbying of legislators that occurs in the U.S., where legislators from both parties
are equally responsible for policy making.
Although both the U.S. and Canada have federal governments, characterized by a
division of power between one central national government and many regional
governments, the powers accorded to the two levels of government differ between
nations. With respect to environmental protection, constitutional interpretation by some
Canadian courts has given the provinces jurisdiction over the natural resources within
their boundaries, as well as authority to regulate most types of pollution. In the United
States, ownership of resources is more evenly divided among state, national, and private
interests, and the federal government has the power to put forth broad legislation
concerned with environmental protection.
Thus, it seems that the parliamentary system is more expeditious and responsive to
change than is the U.S. system of checks and balances, yet it may also be more resistant
to public opinion at the legislative level. Bureaucrats in British Columbia have greater
authority to initiate major policy reviews than do those in Washington. Other major
differences, specific to natural resource management, lie in the balance of power
between the state or province and the federal government. In British Columbia, the
province has much more independent authority over issues of environmental protection
than does the state government in Washington, although the relationship between the
province and the federal government is undergoing constant evolution driven by court
decisions and new legislation. Finally, it has been observed by some officials that in
Canada, water quality protection has traditionally been driven by fisheries protection,
while in the U.S., human health or general environmental protection has been more the
focus.
A basic understanding of these major distinctions between the Canadian and U.S.
government systems helps build a foundation for understanding the differences between
the ways that environmental quality is regulated in British Columbia and Washington.
Part VII of this report will discuss these more issue-specific differences.
51
-------
PART VII. ISSUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
This part of Beyond the Border serves to introduce the reader to the ways that different
aspects of environmental management are currently approached in British Columbia and
Washington. Each section describes legislation and government agencies relevant to a
specific issue, and provides names of people whom the reader can contact for more
information. While some comparisons between processes in the two different
jurisdictions are made, the following sections mainly describe the significant policies and
programs that affect each aspect of environmental management and do not provide an
analysis of the relative efficiency of these policies in protecting the environment. Issues
covered include:
Point Source Pollution Control;
Pulp and Paper Effluent;
Mining and Smelting Effluent;
Municipal Sewage Effluent;
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control;
Pleasure Craft Discharges;
Oil Spill Response
Dredging Regulations;
Ocean Dumping/ Dredged Materials Disposal;
Wetlands Protection;
Estuary Management Programs;
Marine Protected Areas;
The topics listed above were chosen due to their current or potential significance to
transboundary surface water pollution management. Because it was not possible to
cover all issues relevant to water quality, the exclusion of some topics, such as
agriculture, shipping wastes, or the regulation of the petroleum industry, should not be
construed a sign of their relative importance or unimportance.
Each section in this part begins with a brief summary of the approaches that Washington
and British Columbia take in managing that topic, and may include significant
definitions or explanatory notes. In most cases, the relevancy of the topic to water
quality or transboundary pollution is discussed. Each section is then divided into a more
detailed discussion of how the topic is addressed in British Columbia, and how it is
approached in Washington. The reader should keep in mind that the policies and
programs in each country may evolve and change with time, and that this report
addresses the current approaches taken in each nation.
Distinctions between the ways in which British Columbia and Washington manage the
environment may be due to different population densities (in 1990, B.C. had less than
four people per square kilometer, while Washington had about twenty-eight people per
square kilometer), dependencies upon different resource industries, different rates of
industrial growth, or different regulatory and enforcement ideologies. Whatever the
reasons, differences as well as similarities exist between environmental programs in
52
-------
Washington and British Columbia. The following sections outline some of these
differences and similarities.
A. POINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL
According to the U.S. Clean Water Act, point sources are those facilities with discrete
pipes, ditches, or outfalls that discharge effluent or wastewater. Point sources include
publicly owned sewage treatment plants (also called municipal dischargers) and
industrial or commercial facilities (industrial dischargers) (PSWQA 1986a).
Point source pollution is regulated in both B.C. and Washington through permit systems,
but the ideologies behind the requirements contained in the permits are somewhat
different. Although Canadian federal regulations pursuant to the Fisheries Act are
mandatory, the general approach of both Environment Canada and B.C. Environment,
Lands and Parks, is to adopt standards and guidelines to prevent pollution, many of
which are not considered as mandatory regulations. The provincial Ministry issues
permits to discharge sources, with particular conditions imposed in the permits that are
to conform as far as practicable to the standards and guidelines. The terms of the
licenses are legally enforceable, but at times the agency and the applicant may negotiate
some of the requirements contained in the permit (Carroll 1989). Consideration may be
given to the economic health of the firm, the stability of the community in which it is
located, or the quality of the water body in which the firm will discharge. In most cases
where the standards or guidelines are not strictly met, the permit will contain a schedule
for attaining the target level.
While U.S. water quality standards consider water body uses in their design and effluent
standards consider technological feasibility, once these standards are developed they are
legally binding regardless of a firm's economic health or location. The premise of the
Clean Water Act is that all pollution is undesirable and should be reduced to the
minimum that technology will permit. The concept of negotiation on a case-by-case
basis is not integral to environmental law in the U.S., as it appears in some cases in
Canada (Carroll 1989).
In the following discussion, general approaches to controlling point source pollution are
detailed. Because pulp and paper mills, municipal dischargers, and mining operations
are sources currently involved in controversies between Washington and British
Columbia, regulations specific to these three types of dischargers are examined in detail.
It is recognized, however, that other major industrial categories of point source polluters
may also create the potential for transboundary conflicts.
CANADA/B.C. POINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL
Under the Canadian Constitution, the provinces own the natural resources exclusive of
federal lands and waters. Notwithstanding this, the federal government has the authority
to regulate discharges which may affect fisheries, migratory birds, transboundary waters,
53
-------
or which originate from shipping or other transportation modes. B.C. Environment,
Lands and Parks is chiefly responsible for water quality permitting and compliance
monitoring and the Ministry incorporates most of the federal regulations in its
requirements.
Federal Control:
The Fisheries Act is one of the most major pieces of pollution control legislation in
Canada. This Act prohibits the discharge or deposition of any material which may be
deleterious to fish, or into fish habitat or where it may enter such waters including
spawning grounds, nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas or upon which fish
depend directly or indirectly. Under the Fisheries Act, several federal regulations
regarding effluent discharges have been promulgated, the most significant of which
relate to the pulp and paper and mining industries (to be discussed later in this report).
In the past, federal enforcement of the Fisheries Act provided the key element of water
quality protection in British Columbia, and because of the Act's significance, water
quality protection in British Columbia has been directed chiefly at sensitive fisheries
areas.
In addition to the Fisheries Act, other federal laws enable the Canadian government to
become involved in point source pollution control. The Canada Water Act "authorizes
Environment Canada to regulate and administer waste effluent disposal in areas of
federal jurisdiction, and to formulate joint standards with provincial governments where
there is significant national interest" (Day 1990). Under CEP A, the federal government
also has authority to control toxic substances.
As a policy, the pollution control elements of Environment Canada's programs are
implemented through the provinces. For example, the Provinces include federal
requirements in their waste discharge permits and licenses. In a one-window approach
to permit review, applications for permits are referred by the Ministry to relevant
provincial agencies and to Environment Canada if the proposed project involves federal
jurisdiction. Environment Canada refers the applications to its various services, and to
Fisheries and Oceans if a threat to fish or fish habitat is present (Harding 1987).
Environment Canada's Environmental Protection section usually provides comments on
permit applications and has the authority to enforce the general provisions of the
Fisheries Act if a permitted effluent or an unauthorized discharge is considered to be
deleterious to fish, fish habitat, spawning grounds, or areas used for nursery, rearing,
food supply and migration.
In some instances, a discharge permitted by the province may violate these provisions.
For example, not all provincial permits stipulate a non-acutely lethal discharge.
Furthermore, provincial water quality objectives do not apply within an initial mixing
dilution zone, and water quality in the discharge area may have toxic or sublethal effects
on aquatic life. In other cases, water quality objectives for contaminants may not exist
and thus, even though harmful, certain pollutants may not be managed or regulated
under provincial objectives and permits (Day 1990). Environment Canada may
54
-------
determine whether discharges are harmful through a bioassay of trout or salmon in the
effluent to be discharged, and may choose to enforce the federal law, tightening effluent
requirements.
Provincial Control:
The Environmental Protection Division of B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks regulates
waste discharges through Waste Management Permits, which specify the quantity and
quality of waste allowed to be released. These permits are legally enforceable, and are
based upon the desired environmental quality of the media (air, land, water) into which
the waste will be discharged. The required treatment also reflects the Best Practicable
Technology as spelled out in the province's Pollution Control Objectives, a series of
industry-specific guidelines designed to protect environmental quality. However, if a
submitted permit application does not meet the objectives, the application is evaluated
and compliance terms may be negotiated with the discharger. In this manner,
environmental protection can be tailored to the technological capabilities of the
discharger and the economic needs of the province.
The provincial Pollution Control Objectives were introduced during the 1970's and
provide a range of possible waste discharge concentrations according to the
environmental quality desired for a discharge area. Generally, new facilities are
expected to meet the highest standards, and existing facilities are given interim
requirements while working on upgrades to the higher standard. Although they are not
enforceable, the objectives provide the major means for evaluating permit applications,
and exist for five categories of waste dischargers:
municipal type waste discharges;
mining, smelting and related industries;
forest products industry;
chemical and petroleum industries; and
food-processing, agriculturally orientated, and other miscellaneous industries.
The Ministry has recently begun to review these industry-based objectives. The province
is also working to develop site-specific water quality objectives. These objectives have
been set in 24 bodies of water believed to be the most likely to :be affected by man's
activity, now and in the foreseeable future" (B.C. Env. 1986). Those bodies of water for
which water quality objectives have been set are shown in Figure 10. Each of the 24
site-specific water quality objectives describes the level of contaminants that can be
present in the water basin while maintaining water quality for the basin's most sensitive
use. In those water bodies where objectives exist, the newly designed water quality
objectives could result in permits being issued with control parameters which supersede
the effluent standards contained within the five sets of Pollution Control Objectives.
55
-------
BodTes of Water For Which Water Quality Objectives Have Been Set
(from B.C. Environment, 1990)
1. Upper Finlay R.
2. Charlie L.
3. Peace R.
4. Pine R.
5. Pouce Coupe R.
6. Bullmoose Cr.
7. Kathlyn, Seymour,
Round, and Tyhee L's.
8. Bulkley R.
9. Lakelse L.
10. Lower Kitimat R.
and Arm
11. Nechako R.
12. Williams L.
13. Bonaparte R.
14. Toby Cr.
15. Columbia and
Windermere L.
16. Okanagan
Valley L.
17. Cahill Cr.
18. Similkameen R.
19. Lower Fraser R.
20. Lower Fraser R.
21. Boundary Bay
22. Cowichan -
Koksilah R.
23. Quinsam R.
24. Lower Fraser R.
tributaries
-------
The province bases its more recently derived water quality objectives upon water quality
criteria. Criteria represent minimum and/or maximum values which must not be
exceeded to prevent detrimental effects from occurring to a water use under specified
environmental conditions. For example, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
recommends that water for irrigation contain less than .5 mg of boron per liter, while
drinking water may contain up to 5 mg of boron (Pommen 1991). For those biological,
chemical, and physical properties for which B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks has not
formally approved a criteria, the Ministry generally refers to a set of Canadian Water
Quality Guidelines developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
The provincially and federally derived criteria may or may not be adhered to in the
creation of site-specific water quality objectives, depending upon the characteristics of
the water body and the likelihood of meeting those criteria (Ministry of Environment
and Parks 1986).
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Alain David Kel Hicke
Environment Canada Environmental Protection
(604)666-2699 B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 387-9953
U.S./WASHINGTON POINT SOURCE CONTROL
In Washington State, point source pollution is regulated through the Department of
Ecology's implementation of the federal Clean Water Act and state Water Pollution
Control Act. Under the federal legislation, the states may adopt water quality standards
and criteria that are as stringent or more stringent than those of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Federal Control:
In 1972, the federal Clean Water Act set a goal that the nation's waters be "fishable and
swimmable" by 1983, and created a permit system for effluent discharges. Standards for
these permits were to be designed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
implemented by the states (PSWQAa 1986).
The Clean Water Act also instructed the EPA to establish effluent guidelines for
industries that were major polluters, based on economic and technological feasibility.
To date, EPA has technology-based standards for over 52 industrial categories. All new
sources of pollution in these categories should meet the effluent limits, but pre-existing
sources were given schedules to meet these technology-based effluent standards.
Technology-based standards do not mandate a specific type of control system, but are
based on the demonstrated performance of the appropriate technology (PSWQA 1986a).
Three types of technology based standards exist in the U.S. Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT) was required to be installed by all industries by
July 1977. In determining BPT, the EPA considered "the total cost of application of
57
-------
technology in relation to the effluent reduction, benefits to be achieved..., the age of the
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects
of...various types of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality environmental
impact and such other factors as deemed appropriate (EPA 1989). Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) applies to conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, pH,
temperature) and are similar to BPT but require a more stringent cost-benefit analysis.
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) is required for control of
toxic and some nonconventional pollutants, with limited economic criteria.
In the state of Washington, the EPA maintained the authority to issue federal water
quality permits for federal facilities and those point sources on Indian lands that
discharge to surface waters (Ecology issues wastewater permits to point sources on
Indian fee lands that discharge to groundwater). The EPA also monitors state-issued
permits for a pre-selected list of major dischargers in Washington. These "major
permits" are agreed to by Ecology and EPA and include larger municipalities, major
industries, and dischargers on sensitive water bodies.
Stormwater has recently been brought under NPDES rules, and the state Department of
Ecology, which administers the NPDES program, is currently in the process of
developing a state implementation program for stormwater control.
State Control:
The EPA may delegate authority to administer certain provisions of the Clean Water
Act to the states. In Washington, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) administers the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program created by
the Clean Water Act. According to the Act, all point source discharges of pollutants are
illegal unless specifically addressed in a permit. The Department of Ecology also
regulates industrial discharges into sewer systems via state authority and the federally
mandated pretreatment program (PSWQA 1986a). In addition to managing the federal
surface water discharge programs, Ecology administers a state permit program for
groundwater and surface application dischargers.
The Clean Water Act requires the states to develop and adopt ambient receiving water
quality standards which can not be violated by dischargers. These receiving water
quality standards incorporate water body classifications and water quality criteria, and
must be reviewed every three years. To construct the water quality standards, the states
must first classify individual water bodies according to designated uses. For example, in
Washington, Class AA bodies of water are the most pristine and can be used for water
supply, swimming, and fishing (among other uses). The state must then adopt water
quality criteria-numerical concentrations of contaminants that will preserve or achieve
each classification. In some cases, the state bases its ambient water quality criteria upon
those published by the EPA in its Water Quality Criteria Documents. Whether they do
this or develop their own criteria, the state's criteria must be at least as protective as
those developed by the EPA. The Department of Ecology has numerical ambient water
quality criteria for 22 toxicants and six conventional pollutant parameters (fecal coliform
58
-------
bacteria, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved gas, temperature, pH, and turbidity), and has
recently established sediment quality standards for marine sediments.
In addition to adopting water quality standards, the Department of Ecology has also
developed technology-based requirements. These requirements are known as All Known
Available and Reasonable Treatment technologies (AKART), which are at least as
stringent as those technology-based standards promoted by the EPA, and in some cases
encompass pollutants or industries for which the EPA has not yet developed Best
Available Technology (BAT) standards. For some industries neither the EPA nor
Ecology have yet specified technological standards. In those cases effluent limits for
discharge permits are developed on a case-by-case basis. Technology-based effluent
limits must not cause violations of receiving water quality criteria. In most cases,
technology-based effluent limits are more stringent than those necessary to meet water
quality criteria, but in some cases (as in the case where the amount of dilution is small)
effluent limits are based on water quality standards and may be more stringent than
technology-based limits.
A discharge permit establishes limits on quantity and concentration of some pollutants,
and specifies requirements for actions such as monitoring or spill prevention. NPDES
permits require compliance with water quality and technology-based standards. The
Clean Water Act states that toxics may not be discharged in toxic amounts, and the state
addresses this concern through its standards and the terms of its permits. Each
discharger monitors its own effluent according to permit requirements, and reports
compliance with its permit to the Department of Ecology. Both the EPA and Ecology
are authorized to inspect dischargers periodically and to take enforcement actions if a
permit is being violated. NPDES permits expire and must be renewed every five years.
The Department of Ecology (or the EPA in the case of federal facilities and indian
lands) makes draft permits available for public comment.
As in British Columbia, Washington's water quality standards do not apply inside an
authorized dilution zone surrounding a wastewater discharge. However, the state will
not issue permits for discharges which cause mortalities of fish or shellfish within the
zone or which diminish aesthetic values (PSWQA 1986a).
The Department of Ecology recently developed sediment management standards,
making Washington the first state in the nation to have sediment-based criteria included
in its NPDES permits.
Federal Contact: State Contact:
Sylvia Kawabata Gary Bailey
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Ecology
(206)553-1644 (206)438-7054
59
-------
A.1. POINT SOURCE, PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT CONTROL
Discharges from the pulp and paper industry are regulated in the same manner as other
point source effluent discharges in B.C. and Washington. However, pulp mill effluent
regulations are highlighted in this report due to transboundary interest in how pollution
from the industry is managed.
In both British Columbia and Washington, pulp and paper manufacturers are a vital part
of the economy, yet produce waste that in many cases is toxic. In British Columbia, six
(of ten) coastal mills currently discharge untreated or partially untreated effluent into
marine waters. Other mills discharge treated effluent into the Fraser, Columbia, and
Peace rivers. Recently, dioxins found in fish in Washington's Lake Roosevelt were
traced to untreated discharges from Celgar, a pulp and paper mill across the border on
the Columbia River. In Washington, one mill discharges treated effluent into the Pend
Oreille River (which traverses the Canadian border), while eight others are located
along the shores of Puget Sound, potentially contributing to transboundary pollution in
the region's shared coastal marine waters. Other Washington mills discharge to the
Columbia and areas such as Grays Harbor.
Both nations are making efforts to reduce toxic discharges from this industry, specifically
focusing on dioxins and AOX. In British Columbia, new provincial regulations are mill
specific, and based upon concentrations present in the effluent. Federal regulations
under the Fisheries Act and Canadian Environmental Protection Act have also been
proposed. New regulations in Washington are based upon concentrations present in the
receiving waters, and are currently being appealed by the industry.
CANADA/B.C. POINT SOURCE, PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT CONTROL
Both provincial and federal governments play a role in regulating discharges from the
pulp and paper industry. British Columbia regulates the industry's discharges through
effluent and air emission permits under the Waste Management Act. These permits can
be site specific, but are generally based upon the province's Pollution Control Objectives
for The Forest Products Industry. Some conditions of these permits are overridden by
the standards set in the province's newly written Pulp Mill and Pulp and Paper Mill
Liquid Effluent Control Regulations. The Federal government also has regulations for
pulp and paper mill effluent, which the provincial permits and requirements typically
include.
Federal Regulations:
With amendments to the Fisheries Act in 1970, Environment Canada received specific
authority to develop regulations for industrial wastes. Because pulp and paper effluents
equaled half of the industrial waste discharged into Canadian waters, the industry was
singled out as the first to be brought under the new federal regulatory process. The
national discharge regulations were developed by a task force comprised of provincial,
federal, and industrial representatives. This task force established standards in the form
60
-------
of numerical values for BOD (biological oxygen demand), TSS (total suspended solids),
and toxicity (Sinclair 1990).
According to the national regulations, new mills built after 1971 would comply with the
effluent standards. Mills undergoing alteration or expansion after 1971 would negotiate
compliance requirements with the province and federal government. Those mills in
existence before 1971 would be gradually brought into compliance with the standards,
but no time limit was formally established. Regulations were to be applied according to
available technology and the financial situations of individual mills (Sinclair 1990).
Revisions to these national pulp and paper effluent limitations have been designed to
include the application of federal regulations to all mills, not simply the new ones.
These revisions have been announced and should be proclaimed in 1992.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada have the authority to enforce
the federal regulations and to execute the conditions of the Fisheries Act that prohibit
the discharge of substances harmful to marine life. Because provincial permits and
regulations typically include the federal requirements, B.C. Environment, Lands and
Parks is chiefly responsible for enforcing the pulp and paper effluent regulations and
permits in the province.
The 1988 Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) delegates authority to the
federal government for the control of toxic substances. Under CEPA, Environment
Canada is currently developing regulations for chlorinated dioxins and furans in pulp and
paper mill effluent as well as regulations regarding the life-cycle of pulp and paper mill
defoamer containing dibenzofuran or dibenzo-para-dioxin and pulp and paper mill
woodchips containing polychlorinated phenols. Like the new regulations under the
Fisheries Act, these regulations under CEPA are expected to be finalized by June 1992.
The federal government is also currently proposing an administrative agreement whereby
it would jointly administer pollution control regulations for pulp mills with the Province.
Provincial Regulations:
The current federal regulations represent national standards (known as best practicable
technology, BPT) for TSS, BODS, fish toxicity levels that each province in Canada is
expected to incorporate within its pulp and paper effluent permits. In British Columbia,
the Pollution Control Objectives specific to the forest products industry reflect a broader
spectrum of pollutants and other requirements than do the federal regulations, and
represent the Ministry policy upon which the effluent permits are based. As with the
federal regulations, the objectives are currently being revised.
The provincial Pulp Mill and Pulp and Paper Mill Liquid Effluent Control Regulations,
which came into force in December of 1990, establish new requirements which
supersede permit requirements for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), BOD5 and toxicity. In
addition to these more stringent requirements, the new regulations also set AOX
(chlorinated organics, including dioxins) standards and monitoring requirements. To
achieve compliance with these regulations, all pulp mills are required to install
61
-------
secondary treatment works. New controls on effluent discharges will help achieve the
standard of 2.5 kilograms of chlorinated organic compounds (AOX) per metric tonne of
discharge by 1993, with further reductions to 1.5 kilograms by 1995, and an ultimate
objective of zero discharge by 2002.
The regulations name each pulp and paper mill in the province and specify dates by
which each mill must meet the AOX requirements, complete construction of secondary
treatment works, and comply with effluent quality standards. All mills are subject to the
same standards, but the date by which they must come into compliance varies among the
mills according to their technological and economic capacity to conform to the new
standards. For example, the province's older mills, located mostly along the coast, have
not previously been subject to federal regulations and thus have not had secondary
treatment facilities in place. Some of these mills have been allowed more time to
comply with provincial regulations, with no date set later than 1994. One mill at Port
Alberni must meet a special effluent control regulation because of the sensitive
environment into which it discharges.
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Martin Pomeroy Dave Morrison
Environment Canada Environmental Protection
(604) 666-3220 B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604)387-9981
U.S./WASHINGTON PULP AND PAPER EFFLUENT CONTROL
Seventeen pulp and paper mills exist in Washington state, eight of which discharge into
the waters of Puget Sound, and one of which is located on the Pend Oreille River, about
thirty miles south of the Canadian border. Effluent discharges from Washington's pulp
and paper industry are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act and the state
Water Pollution Control laws, the requirements of which are implemented by the state's
Department of Ecology through discharge permits.
Federal Role:
Under the Clean Water Act, pulp and paper manufacturers are among the more than
fifty industries required to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's best
available technology (BAT) effluent standards for toxic pollutants. Of the 129 toxic
pollutants on the Clean Water Act's Toxics list, two (tri-chlor-phenol and penta-chloro-
phenol) are discharged in substantial amounts by the pulp and paper industry. These
two toxics are the only two regulated under the Best Available Technology requirements
for pulp and paper. Both old and new mills are expected to comply with the same BAT.
The EPA is currently revising all parameters for toxic and conventional pollutants for
the pulp and paper industry.
62
-------
State NPDES permits must also comply with the EPA's Best Conventional Technology
for conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, and pH) as well as the state's water quality
standards (which are modeled after EPA guidelines).
State Role:
The state is responsible for issuing effluent discharge permits to pulp and paper mills, in
accordance with both federal and state discharge regulations.
In addition to the EPA's technology-based limitations on pollutant discharges under the
Clean Water Act, the states must adopt water quality criteria that are acceptable to the
EPA. Washington's Department of Ecology adopted the EPA's recommended water
quality criteria for dioxins, from which effluent limits were developed and incorporated
into discharge permits for the pulp and paper industry. Moreover, based upon the
state's All-Known Available and Reasonable Treatment (AKART) standards, Ecology
recently put AOX (Adsorbable Organic Halides) requirements into the effluent
discharge permits of pulp and paper mills. These AKART and dioxin requirements are
currently being appealed by the dischargers.
In its permits, Ecology requires pulp and paper mills to monitor certain pollutants of
interest, and some mills have been asked to perform twelve to fifteen month ambient
monitoring studies to determine the effects of discharged materials on aquatic life. Mills
have also been asked specifically to monitor their effluent for dioxins and AOX, and
must develop strategies to minimize the amount of dioxins and AOX discharged while
they develop the technology required to meet the new dioxin standards.
Federal Contact: State Contact:
Dan Bodien Dick Burkhalter
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Ecology
(206) 553-1491 (206) 586-0373
. MINING AND SMELTING EFFLUENT CONTROL
Mining operations exist along the international border between Washington and British
Columbia, and may be of transboundary concern where waters flow between the
jurisdictions. One smelter in British Columbia currently discharges into the Columbia
River, creating concern for public officials and citizens in Washington's downstream
Lake Roosevelt. Because of the current interest in smelting regulations, and the
potential for conflict over mining operations, this type of point source discharge is
specifically addressed below.
Effluent discharges from mining operations in Washington are more stringently regulated
than those found in British Columbia. In some cases, coastal mines in British Columbia
have discharged tailings (50% water, 50% spent ore material) directly into the marine
environment (Env. Can. 1991). Provincial permits issued under the Waste Management
Act regulate discharges from smelters, while the federal government protects water
63
-------
quality through enforcement of the Fisheries Act. No smelters exist in Washington, but
some of the ore mined in the state is processed by the large, multi-national company in
British Columbia.
CANADA/B.C. MINING AND SMELTING EFFLUENT CONTROL
Like pulp and paper mills, effluent discharges from mining operations in British
Columbia are regulated by both the provincial and federal governments. Federal
regulations designed for the mining industry could be enforced through the provincial
permitting system, but Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are
responsible for overall enforcement of federal requirements.
Federal Role:
In 1977, through its authority under the Fisheries Act, Fisheries and Environment
Canada (now Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans)
promulgated national standards for specific mining waste products in the Metal Mining
Liquid Effluent Regulations and Guidelines. These regulations and guidelines are
administered by Environment Canada and list minimum pH standards as well as
maximum authorized average concentrations for the most common mining pollutants:
arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, total suspended matter, and radium 226. These
regulations and guidelines are incorporated in the province's effluent discharge permits,
and outline the maximum levels of pollutants that the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and Environment Canada have deemed meet the requirements of the Fisheries
Act.
The regulations apply to all overland flow of water from mines, including effluent
discharges, tailings pond overflows, and surface drainage. New, expanded, or reopened
metal mines throughout Canada are subject to these requirements (excluding gold mines
practicing cyanidization), but they serve only as guidelines for mines existing as of 1977.
The regulations also address effluent from those few smelters, pelletizing plants,
sintering plants, refineries, acid plants and similar operations that are directly affiliated
with the mining operation. Operations such as cyanidization gold mines, placer mines,
smelters unaffiliated with specific mines, and all others not included in these Effluent
Regulations and Guidelines are regulated under the general provisions of the Fisheries
Act.
Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are authorized to enforce the
general provisions of the Fisheries Act, which prevent the deposition of deleterious
substances in waters or habitat used by fish. In most cases, however, the federal
government will confer with the Province before it takes enforcement action, in order to
determine which agency should proceed with the action.
Provincial Role:
The province addresses mining and smelting waste issues through its Waste Management
Permits, which may incorporate the provincial Pollution Control Objectives for the
64
-------
Mining, Smelting, and Related Industries of British Columbia. These objectives outline
possible ranges of pollutant concentrations (unlike the U.S. regulations which specify a
maximum for any one day and a maximum thirty day average). The Pollution Control
Objectives contain receiving water quality objectives for some parameters (dissolved
oxygen, toxicity, alkalinity, chloride, temperature, turbidity, floatable solids, aesthetics,
and fecal coliform) and objectives for the discharge of final effluent for other
parameters (TSS, TDS, toxicity, pH, radioactivity, and specific elements and
compounds).
The provincial objectives encompass more pollutants than do the federal regulations,
and also differ from Environment Canada's regulations in that the parameters are
measured by dissolved metals rather than by total metals (dissolved plus paniculate
metals). The province has attempted to address this inconsistency by incorporating both
types of measurements in mine permit monitoring requirements, and sometimes
incorporating total metals as permit criteria.
Provincial permits do not necessarily reflect the federal regulations or guidelines, nor do
they necessarily reflect Pollution Control Objectives, the terms of the permits are
negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Permit violations are enforced by B.C. Environment,
Lands and Parks' Regional Operations and Enforcement Department. Violations of the
federal regulations or the Fisheries Act can be investigated by Environment Canada or
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but provincial enforcement agencies may and often do file
charges under the federal legislation.
In British Columbia, proposed coal and hard-rock mineral mining operations are subject
to a special development review process, which will be discussed in the environmental
review section of this report.
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Larry Adamche Dr. Kul Bindra
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection
Pacific and Yukon Region B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
Environment Canada (604) 387-9952
(604) 666-3568
U.S./WASHINGTON MINING EFFLUENT CONTROL
Mining operations in Washington are predominantly for gold and lead-zinc ores.
Effluent discharge is mostly regulated through state waste discharge permits. Although
there are no smelting operations in the state, milling operations (where the ore is
readied for smelting) are regulated by both state and federal requirements.
Federal Regulations:
Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated
technology-based standards for the mining industry. Type of pollutant regulated and the
65
-------
maximum concentrations allowable differ among types of materials mined, but the same
technology-based standards apply to gold, copper, lead, zinc, silver, and molybdenum.
Standards represent maximum one day concentrations and thirty day maximum average
concentrations for certain pollutants. For gold, copper, lead, zinc, silver, and
molybdenum, different standards apply to mine drainage (tailings overflows, surface
runoff) than apply to process water (point discharge).
In addition to the technology-based standards, dischargers must also comply with the
state's water quality standards, some of which are based upon criteria designed by the
EPA. In all cases, the most stringent of the regulations, whether promulgated by the
EPA or the state, apply to the discharger.
For milling operations, federal regulations do not allow metallic mineral processing
pollutants to be discharged to surface water. The wastes from this process must be
placed in lined tailings impoundment, and the long-term management of the
impoundments must be addressed in the Department of Ecology's reclamation
requirements (discussed below).
State Regulations:
Most new state-issued permits for mining operations do not allow discharge of effluent
into surface waters, but rather, first require mine waste recycling systems and then
require evaporation (in synthetic membrane mine ponds). These operations that no
longer discharge into surface waters are not part of the NPDES program but instead
receive state waste discharge permits. Some mines still operate under NPDES permits,
but this type of discharge is being phased out. Those NPDES permits that exist take
into account the state's water quality criteria and all discharges to surface water are
based upon the state's all Available Known and Reasonable Treatment technology
(AKART) for mining operations, which are more stringent than the federal best
available technology for the industry.
In addition to permitting waste discharge, the Department of Ecology also issues permits
or authorizes mining activities concerned with any use or diversion of water and for
mining operations within flood zones. The agency also assesses the chemical
composition of muds produced by mining operations (Ecology 1989).
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issues permits to
surface mining operations under the state's Surface Mining Act. State regulations "focus
on reclamation (of open pits, drainage ditches, etc.) to prevent any sedimentation or
other water pollution and require that reclamation take place simultaneously with
mining." The mine operator's permit application must include a reclamation plan and a
plan for containing sediments and contaminants during active mining. Where discharge
of wastes is considered, the operation also needs a waste discharge permit from Ecology.
Local DNR employees help enforce the state's surface mining regulations. Some
sections of the Surface Mining Act applicable to coal mining are superseded by federal
regulations (Ecology 1989).
66
-------
The Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife require Hydraulic Project Approval (a
"hydraulics" permit) for operations where dredging, panning, or sluicing occurs within the
high-water mark of waterbodies. This hydraulic project review and permit conditions are
designed to ensure the project will not harm fish or fish habitat (Ecology 1989).
Federal Contact: State Contact:
Dave Ragsdale Carl Nuechterlin
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Ecology
Washington Operations Office Eastern Regional Office
(206) 434-9080 (509) 456-6198
A3. POINT SOURCE, MUNICIPAL SEWAGE EFFLUENT CONTROL
In Washington, municipal sewage discharges are regulated by the federal Clean Water
Act which is enforced by the state's Department of Ecology. The regulations include an
effluent discharge permit system based upon best available technology. The law requires
all municipal sewage facilities to achieve the equivalent of secondary treatment or
better. Waivers to the requirements of this law are allowed in some states for coastal
municipal dischargers, no exceptions exist in Washington. In those water bodies where
dischargers threaten water quality standards (see above point source discussion for
explanation of standards), municipal facilities may be required to achieve tertiary or
advanced secondary treatment.
In British Columbia, the general provisions of the Fisheries Act provide the only means
of federal regulation of municipal sewage facilities. Effluent discharges are permitted by
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks under the Waste Management Act. Where site-
specific water quality objectives exist (see above point source discussion for explanation
of objectives), restrictions on discharges may be more stringent than in other water
bodies.
Because of its significance^ as a transboundary issue, and because it is regulated a bit
differently than other types of point source pollution, municipal sewage control is
specifically addressed in this section of this report.
CANADA/B.C. POINT SOURCE, MUNICIPAL SEWAGE EFFLUENT CONTROL
In British Columbia, the province regulates and issues permits for municipal waste
dischargers using the Province's Pollution Control Objectives for Municipal type Waste
Discharge as guidelines. The federal government plays a role in regulating municipal
sewage, related to its interest in fisheries.
Federal Role:
The Canadian federal government comments on the proposed permit (or liquid waste
management plan for larger communities) before it is approved by the Province. The
67
-------
federal review involves an assessment by both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
and the Department of Environment which is coordinated by Environmental Protection
of Environment Canada, under the auspices of the Fisheries Act. In some cases, the
requirements of the Fisheries Act may be more stringent than those set out in the
Province's pollution control objectives, and Environment Canada may recommend that
effluent discharges be more thoroughly treated. The federal government does not assist
in the funding of municipal sewage treatment plants.
Provincial Role:
The Regional Offices of the Environmental Protection Division of B.C. Environment,
Lands and Parks issue discharge permits for sewage treatment plants. Permits may be
approved on an individual basis, or the Ministry may approve a Liquid Waste
Management Plan for multiple dischargers in a regional district or municipality. The
Greater Vancouver Regional District has recently developed a Liquid Waste
Management Plan, which was approved by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks. This plan sets out the most environmentally acceptable, yet affordable, ways to
collect and dispose of the region's liquid waste. The Capital Regional District (Victoria)
is also in the process of designing a Liquid Waste Management Plan. These plans are
developed by advisory committees comprised of representatives from government
agencies, industry, and public interest groups, and involve extensive public comment.
Permits and Liquid Waste Management Plans address or adhere to the Pollution
Control Objectives for Municipal Type Waste Discharges in British Columbia. These
objectives call for secondary treatment for municipal discharges to fresh water, estuaries,
and embayed marine waters. Where adequate flushing is documented in embayed areas,
primary treatment with extended marine outfalls may be allowed. Municipal discharges
to open marine waters must, at a minimum, have primary treatment unless long
extended outfalls are used. Where a facility uses extended marine outfalls, comminution
(grinding into small particles) or screening is required as a minimum level of treatment.
With extended marine outfalls, the permit applicant must monitor receiving water
quality and allocate (or acquire) space to house an appropriate treatment facility in the
future. Such extensive receiving water quality monitoring is not required of most other
dischargers.
The Pollution Control Objectives serve as guidelines, rather than regulations. Although
most of the municipalities in the province comply with the objectives, a few of the
smaller, economically unstable communities along the coast may not. Twenty-six inland
municipalities use tertiary treatment to meet site-specific water quality objectives (i.e.
nutrient removal), while four inland municipal dischargers remain using only primary
(the Trail Regional System discharging to the Columbia, Nelson discharging to the
Kootenay River, and Lillooet and Lytton discharging to the Fraser River). The other
sixty-four plants discharging to freshwater have secondary treatment facilities.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) is in the process of installing two
secondary treatment plants (Annacis Island and Lulu Island) which discharge effluent to
the Fraser River Estuary. A third plant (Lions Gate) which discharges primary effluent
68
-------
to English Bay is under review. At the fourth plant (lona Island), which discharges
primary effluent through an extended outfall to the Strait of Georgia, an assessment of
receiving water impacts is underway. Victoria's Capital Regional District discharges fine
screened raw sewage (using 6 mm screens) through extended outfalls to the Strait of
Juan de Fuca. Communities discharging to marine waters in the Gulf Islands and to the
Strait of Georgia north of Nanaimo are required to have secondary treatment.
Except in the case of Indian Reserves, municipalities do not receive federal funding to
meet the Pollution Control Objectives. They may receive funding from the provincial
government for up to 50 percent of the costs of a sewage treatment plant or 25 percent
of the costs of new or improved sewer systems.
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Alain David Dale Wetter
Municipal Effluent Program Environmental Protection
Environment Canada B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 666-6711 (604) 387-9985
U.S./WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL SEWAGE EFFLUENT CONTROL
Municipal dischargers are regulated by the state Department of Ecology through
permits, as authorized under the federal Clean Water Act. Similar to the technology-
based standards to which industrial dischargers must adhere, municipal discharge
facilities must meet requirements based on level of treatment (i.e. must meet primary
treatment requirements, secondary treatment requirements, etc.) before wastewater can
be discharged.
The federal Clean Water Act requires municipal effluent surface water discharges to
meet secondary treatment standards. These standards are 30 mg/liter of BODS, and 30
mg/liter of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), or 85% removal of the influent concentrations
of BOD and TSS, whichever is more stringent. Generally, to meet these standards,
municipalities use biological treatment of the effluent resulting from primary treatment.
In addition to the removal of at least 85% of the BOD and TSS concentrations, these
biological methods also result in the removal of approximately 75% of metals and a
variable percentage of other toxics from the wastewater (PSWQAa 1986). Tertiary and
advanced treatment remove higher levels of pollutants and nutrients and may be
required for municipal discharges to sensitive waters.
Federal Role:
The Environmental Protection Agency monitors the permit compliance of major
dischargers in the state of Washington. A list of major dischargers is predetermined by
the EPA and Ecology and includes larger municipalities as well as municipalities
discharging to sensitive waters. Although the EPA provides compliance oversight for
these more significant municipal dischargers, Ecology maintains primary responsibility
for their wastewater regulation.
69
-------
To assist in meeting the Clean Water Act's secondary treatment requirement, state and
federal funds have been granted for construction of secondary treatment facilities and
upgrades of existing facilities. The amount of funds available from the federal
government for these construction grants has been reduced substantially in recent years.
Federal monies are received in the form of grants to State Revolving Loan Funds.
State Role:
A municipality that discharges sewage to surface waters requires an NPDES permit from
Ecology. Municipalities that discharge effluent above or below the surface of the land
(i.e. crop fertilization) must have a state waste discharge permit issued by Ecology.
Permits for both types of dischargers must be renewed every five years. Discharge
permits for municipalities generally include limits on BOD, suspended solids, pH, and
fecal coliform. Discharge limits on toxic substances, and requirements to perform
bioassays are gradually being introduced to the municipal discharge permit systems,
beginning with the larger dischargers.
In addition to regulating pollutant levels in the effluent, permits may also include
monitoring requirements, specify the proper maintenance and operation of facilities, and
include conditions for staying within the facility's design capacity. Ecology may also
impose industrial pretreatment requirements upon municipalities.
At the time of permit reapplication, Ecology may decide that the body of water into
which the effluent is being discharged needs additional protection. In such cases, the
discharger may need to achieve higher quality effluent in order to maintain water quality
standards for the water body. Additional treatment may include tertiary treatment,
nutrient removal, or restrictions on toxics like chlorine, ammonia, or heavy metals. In
most cases, effluent discharged to the ground do not have to receive secondary
treatment.
Amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1977 enabled municipalities discharging into
marine waters to apply for five-year waivers from the secondary treatment requirement.
These waivers are rare, and are allowable only if no unacceptable or adverse impacts
exist and a monitoring program must be carried out. Due to the Washington state
requirement that municipalities install "all known, available, and reasonable treatment,"
no waivers in Washington were authorized (PSWQAa 1986). Municipal dischargers
around Puget Sound are expected to come into compliance with the secondary treatment
requirements by early 1994. METRO, the treatment facility for the greater Seattle area,
is expected to comply by December 1995.
Federal Contact: State Contact:
David Ragsdale Ed O'Brien
EPA Washington Operations Office WA Department of Ecology
(206) 434-9080 (206) 438-7037
70
-------
B. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines nonpoint source pollution as
"...pollution...caused by diffuse sources that are not regulated as point sources." The
Washington legislature defines it more specifically as "pollution that enters any waters of
the state from any dispersed water-based or land-use activities, including, but not limited
to, atmospheric deposition, surface water runoff from agricultural lands, urban areas,
and forest lands, subsurface or underground sources, and discharges from boats or other
marine vessels (Ecology 1989)." In both nations, as point sources of pollution are
increasingly controlled, the significance of nonpoint source pollution becomes
increasingly evident.
Washington state addresses nonpoint source pollution on a state-wide level in its
federally required Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Plan and Program. In both
Washington and British Columbia, nonpoint source pollution is managed chiefly through
an approach that includes education, financial and technical assistance, and the voluntary
efforts of polluters. In Washington state, this approach is backed up with an
enforcement program aimed at polluters identified through complaints. In British
Columbia, agricultural runoff can be monitored through voluntary industrial peer groups,
and most runoff can be regulated by the provincial government under the Waste
Management Act and by the federal government under the pollution provisions of the
Fisheries Act.
CANADA/B.C. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL
Nonpoint source pollution in British Columbia is regulated at all levels of government,
under a set of diverse policies which has not been coordinated into one national or
provincial management structure. The Environmental Protection Division of B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks can potentially regulate nonpoint source pollution
through the provision of the Waste Management Act that prevents "the presence of
environmental substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the
usefulness of the environment," but the Ministry has just begun to apply this provision to
nonpoint source management.
Federal Government:
The federal government regulates nonpoint source pollution through the Canadian
Shellfish Sanitation Program and through Sections 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act. The
Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of deleterious substances in any water frequented by
fish or in any place where the deleterious substance or its derivation may enter such
water. Thus, if a nonpoint source of pollution can be traced and it affects fisheries
waters, the violator must make efforts to control the source. This part of the Fisheries
Act is managed by Environment Canada.
Shellfish: The federal government also regulates nonpoint source discharges through the
Shellfish Sanitation Program. This program identifies safe shellfish areas to permit
71
-------
commercial harvesting for the domestic market and for export to the U.S. Under the
program, Environmental Protection of Environment Canada must classify the waters of
shellfish beds and must monitor water quality to prove that the waters comply with the
requirements of the program. As a part of this assessment process, the federal
government identifies nonpoint sources of pollution and seeks to have them mitigated.
A new Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program is currently in final draft form.
Provincial Controls:
Agriculture: The provincial government is taking the lead in controlling nonpoint source
pollution from agriculture sources. In conjunction with the Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is developing the
Agriculture Waste Control Regulation and the Code of Agriculture Practices for Waste
Management. These instruments cover nonpoint sources ranging from animal grazing to
the composting of agricultural wastes, and apply to all agricultural operations. If an
agricultural operator complies with the Code of Agriculture Practices, that operator does
not need a permit or formal approval from the Waste Management Branch of B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks. Otherwise, the permit application will go through the
regular review process and both the federal and provincial government will set criteria
for that activity.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also in the process of writing a set of
guidelines to explain to farmers how to operate in compliance with federal and
provincial regulations. These guidelines make recommendations concerning the storage
and use of agricultural wastes, application and composting of agricultural waste,
agricultural emissions, storage and use of wood waste, on-farm disposal of mortalities,
feeding areas and access to water, and the use and storage of agriculture products. The
guidelines will be commodity-specific and will replace the existing Environmental
Guidelines.
The current guidelines are loosely enforced by self-regulating peer groups which exist for
each sector of the agriculture industry, (i.e. beef, dairy). These volunteer committees
consist of industry members, and give technical advice to agricultural producers that
have had a formal complaint filed by neighbors, the government, or other producers.
This program, known as the Agricultural Environmental Services Program (AES) is
currently being revitalized by the Agricultural Environmental Protection Council
(AEPC) and will be given technical support from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food.
Agricultural producers can receive confidential technical assistance from the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food through a Best Agricultural Waste Management Plan or
a Best Soil Management Plan. The implementation of these plans makes the farmers
eligible for the Agricultural Land Development Assistance Program. Under this
program, producers may receive long-term low-interest loans for on-farm capital
improvements that will contribute to environmentally sound management practices.
72
-------
The Municipal Act of 1979 authorized local governments to pass by-laws concerned with
agricultural or livestock nuisances, to further restrict nonpoint source pollution.
Forestry: Although currently no regulatory framework exists for managing nonpoint
source pollution from forestry practices, a Forest Practices Code encompassing this issue
is being developed. The B.C. Ministry of Forests considers Fish and Wildlife Guidelines
when assessing timber harvest plans and permits, and sends all harvest applications to
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks and Fisheries and Oceans Canada for review.
Urban: Municipalities are responsible for approving or denying zoning and rezoning of
properties, a process during which potential sources of pollution can be identified and
mitigated. When the zoning or rezoning application is along a coastal shoreline,
Environment Canada becomes involved with the referral process. Stormwater runoff
may be addressed by municipalities in their waste management plans, but is not
managed by B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks.
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Dave Walker Ted Haughton
Shellfish Protection B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
Environment Canada (604) 387-9982
(604) 666-3339
Brian Scott
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and
Food
(604) 852-5363
U.S./WASHINGTON NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROLS
In Washington state, agencies at all levels of government from federal to local are
involved in many different facets of nonpoint source pollution control, but pollution
control generally falls under the jurisdiction of state or local governments. The major
federal and state nonpoint source pollution control programs are discussed below.
Federal Efforts:
Section 319 of the 1987 Clean Water Act amendments requires the states to prepare
Non-point Source Assessment Reports and develop Management Programs. These
reports identify sources of nonpoint pollution, inventory water bodies that can not meet
water quality standards without nonpoint source pollution controls, and recommend
management practices to control this type of pollution (Marine Law Institute 1991).
Indian tribes meeting specific criteria in Section 518 of the Clean Water Act may be
treated as states and may develop their own assessment and management programs.
A new federal program that focuses on strengthening the control of nonpoint source
pollution in coastal waters is being developed. This program is administered through
both the Coastal Zone Management Act and Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, and
73
-------
requires states to coordinate state and local water quality plans, as well as "identify land
uses that contribute to coastal water pollution, identify critical coastal areas, implement
management measures necessary to maintain applicable water quality standards, and
provide technical assistance to local governments1' (Marine Law Institute 1991).
The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued a stormwater regulation under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). A draft baseline general
permit is currently being reviewed, and will be used by the Department of Ecology in
drafting a model stormwater discharge permit for the state, to apply to larger
municipalities and industries.
State Efforts:
In 1989, the EPA approved Washington State's Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment
and Management Program, which complies with the Clean Water Act's Section 319
requirements. This four-year Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program draws on
existing state, regional, and local plans, and adopted the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan as the nonpoint source program for Puget Sound (PSWQA 1990b).
Federal funding for the Washington program has chiefly focused on managing
agricultural and timber harvest sources of nonpoint source pollution, although the Puget
Sound Watersheds are also a priority.
In its Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Washington State relies on cost-
effective best management practices (BMPs) to achieve state water quality standards for
specific bodies of water. BMPs are defined as "agronomic, managerial, or technical
controls applied to site-specific problems" (Ecology 1989). If voluntary implementation
of BMPs does not meet this goal, Ecology can require BMP implementation.
The Department of Ecology administers a watershed planning program in the Puget
Sound Basin designed to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution and protect beneficial
uses of the water. As a part of this program, the 12 counties bordering Puget Sound
were required to identify and rank their watersheds in priority order for developing
watershed plans. Local watershed management committees are in the process of
developing plans for the twelve early action watersheds identified (one in each county),
and some implementation of recommendations has begun. Watershed management
committees are comprised of affected and interested parties, and are encouraged to
develop plans which use education, voluntary actions, financial incentives, and technical
assistance, while recognizing the effectiveness of regulation and enforcement on
controlling some sources of nonpoint source pollution (Ecology 1990b). Plans for other
top-ranked watersheds in each county have also begun to be developed by committees.
A handbook for local governments and ranking and management committees outlines
regulations for the watershed management program, and was first distributed in 1989.
The 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan reconfirms a commitment to
the watershed planning process, and it supplements the watershed plans with education
and prevention programs. The plan also develops or enhances state programs or
regulations for those nonpoint sources that are most effectively controlled at the state
74
-------
level (this specifically includes recreational boaters and on-site septic systems) (PSWQA
1990b). Ecology was designated the lead agency in the Puget Sound Plan's nonpoint
source management program, with other federal, state and local agencies, and tribes
responsible for technical assistance to local watershed management committees (Ecology
1989).
Agriculture: BMPs for dairy waste, dryland and irrigated agriculture are identified in the
state's Water Quality Management Program aimed at surface and groundwater
protection. State programs rely on voluntary implementation of BMPs, with
enforcement of water quality standards as a last resort (PSWQA 1990b). Conservation
districts, the Cooperative Extension Service, and the federal Soil Conservation Service
promote farm planning and the use of BMPs by providing technical assistance to farmers
and promote farm planning and the use of BMPs. Agricultural BMPs to protect
groundwater are currently being developed. Some surface water quality BMPs are
currently being reviewed by the Washington Conservation Commission and conservation
districts (PSWQA 1990b).
Forestry: Forest practices BMPs are included in Washington's Forest Practices Rules
and Regulations. They are referenced in the state's Nonpoint Source Management
Program. Some of these BMPs were revised by the Timber Fish and Wildlife
Agreement, a process which involved state agencies, tribes, environmentalists, and the
forest industry, and include voluntary and regulatory tools. Ecology has also developed
memorandums of understanding with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management whereby the agencies agree to meet or exceed state requirements by
implementing BMPs and other nonpoint source management strategies (Ecology 1989).
Urban: Combined sewer overflows (CSO's) are now regulated under NPDES program
with discharges required to meet all applicable requirements. Stormwater discharge
permits will also be required for larger cities (greater than 100,000 people) and
industries (PSWQA 1990b). Local governments play a major role in nonpoint source
pollution control through land-use planning and the enforcement of health regulations
(PSWQA 1986b).
Shellfish: The major thrust of the Department of Ecology's Shellfish Protection Strategy
is basin planning to control nonpoint pollution sources in rural watersheds undergoing
development. The strategy addresses the traditional intertidal oyster and clam fisheries,
the subtidal geoduck and hardshell clam fisheries, and the floating mussel aquaculture
industry. Local governments will implement shellfish protection and closure strategies,
which include identification of nonpoint sources of pollution and implementation of
BMPs (PSWQA 1990b).
Other: Programs addressing on-site sewage disposal systems consist of BMP's and
minimum standards that are enforced through local permit systems. State minimum
standards and/or regulations also address mining, landfills, land application of sewage
sludge, and underground storage tanks and may be enforced through the permit process.
Construction and hydrologic projects are regulated for nonpoint source pollution through
project permits with conditions. BMPs for groundwater protection have never been
75
-------
officially adopted. Boating waste BMPs are currently being developed for Puget Sound
(boating wastes are addressed in more detail in the following section). Pesticide
education programs target commercial and public entities and provide advice on the
proper use and disposal of this nonpoint source of pollution (PSWQA 1990b).
Federal Contact: State Contacts:
Elbert Moore Kathy Minsch
Non-Point Source Section Puget Sound Water Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Authority
(206) 553-4181 (206) 493-9155
Dave Roberts
Non-Point Source Unit
Department of Ecology
(206) 438-7001
C. PLEASURE CRAFT DISCHARGES
Pleasure craft discharges are often considered a form of nonpoint source pollution.
However, because there is no specific category for this form of water pollution, it is
addressed as a separate topic in this report. Sewage discharges from recreational boats
may be a significant source of water pollution in embayed areas, and may be of
transboundary importance around the islands that straddle the international border.
Regulations concerned with recreational boat discharges have been in place in the U.S.
since 1987, and have just begun to be promulgated in Canada. The discharge of sewage
from boats is difficult to regulate and enforce, and in many cases, control relies on
education and voluntary compliance. Washington has recently stepped up efforts to
educate boaters about the harm of discharging untreated sewage into the state's waters,
and has funded projects to make holding tank pump-out stations more accessible in
Puget Sound. British Columbia works closely with the federal agency Transport Canada
to regulate boaters on designated inland water bodies, and intends to make further
designations on both marine and inland waters under the Federal Pleasure Craft Sewage
Pollution Prevention Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act. These Regulations
would be similar to the U.S. Regulations and would require holding tanks on boats in
the designated areas.
CANADA/B.C. PLEASURE CRAFT DISCHARGES
Under its authority to regulate navigable bodies of water, the Canadian federal
government has put forth a set of regulations prohibiting sewage discharges from
recreational boats. However, these regulations apply only to bodies of water specially
designated by the provinces.
76
-------
Federal Role:
Under the Canada Shipping Act, Transport Canada is responsible for pollution control
from pleasure and non-pleasure watercraft. This federal department has recently put
forth two sets of regulations known as the Nonpleasure Craft Sewage Pollution
Prevention Regulations and the Pleasure Craft Sewage Pollution Prevention Regulations.
These regulations became law in November 1991.
The regulations pertaining to pleasure craft state that all recreational boats with toilets
operating in waters designated by the province must have holding tanks. Operators of
the craft must prohibit the discharge of sewage while a vessel is in designated waters.
Violators may be fined heavily (maximum of $250,000). Commercial craft do not have
to have holding tanks, but are not allowed to discharge into the designated waters.
Under the new regulations of the Canada Shipping Act, the provincial governments
determine the bodies of water to which the regulations should apply. Thus, if a province
chooses not to "determine" any waterbodies, then the regulations essentially do not exist
for that province. Any body of water designated by the province is protected under both
the pleasure craft and nonpleasure craft regulations.
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks has nominated three freshwater bodies (Okanagan,
Mara, and Shuswap Lakes) for the regulation. New boats on these lakes must comply
with the regulations by December 31, 1991, while existing boats have until the end of
1992 to obtain holding tanks.
Provincial Role:
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks is reviewing other bodies of water for inclusion in
the new regulations. Public involvement will be included in the designation process.
Environmentally sensitive areas in marine waters may be designated, but it is not likely
that the regulations will apply to entire bodies of marine waters.
Neither the federal nor provincial governments have embarked on boater education
campaigns. There are no plans to share the cost of complying with these new
regulations with boaters or marinas. Pump-out facilities are limited in number in British
Columbia, but will increase with the demand for such facilities as a result of further
designations.
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Bruce Kay Dale Wetter
Environment Canada Municipal Liquid and Industrial
(604) 666-2736 Waste Branch
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 387-9985
77
-------
U.S./WASHINGTON PLEASURE CRAFT DISCHARGES
The Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Coast Guard the authority to enforce regulations
prohibiting pleasure craft discharges in navigable waters of Washington. Education and
increased availability of convenient pump-out facilities have been pursued by both the
state and federal government to increase voluntary compliance with the regulations.
Federal Efforts:
One goal of the 1987 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was to
entirely eliminate the direct discharge of untreated sewage from watercraft. Section 312
of the Clean Water Act addresses this issue. The EPA promulgated regulations
requiring the use of permanently installed marine sanitation devices (MSDs) on boats
less than 65 feet in length equipped with marine toilets. The MSD's are designed either
to treat sewage prior to overboard discharge or to hold the sewage on board for shore-
based disposal. These regulations apply to federally designated navigable waters, and
discharges are not permitted within three miles of shore. The Coast Guard enforces
these regulations (Ecology 1991), but does not regularly inspect recreational boats as it
does commercial craft.
Many recreational boaters tend to discharge their holding-tank contents into marine and
freshwater, rather than go through the pump-out procedures at stationary or fixed pump
stations. At this time however, pump out facilities are not available in most Washington
waters. To address this issue, the EPA and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority have
jointly sponsored the development of a portable pump out system for boaters. Known as
the New Moon Project, Honey Wagon Portable Pumpout system, this system should
make the responsible discharge of boating wastes easier. The system is currently being
tested around Puget Sound.
Other State Efforts:
Under the state's Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Program, the
Department of Health will draft a model ordinance requiring sewer hookups or other
means of sewage disposal for live-aboards at public and private marinas. Local
governments will be encouraged, not required, to adopt the ordinance.
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has distributed state grant
money for the installation of pumpouts and dump stations at public and private marinas.
A two-year educational effort by the Commission will, among other things, encourage
the use of MSD's, discourage anchoring near shellfish areas, and provide information on
environmentally sound boat maintenance practices. The effort will also warn boaters of
the potential for anchorage prohibitions if the program is unsuccessful in achieving water
quality and shellfish standards in boating areas.
78
-------
Federal Contact: State Contacts:
Jerry Larrance Jim French
Office of Coastal Waters State Parks and Recreation Commission
U.S. E.P.A. (206) 586-2166
(206) 553-2581
D. OIL SPILL RESPONSE
Oil spill preparedness and response is one transboundary environmental issue that
British Columbia and Washington have formally addressed through cooperative
agreements and task forces. The two federal governments have also tackled the issue
through international contingency planning. Both the province and the state have formal
agreements with their respective federal governments concerning the roles of each
agency during a spill event, and have defined their roles in preparing for such a spill.
The U.S. Congress and Washington state have taken extra steps in legislating for oil spill
prevention.
Because B.C. and Washington have worked together to resolve this transboundary
pollution issue, this section specifically discusses joint response efforts in addition to
summarizing the individual responses of B.C. and Washington.
CANADA/ B.C. OIL SPILL RESPONSE
The province of British Columbia protects and manages provincial Crown lands. These
include all land between the high and low water mark (foreshore), the seabed of the
Strait of Georgia, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Queen Charlotte Sound-Johnstone Strait.
The province also manages the coastal seabed between major headlands, except for
Indian Reserves, National Parks, Ports, and all other federal lands, works and
undertakings, or unless the land is privately owned (B.C. Env. 1990). The Canadian
government is responsible for protecting federal marine resources. Spills from ships are
primarily regulated under the pollution provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. Non-
ship source spills which may impact federal marine resources are primarily controlled
under the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act. Regulations pursuant to the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods
Act also afford the aquatic environment federal protection from spill pollution.
To facilitate spill management and clarify responsibilities between the two levels of
government, Environment Canada and the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks became signatories of a "Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and
British Columbia concerning Federal/Provincial Responsibilities in Oil and Hazardous
Materials Spills" in 1981. This agreement is currently under review.
79
-------
Federal Response:
Under the Memorandum of Understanding, a federal agency currently takes the lead for
the following types of spills:
Circumstance Lead Agency
from ships Canadian Coast Guard
from federal facilities (or from any Environment Canada
source to such facilities)
of unknown origin in or to marine waters Environment Canada
from land-based facilities to marine waters Environment Canada
spills from any origin that threaten to Canadian Coast Guard
cross the Canada/U.S. boundary waters.
inland transboundary spills Environment Canada
Most ship-borne spills in marine waters are managed by the Canadian Coast Guard,
while land-based spills into marine waters are primarily the jurisdiction of Environment
Canada. During significant spills which may impact many stakeholders, Environment
Canada chairs and coordinates the Regional Environmental Emergency Team (REET).
The REET membership varies with each spill but is typically comprised of
representatives from pertinent federal Departments and provincial Ministries. REET
meetings provide forums in which multi-disciplinary environmental concerns can be
tabled and addressed. The REET chairman then provides the On Scene Commander
(OSC) with environmental advice and concerns.
Provincial Response:
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks is the lead provincial ministry for planning and
response to marine oil spills. In consultation with federal agencies, the Ministry may
take on-scene command of any spill that exceeds the capability of the polluter or when it
is in the provincial interest to take action. In cooperation with the federal government,
the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks may also take on-scene command when a
polluter is not known, unable to respond, or has no contingency plan to guide its efforts.
For the most part, however, unless provincial resources are threatened, the federal
government plays the lead role in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding.
In 1990, B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks drew up a Marine Oil Spill Preparedness
and Response Strategy. In response to this strategy, three marine oil spill response
teams now exist (for the North Coast, Vancouver Island, and Lower Mainland).
Response by these teams is guided by a B.C. Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan. B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks also maps identified provincial Crown resources
(archaeological, ecological, cultural etc.) and sets priorities for their protection and
clean-up. Most of the "high risk" areas of the coast have been videotaped by helicopter.
An "Oil Spill Response Atlas" for the southern coast of Vancouver Island has also been
prepared to guide response actions. The province is now focusing its inventory efforts
on the Gulf Islands.
80
-------
According to the Provincial Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy, the province also plans
to provide training programs designed to establish community-based marine oil spill
auxiliaries. In consultation with and with the participation of federal agencies, B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks will establish and maintain a training program in oil spill
response for provincial staff, including field manuals, regular oil spill drills, public
communication and education. During oil spills, the Ministry's Regional Oil Spill
Response Team will conduct pretreatment surveys of affected shorelines in order to set
treatment priorities, develop treatment recommendations, and evaluate post-treatment
conditions.
Comprehensive, computerized inventory of oil spill response equipment stored and
maintained by Canadian industry, international agencies, the Canadian Coast Guard, and
local governments will be maintained and developed in cooperation with federal
agencies and members of the State/B.C. Task force.
Federal Contact:
Colin Wyckes
Environmental Emergencies Branch
Environment Canada
(604) 666-6100
Provincial Contact:
Director
Environmental Emergency Services
Branch
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 356-9302
U.S./WASHINGTON OIL SPILL RESPONSE
As in British Columbia, oil spill prevention and response are addressed at both the
federal and state levels in Washington. The National Contingency Plan describes the
roles of the different federal agencies. State and federal government jurisdiction is
partially defined in the state's contingency plan and in the federally required Regional
Contingency Plans, which address marine oil spill response within regions of the country.
Pollution prevention regulations are encompassed primarily in the U.S. Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 and Washington's 1991 Oil Spill Prevention Act.
Federal Response:
The federal Clean Water Act requires the establishment of a National Contingency Plan
for oil spills. This contingency plan covers federal and state responsibilities, planning
functions, cleanup procedures, administrative procedures, damage assessment,
interagency coordination, and other response issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard co-chair the national response team, which consists of
representatives from fourteen federal agencies (PSWQA 1990a).
The National Contingency Plan requires the preparation of regional contingency plans to
"describe more precisely the response functions and roles of federal, state, and local
agencies within a geographical area" (PSWQA 1990a). Washington, Idaho, and Oregon
make up Region Ten, while Alaska comprises its own region. Like the national
81
-------
response teams, the regional response teams are also co-chaired by the EPA and Coast
Guard, and have twelve federal members and one representative from each of the three
states.
The regional response team must prepare and maintain the contingency plan to identify
the roles and responsibilities of agencies during spills of oil and hazardous substances.
Working in committees, the response team develops response plans and guidelines,
provides training and conducts spill exercises, reviews spill response efforts to identify
and resolve response problems, and coordinates issues with state and local governments
(PSWQA 1990a). In addition to regional response plans, the lead federal agency (the
Coast Guard or EPA as described below) may also develop local response plans for
specific areas, such as Puget Sound or the Columbia River.
An On Scene Coordinator (OSC) serves as the lead federal official for each spill and is
responsible for coordinating all spill response activities. The Coast Guard is usually the
OSC for the coastal zone (including Puget Sound) and the EPA for the inland zone.
During major spills in Washington, the Department of Ecology shares a joint command
with the federal OSC and the responsible party, but (according to the U.S. Oil Pollution
Act) the lead federal agency is ultimately responsible for directing clean-up activities.
The federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also requires that spill response plans be prepared
for tank vessels, offshore facilities, and some onshore facilities. The Act includes
provisions for the prevention of oil spills through double hulled tank vessel requirements
and regulations concerned with communication equipment, driver licensing, and
personnel training (OPA 1990).
State Response:
As a member of the Regional Response Team, the state participates in response
planning for the region. During a spill, the state's role is to alert downstream users of
spills that threaten water uses, notify other state and local agencies, select disposal sites,
provide for the security of all on-scene forces and equipment, assist EPA with risk
assessment, help the Interior Department with wildlife rescue, and provide input on
waste disposal priorities and decisions to use chemical dispersants (RRT 1991).
Although the state does have some spill response equipment, its chief role is assisting in
planning and developing priorities. In the case of small spills, responsibility for clean-
up can be delegated by the federal agencies to the state.
The Department of Ecology is the lead agency under state law for managing spill
response and preparing and revising the state contingency plan for oil and hazardous
substances (PSWQA 1990a). In a statewide Master Plan, Ecology identifies each
agency's role in oil spill response, and discusses the role of the Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Team. This team consists of various resource agency
representatives who assess and assign a dollar amount to spill-related resource damages
and determine where the money for restoration should be spent. This task is aided by
the establishment of environmental sensitivity maps, much like those in British
Columbia.
82
-------
Under the state's 1991 Oil Spill Prevention Act, many types of facilities and vessels that
ship and handle oil must prepare detailed spill prevention plans in addition to the
contingency plans required by the 1990 state legislation. With the 1991 Act, the
Washington legislature also created the Office of Marine Safety, to be responsible for
prevention and response planning for all vessels.
The state's Oil Spill Prevention Act incorporates and recodifies the state's existing oil
spill statutes. Among other things, it authorizes studies on vessel safety standards, and
the transportation of hazardous substances. It regulates pilotage requirements for
vessels entering Puget Sound, directs the establishment of an emergency response system
for the Strait of San Juan de Fuca, and places a five cent barrel tax on oil shipped into
Washington. The proceeds from this tax will be used to finance a $25 million oil spill
response fund as well as administration of the new statute. In addition to the money
raised through this tax, the state is eligible for some federal reimbursement from the
national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Trust Fund may assist the state in paying
for oil spill response and natural resource damage assessment and restoration.
In all cases, the "spiller is responsible for immediately collecting and recovering the
maximum feasible amount of oil spilled" (RRT 1991). The federal Oil Pollution Act
states that federal liability limits do not preempt state limits, and that state liability can
be unlimited. While state and federal governments may both seek civil penalties for
water quality violations, generally only one will proceed with criminal action, often based
on the most severe available penalties (PSWQA 1990).
Federal Contact: State Contact:
Jim Everts Paul Heimowitz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Department of Ecology
(206) 553-1196 (206) 459-6852
OIL SPILL RESPONSE, JOINT EFFORTS
Those spills that cross inland boundary waters are managed by Environment Canada and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Canada-United States Joint
Pollution Contingency Plan (1985). For those spills that cross international marine
waters, the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards respond according to the Canada/U.S.
Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan.
When the spill is from an unknown source or a vessel, the co-chairs of the Joint
Response Team for the Marine Pollution Contingency Plan are the senior U.S. Coast
Guard representative (in Region Ten the co-chair of the Regional Response Team) and
the Regional Marine Emergency Officer of the Canadian Coast Guard. When the spill
is from a shore-based source to marine waters, the Canadian chairperson is usually the
Regional Emergency Coordinator of Environment Canada's Environment Protection
(PSWQA 1990a).
83
-------
Through the BC/States Oil Spill Memorandum of Cooperation, British Columbia,
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California are working to improve transboundary
response and information sharing regarding oil spills. The Oil Spill Task Force meets
annually to report on events of mutual benefit in oil spill preparedness, prevention, and
response. The signatories of this memorandum also agree to share equipment,
coordinate wildlife rescue, set up command posts, and help facilitate communication in
the event of a major oil spill. Task Force subcommittees recommend and implement
actions related to oil spill prevention, emergency response, financial recovery, technology
sharing and risk assessment (Task Force 1990). The activities of the Task Force should
occur within the framework of the Canada-U.S.A. Joint Marine Pollution Contingency
Plan.
E. DREDGING
Dredging is important to the economic well-being of many water-uses, including
waterborne transportation and recreation, but can contribute to the degradation of water
quality through the disturbance of contaminated sediments, increased water turbidity,
reduced dissolved oxygen levels, and the destruction of aquatic habitat. Dredging
activities are regulated in both British Columbia and Washington through established
review processes and agency assessments. In British Columbia the federal government
plays a dominant role, while in Washington, different agencies have different permitting
and review requirements for dredging activities. Dredging proposals in the Fraser River
Estuary and Burrard Inlet undergo a single coordinated review process, unlike
counterpart proposals in other parts of the Province. In Washington, coordinated review
processes for dredging proposals do not formally exist.
CANADA/B.C. DREDGING
More than half of the dredging in British Columbia occurs in the Fraser River (due to
the river's sediment carrying capacity), but some dredging activities occur in the
province's other major harbors and industrial sites. Dredging activities are primarily a
federal responsibility, in response to marine navigation needs. Provincial ministries
provide comments during the review process.
Federal Responsibilities:
The Canada Shipping Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act, administered by the
Canadian Coast Guard (a component of Transport Canada) are the prime regulatory
means for protecting marine navigation. The Canadian Coast Guard, Waterways
Development Group has overall responsibility for maintenance of commercial navigation
channels and approaches. Outside the boundaries of commercially navigable waters, the
federal Harbor Commissions maintain berths and mooring areas. The Small Craft
Harbors Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada maintains designated approaches and
harbors for commercial fishing fleets and recreational boaters.
84
-------
These three federal entities do not dredge waterways themselves. The Harbor
Commissions typically contract the jobs out to private dredging operations, while the
federal departments contract with Public Works Canada. Public Works may perform the
operation, or may in turn contract out to a private operation.
Any proposed dredging operation on the Fraser River must have the approval of the
habitat management arm of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), which implements the
Fraser River Dredging Guidelines. These guidelines seek to minimize conflict with the
river's fisheries resources by regulating timing, location, equipment, and disposal of
dredged material. An approval for dredging may be issued provided that a proposal has
been approved by DFO pursuant to the Fisheries Act and the no net loss guiding
principle of the Fish Habitat Management Policy (DFO 1986).
The guidelines apply to dredging within navigable channels. Outside of the channels,
restrictions are applied on a site-specific basis. The disposal of dredged material in the
area of the river subject to tidal influence requires approval by Environment Canada
and Fisheries and Oceans Canada under the Ocean Dumping Regulations of the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (see Section F, Ocean Dumping).
Every dredging project must go through the Environmental Assessment and Review
Process, a screening process whereby a federal agency can assure itself that a project
complies with legislation and guidelines and includes adequate mitigative measures.
Dredging within the Fraser River must also go through the Fraser River Estuary
Management Program (FREMP, discussed in Section H) permit review process,
coordinated by the Environmental Review Committee made up of Environment Canada,
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands
and Parks. (FREMP 1991)
Provincial Responsibilities:
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks participates in the FREMP review process and
offers comments on proposed dredging projects. In areas outside of designated federal
harbors, the province is deemed to be the owner of the channel bed and concurrence for
dredging must be obtained from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks as well
as from federal regulatory agencies.
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Fred Stepchuk Region 2,
Canadian Coast Guard Brian Clark
Transport Canada B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 631-3792 (604) 584-8822
85
-------
U.S./WASHINGTON DREDGING
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency make final
permitting decisions regarding whether a dredging activity can occur. Several state laws
and codes regulate dredging activities to protect coastal zones, fisheries, aquatic habitat,
and water quality. Some facets of the permit approval process are coordinated among
agencies. This section applies only to the actual dredging process, disposal of dredged
material is discussed in the following Section.
Federal Role:
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 gives the federal government authority
to regulate dredging activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for
dredging federally authorized navigation projects, while responsibility for dredging of
ports and private marinas varies. In all cases, private and public (non-Corps) dredging
activities require a Section 10 permit from the Army Corps. Permit applications are
typically for a combined Section 10 and Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) openwater
disposal permit.
During permit review, the Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
consider whether the dredging activity might affect cultural, natural, or recreational
resources. Reviewers also consider federal laws such as the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act and the Migratory Bird Act. A public interest review process for both
dredging and disposal provides a means for public comment, which is taken into account
in the final permitting decision. Other federal and state agencies also provide comment
for the final decision.
State Role:
All dredging activities that occur within the high water marks of state waters that
contain anadromous fish species must receive a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from
the Washington State Department of Fisheries (the Department of Wildlife issues
permits jfor dredging in other waters). The Hydraulic Code Rules, from which the
Department of Fisheries acquires its mandate to issue approvals, state that "A hydraulic
project approval will be denied when...the project is directly or indirectly harmful to fish
life unless adequate protection, mitigation, or restoration can be assured by conditioning
the approval or altering the proposal (PSWQA 1990c)."
Most project proponents must also go through the state's environmental review process,
and obtain a water quality variance from the regional office of the Department of
Ecology. This variance gives the dredger permission to violate water quality criteria for
a specified period of time, in a specified dilution zone, and typically refers to water
turbidity and dissolved oxygen levels which the proponent may not violate.
Under the Shoreline Management Act, most county Master Plans define dredging and
delineate what types of dredging activities are acceptable. In many cases, if a proposed
86
-------
dredging project occurs in waters identified in a county's master plan, the proponent
must obtain a shoreline permit the state Department of Ecology.
Federal Contact: State Contact:
Dave Kendall . Duane Phinney
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Department of Fisheries
(206) 764-3768 (206) 753-6650
John Malek
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(206) 553-1286
F. OCEAN DUMPING/ DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
The disposal of materials into marine waters is known as "ocean dumping" in British
Columbia and as "dredged material disposal" in Washington. In both the state and the
province, dredged materials (mostly sediments) are the primary component of the total
substances disposed. The disposal of materials into ocean waters is of concern to
environmental managers on both sides of the border. These managers evaluate the
types of substances dumped, the effects of this dumping on living resources and water
quality, and the dispersal rates. Open-water disposal, if not managed carefully, may
pose a threat to marine life and aquatic habitats.
In British Columbia, ocean dumping is regulated by the federal government, with some
provincial input. In Washington, the federal government has prime responsibility for
disposal sites in national ocean waters, while different levels of government share
responsibility for disposal sites in inland waters.
CANADA/B.C. OCEAN DUMPING
In British Columbia, Ocean Dumping is regulated and monitored by the federal
government, through Environment Canada. The Province plays a minor role in
reviewing ocean dumping permits, but does not typically play an active role in regulating
ocean dumping.
Federal Role:
The regulatory authority for ocean dumping is given to the federal government by
Section VI of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), which encompasses
most of the nation's major ocean dumping rules. Within Environment Canada,
Environmental Protection regulates ocean dumping off the shores of Canada, as well as
the dumping into international waters of any materials derived in Canada. Most
disposals off the coast of British Columbia consist of dredged materials from the Fraser
River channel and harbor maintenance, as well as woodwastes and sediments from forest
industry operations (mills, log storage, and sorting areas). Disposal of materials into
87
-------
Figure 11:
Ocean Dump Sites in Southern British Columbia
ro
_ KIITHH coLuxait
,£^3'" wisMIIWTON
1" 92 MILE l_ *
<«*l«O'Mil»7*OOOmJ
-------
marine waters is regulated through permits, the conditions and terms of which vary with
the substances being dumped. Some disposal operations regulated in other federal,
provincial and municipal legislation (such as ship and municipal waste discharges) are
exempt from the Ocean Dumping Section of CEPA.
Under Section VI of CEPA, the Environment Minister permits dumping at sea only in
cases where the disposal of the substances both meets the regulatory requirements and is
the environmentally preferable and practical alternative. Decisions to permit and permit
requirements are made on a case-by-case basis, and depend partially upon the toxicity
and type of material being dumped.
Substances which present major bioaccumulation, toxicity, and persistence problems to
human health and the aquatic environment are listed in Schedule III, Part I of CEPA.
The dumping of Part I substances is heavily regulated with very stringent numerical
limits, and in most cases is prohibited.
Schedule III, Part II substances are those which might pose serious hazards when
disposed. Existing guidelines define environmentally significant amounts of the
substance. These materials may be dumped only in small quantities.
Schedule HI, Part HI of CEPA describes those factors which must be considered in
reviewing all permit applications. These factors encompass the characteristics and
composition of the substance and the characteristics of the dumping site and method of
deposit.
Permit applications are first submitted to Environmental Protection, which refers
applications to the relevant federal and provincial departments and port authorities.
Comments from the referrals are submitted to the Regional Ocean Dumping Advisory
Committee, comprised of two representatives from Fisheries and Oceans and chaired by
a representative from Environment Canada. This committee compiles the comments
into one recommendation, either for approval to issue a permit for all or part of the
project or denial of the application, and presents the recommendation to the Minister of
the Environment.
Once the material has been approved for open water disposal, Environmental Protection
typically authorizes it to be deposited at the designated site closest to the disposer, in
order to minimize transportation costs. This results in certain sites, such as those near
the mouth of the Fraser River, being used more extensively than others. Active dump
sites in southern British Columbia are shown in Figure 11. Five dumpsites not shown
are located in the northern part of the Province, but these are seldom used. Those sites
used most frequently are Point Grey and Sandheads (which receives most of the
maintenance dredging materials from the Fraser River). Environment Canada routinely
carries out a program of monitoring and impact assessment of ocean dumping activities.
89
-------
Provincial Role:
Although the province is responsible for the beds of inland coastal waters, it does not
play a major role in regulating ocean dumping in such waters. The Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks receives permit referrals from Environment Canada, and
makes an effort to point out permitted discharges and/or nonpoint problems in areas to
be dredged.
Federal Contact:
Duane Brothers
Ocean Dumping Control Program
Environment Canada
(604) 666-2990
Provincial Contact:
Laura Hensel
Environmental Monitoring
Region 2
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 584-8822
U.S./WASHINGTON DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
In Washington, the term "dredged material disposal" replaces the Canadian phrase
"ocean dumping" and includes the disposal of materials in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor,
Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River, as well as in the ocean. The disposal of dredged
material is regulated under the federal Ocean Dumping Act and the Clean Water Act.
In Puget Sound, disposal is monitored and evaluated under the Puget Sound Dredged
Disposal Analysis, which is implemented through the cooperative efforts of two state and
two federal agencies. Disposal sites in Puget Sound are shown in Figure 12.
Federal Role:
Ocean dumping is regulated in the United States under Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act) and under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act
regulates the disposal of dredged materials into "ocean waters" (national and state
waters). Section 404 requirements typically refer to disposal of dredged material into
state waters or intertidal lands. There is some overlap in jurisdiction between these two
federal laws, and in such cases the purpose of the disposal determines which law is
followed.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed and promulgated criteria
(under Section 103) and guidelines (under Section 404) with which dredged materials
must comply before a permit can be issued. The requirements of both laws are similar,
although not identical. In 1991 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA
released the Green Book, a national manual that provides guidance for the testing of
dredged material proposed for disposal in ocean waters. The two federal agencies are
currently developing a companion manual for Section 404 waters. Materials disposed of
in Puget Sound must comply with the requirements of PSDDA (discussed below), which
must comply with the national guidance.
90
-------
Belllngham Bay
Rosario Straits
Non-dispersive Site
A Dispersive Site
Port Gardner
Anderson/Ketron Island
Figure 12:
Locations of Openwater Disposal Sites in Puget Sound
-------
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the federal permitting authority for ocean
dumping, but the EPA independently reviews and comments on proposed dredged
material disposal projects. Under Section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act, the EPA
must concur before the Corps issues a permit or waiver. The EPA also has final veto
authority over Section 404 permit applications approved by the Corps. This Section 404
veto authority has been used nationally to protect wetlands, but in the Pacific Northwest
the EPA has seldom had to use its veto authority.
Public notice (and opportunity for comment) is required as part of the Corps' regulatory
process. Comments are requested from interested parties and relevant agencies. The
public can also provide comment on overall disposal practices through public Annual
Review Meetings under PSDDA (see below), but at these meetings the public does not
have the opportunity to comment on individual PSDDA permits. Regardless of whether
the disposal is to occur in state or national waters, compliance monitoring (inspection
during actual dredging and disposal) and site management monitoring can be required
of the permit applicant. The EPA and Corps have primary responsibility for site
management, although state agencies may take the lead in Section 404 Waters.
State Role:
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Department of Ecology certifies that a
proposed discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of state and federal water
quality law. The 401 certification is mandatory for Section 404 waters (state and inland)
but not usually required for disposal sites in the open ocean. State waters extend three
miles into the open ocean.
In addition to the federal laws mentioned above, disposal off the coast of Washington
must comply with the requirements of the state's Shoreline Management Act,
administered by the Department of Ecology. According to the Act, a proposed disposal
site along state shores requires a shoreline permit from the local government. This
permit is approved or rejected by Ecology. In Puget Sound, the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) manages state-owned tidelands and bedlands, including the dredged
materials disposal sites, and issues permits to each disposal site user in state waters. In
the Sound DNR is responsible for ensuring that disposal sites and disposers are in
compliance with the Shoreline Management Act, through the PSDDA process.
Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA):
PSDDA was created in 1985 as a joint effort of the Corps of Engineers, EPA Region 10,
and the state departments of Natural Resources and Ecology. The purpose of the
project was to identify acceptable disposal sites, define evaluation procedures for
materials to be placed at those sites, and to formulate site-use management plans (Tilley
et al 1987). The planning effort was completed and implementation began in 1989. The
program applies to all open-water dredged material disposal within Puget Sound.
The PSDDA agencies identified eight PSDDA sites in Puget Sound, and developed
disposal criteria drawing on the criteria and guidelines promulgated by the EPA under
92
-------
the two federal laws. The PSDDA evaluation process consists of four tiers, including
biological testing and chemical analyses of dredged sediments. Once a material has
been tested and determined to be suitable for disposal, a Determination of Suitability is
signed by the four PSDDA agencies (EPA, Corps, Ecology, DNR). The public notice is
then released.
Under PSDDA, the Corps and DNR are the lead agencies for inspecting disposal
operations and performing long-term monitoring and management of the site. The
Corps typically monitors the physical attributes of the site while DNR is responsible for
the chemical and biological monitoring.
Federal Contact:
John Malek
Water Resources Assessment
Environmental Protection Agency
(206) 553-1286
PSDDA Contact:
Gene Revelas
Division of Aquatic Lands
Department of Natural Resources
(206) 586-2893
G. WETLANDS PROTECTION
Both Canada and the U.S. recognize the ecological, economic, and aesthetic importance
of wetlands. Canada's Green Plan summarizes these values: "Canada's wetlands form an
important part of our landscapes and harbor perhaps the richest mix of wildlife of any
group of complex ecosystems in the country. In addition, wetlands are an integral part
of our freshwater systems, providing a range of benefits to Canadians, including natural
flood control, water cleansing, and groundwater recharge." Wetlands protection may be
significant to transboundary concerns as they affect water quality and may influence the
abundance and health of shared living resources.
Even with this realization, wetlands in British Columbia and Washington are protected
by an uncoordinated array of federal, state and provincial policies, none of which are
strictly dedicated to wetlands protection. The Puget Sound Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan, also known at the state level as the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management. Plan (see Section H, Estuary Management Programs), seeks to coordinate
protective policies in the Puget Sound region and to encourage local governments to
adopt protective ordinances, but no comprehensive program exists for the entire state.
B.C. and Washington protect wetlands primarily through land protection, permit reviews,
water quality control, and land-use policies.
In Washington, both federal and state agencies have been ordered to consider wetlands
protection in all programs and policies. Through the Green Plan, Canada is also moving
in this direction. Both B.C. and Washington have intensively inventoried their coastal
wetlands resources. While the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan
recommends, and Ecology has initiated, a wetlands monitoring program to determine
rates of decline or increase, no such monitoring program exists in British Columbia.
Both sides of the border lack unified (among agencies or reports) definitions of what the
term "wetlands" encompasses.
93
-------
CANADA/B.C. WETLANDS PROTECTION
A commonly used Canadian definition of wetlands is "lands that have the water table at,
near or above the land surface or which are saturated for a long enough period to
promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by hydric soils, hydrophilic vegetation
and various kinds of biological activity which are adapted to the wet environment" (Pilon
and Kerr 1984). Wetlands in British Columbia can be protected by both the federal
government and the province, although neither level of government yet has a formal
wetlands policy.
Federal Protection:
The Government of Canada is currently developing a Federal Policy on Wetland
Conservation. Elements of this policy will include "a system of secured wetlands of
national importance; protection of wetlands on federal lands such as national parks,
national wildlife areas and National Capital Commission lands; and wetland conservation
as a fundamental goal of all federal land-use decisions." Currently, however, federal
protection of wetlands fits into a number of different laws and regulations.
Under the auspices of migratory bird protection, the Canadian Wildlife Service of
Environment Canada can protect waters frequented by migratory birds and can
purchase, acquire, or lease lands for migratory bird research, conservation, and
interpretation. The Pacific Coast Joint Venture, an element of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan covering B.C., Washington, Oregon, and northern
California, authorizes the federal and provincial government to save and protect
wetlands for migratory birds and other wildlife. Participants in the venture, who include
the Canadian Wildlife Service, B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks, various
nongovernmental organizations, and forestry, agricultural, and municipal interests, are
currently developing a five year plan to identify significant wetlands and earmark money
for land acquisitions, transfers, and cooperative agreements with landowners.
The Fisheries Act is the strongest existing legislative mandate for wetlands protection in
the province. This Act gives the federal government jurisdiction over wetlands
protection through its emphasis on preserving fish habitat, but protection applies only to
those wetlands that serve as fish habitat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has a
Fish Habitat Management Policy with a guiding principle of no net loss of the
productive capacity of fish habitat, and an overall goal of net gain of fish habitat. Under
the Policy, DFO reviews any development permit application that might affect habitat.
Based on the Fish Habitat Management Policy's stated hierarchy of preferences, in
sensitive areas DFO may require project relocation, can recommend mitigative actions,
or request changes be made in the project design so that wetlands are adequately
protected (DFO 1986).
In addition to protecting fisheries through permit review, the federal government also
reviews applications for proposed projects that affect navigable waters. The current
94
-------
federal environmental review process requires that any project needing any type of
federal input must go through the entire formalized process. This requirement gives the
federal government a large role in the assessment of development projects that may
affect ecologically significant lands.
Provincial Protection:
Through the Wildlife Act, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is authorized
to create Wildlife Management Areas and to work with other agencies and
nongovernmental organizations to increase the availability of wildlife habitat through
restoration, enhancement, and protection. Such programs rely upon government
encouragement .and adequate funding, and have been pursued in a largely ad hoc
manner.
B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks, can assist in the protection of wetlands in a number
of ways. Because this Ministry has jurisdiction over foreshore lands, most waterfront
development needs a permit from this Ministry. Depending upon the magnitude of the
project, the agency refers permit applications to other relevant federal and provincial
agencies for comment.
Through an "order-in-council," B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks can designate an
area as having special ecological value. Under the Land Act, the Ministry can transfer
these ecologically significant lands to other agencies for management. The Act supports
provisions for a variety of reserves and designations which can be used to identify
sensitive lands. The Ministry might also denote map-reserves (reserves drawn on a map
but not actually developed) for temporary protection of a wetland, or use short- and
long-term notations-of-interest to signify a potential stake in specific areas by another
agency (Day 1990).
Under the Ecological Reserve Act, public lands with special ecological values may be
designated and protected as Ecological Reserves. Restrictive covenants can also be used
in specific situations to protect lands from potentially adverse development. Special
interest groups, such as the Nature Trust, often purchase environmentally sensitive lands
as a means of ensuring they will remain in their natural state.
Under the B.C. Water Act, any development in almost any water body must be
approved by the Water Management Division of B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks. If
an individual wants to develop private property, then he or she goes through the
municipal approval process. Some municipalities, though not all, refer the applications
to relevant federal and provincial agencies for comment.
Any permit applications for activities that might adversely impact habitat within the
Fraser River Estuary go through the Fraser River Estuary Management Plan (FREMP)
Environmental Review Committee. This committee consists of members from port
authorities and a variety of federal, provincial, and municipal agencies, and serves to
coordinate the review process for specific projects.
95
-------
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Jerry Townsend Jack Evans
Canadian Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist
Environment Canada B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 946-8546 (604) 584-8822
U.S./WASHINGTON WETLANDS PROTECTION
Regulated wetlands have been defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions" (PSWQA 1990b). This definition generally includes swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas; wetlands created for mitigation and those modified for
approved land use activities; and ponds under twenty acres including their submerged
aquatic beds (PSWQA 1990b).
Several laws passed in Washington and the U.S. over the last 20 years have resulted in
programs regulating protection of virtually all estuarine wetlands and some freshwater
wetlands, but there is no single, comprehensive state-wide legislation that specifically
addresses the management, restoration, and protection of wetlands in Washington.
Despite the myriad of protective policies, the Department of Ecology estimates that
between 700 and 2,050 acres of wetlands are lost each year throughout the state, and
that more than half of the wetlands along the coasts and riverbanks of Puget Sound have
been destroyed by human activity (PSWQA 1990b). These continued losses may be due
to the fact that the laws are not comprehensive, giving only partial or piece-meal benefit.
Under many of the laws, wetlands protection is discretionary rather than mandatory, and
programs may be under-funded and uncoordinated among different levels of government
(PSWQA 1990b).
Federal Protection Efforts:
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, mandates that federal agencies must
protect, preserve, and enhance wetland habitats. Although Executive Orders state the
policy promoted by the President (or the Governor, in the case of a state Executive
Order) this policy must be implemented along with the conservation/development
policies of each agency, and may only be as strong as the will of the agency managers
(PSWQA 1986c). Through the National Environmental Policy Act, however, federal
activities are reviewed for their impacts on natural resources, including wetlands.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly implement a permit program that
regulates the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. Permit applications are evaluated by substantive environmental criteria,
known as Section 404(b)(l) guidelines, and the EPA has the ability to veto permits that
would result in significant environmental damage (EPA 1988).
96
-------
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) acquires migratory waterfowl habitat (i.e.
wetlands) for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Through the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act, the USFWS participates in a Pacific Flyway Joint Venture to
acquire critical flyway habitat through private and public partnerships (e.g. working with
the Army Corps of Engineers to acquire or restore multi-use flood plains). The 1986
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act expands and enhances sources of funds for wetlands
acquisition and directs the Department of the Interior to develop a National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan that identifies the type of wetlands and wetland interests to
be given priority for acquisition (EPA 1988). In cooperation with EPA and Ecology,
USFWS has become involved in restoration activities under guidance from the 1991
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
The Swampbuster provision of the 1990 amendments to the Food Securities Act states
that any person who converts wetlands to make possible the production of an
agricultural commodity will be ineligible for most U.S. Department of Agriculture cost-
share assistance. Other federal laws pertaining to wetlands include the Estuary
Protection Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and
the Fish and Wildlife Protection Act.
Under the EPA's National Estuary Program, the federal government and state agencies
have worked together to produce the Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for Puget Sound (also known as the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan). One element of this plan concerns wetlands. This element encompasses
enhanced local and state regulatory protection for wetlands; wetlands acquisition; an
interagency tracking and inventory system; and public education and wetlands
restoration. The achievement of these goals thus far has been limited due to funding
constraints.
State Protection Efforts:
The Governor's Executive Order 90-04 (of 1990) declares that "all state agencies shall
rigorously enforce their existing authorities to assure wetlands protection." The
Executive order also stated that, where legally permissible, all state agencies should
amend their State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) policies to include wetlands
protection components and should exercise their authority under SEPA to require
mitigation of wetlands impacts for all agency actions affecting wetlands. (Under SEPA,
the activities of all state and local agencies are subject to environmental review and
public comment).
The Department of Ecology, Wetlands Section addresses wetlands protection issues in a
comprehensive program, partially funded with money from the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act. Through this effort, Ecology provides technical assistance to local
governments and state and federal agencies to determine wetlands boundaries, inventory
and map wetlands, and mitigate development. Staff address regulatory policy issues,
provide guidance to local jurisdictions, administer a wetlands acquisition/preservation
program. Efforts are beginning to be made on wetlands restoration. Public outreach
97
-------
and education are a large component as well (Ecology 1989). Ecology is currently
developing state water quality standards to better protect wetlands.
Under the Shoreline Management Act, local governments develop local land-use plans
for all shorelines within their jurisdiction. Guidelines for planning are oriented toward
balancing development with habitat protection and other shoreline interests (i.e. public
access). The plans are implemented through a permit process. This process is lead by
the local government and permits are reviewed by Ecology. Public comment and
hearings provide essential review components (PSWQA 1986c).
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides that no federal license or permit for
discharges to navigable waters be issued until the Department of Ecology certifies that
the discharge complies with state water quality standards. Over the last several years,
Ecology has begun to use the certification process to protect wetlands, and this process
remains one of the most significant mechanisms for the state to use in protecting
wetlands (PSWQA 1986c).
The Department of Ecology has also drafted a model wetlands protection ordinance for
local governments to consider as they develop local ordinances. This is part of state-
wide legislation, the Growth Management Act, which calls for comprehensive local
wetlands protection through developing local permit systems for a broad range of
activities affecting wetlands and other critical areas.
The state Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries must approve virtually any project in
state waters if those waters support fish life. This is known as Hydraulic Projects
Approval (HPA). The Department of Fisheries is the lead agency for activities
occurring west of the crest of the Cascades, the Department of Wildlife for those on the
east side. These two agencies have promulgated regulations establishing evaluation
criteria for the approval of permit applications, but the approval process helps protect
only those wetlands significant to fish, not other types of wildlife (PSWQA 1986c).
The Department of Natural Resources contributes to wetlands protection through the
Natural Heritage Program (which identifies wetlands of special ecological significance)
and the Natural Area Preserve Program (which acquires significant natural areas,
including wetlands). As the manager of state-owned aquatic lands, DNR has the ability
to protect wetlands through lease conditions and other means.
Federal Contact: State Contact:
Bill Riley Mary Burg
Office of Water Resources Assessment Wetlands Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Department of Ecology
(206) 553-1412 (206) 459-6790
98
-------
H. ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Since 1985 both Washington and British Columbia have had comprehensive programs
geared toward managing the quality of their major estuaries. Because the waters of
both estuaries may be affected by pollutants traveling across the international border,
and the management of one watershed may thus be significant to the health of the
other, it is important to understand the differences and similarities between these two
major estuary programs.
The Fraser River Estuary Management Program in British Columbia funnels federal,
provincial, and local government efforts and resources into one coordinated program to
protect the estuary and maintain its economic vitality. The program focuses not only on
managing the estuary's water quality, but also addresses industrial development, waste
management, recreation, dredging, and other issues.
Unlike the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, Washington's Puget Sound
Water Management Plan primarily addresses water quality issues (as opposed to
economic development initiatives, for example), and an appointed, eleven member
Water Quality Authority leads a well-staffed, state agency created to address these
issues. Other estuary programs in Washington will be discussed in the section entitled
"Marine Protected Areas."
FRASER RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Fraser River estuary extends east to Kanaka Creek and the outlet of Pitt Lake, and
encompasses Boundary Bay, Semiamhoo Bay, and the waters out to the Strait of
Georgia (Figure 13). It is surrounded by the greater Vancouver area, home to 1.5
million people, and currently hosts about 200 industrial companies which require access
to its waters (FREMP 1991a). The Fraser River basin includes the estuary, and contains
25 percent of the province's land mass and two-thirds of its population. The river and
estuary are important sources of salmon and other fish, and contribute significantly to
the province's recreational opportunities, transportation network and industrial
development. The health of the estuary and river basin have recently been addressed by
cooperative efforts throughout all levels of government, formalized in the Fraser River
Estuary Management Program and the Fraser River Basin Action Plan.
Fraser River Estuary Management Program:
The Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) has been in existence since
1985. The program was renewed for the 1991-1994 period. The stated goal of the
Fraser River Estuary Management Program is "to provide the means for accommodating
a growing population and economy while maintaining the quality and productivity of the
Fraser estuary's natural environment" (FREMP 199la). The program emphasizes
"coordinated and cooperative policies and programs for estuary management," and is
based on a "linked management concept which focuses on strengthening the linkages
among existing agencies rather than creating new agencies" (FREMP 1991a). Sponsors
99
-------
Figure 13:
The Fraser River Estuary (from FREMP 1991a)
W'\ " | I IH'OM
-------
of the program include the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,
Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Greater Vancouver Regional
District, and the North Fraser (NFHC) and Fraser River Harbor Commissions (FRHC).
The management structure for FREMP in the 1991-1994 renewal period consists of a
Management Committee and three technical committees, assisted by an Advisory
Committee and Secretariat. The Management Committee is comprised of
representatives from federal, provincial, regional, and port governing bodies. The three
technical committees are the Water and Land Use Committee, the Water Quality/Waste
Management Committee, and the Environmental Review Committee. The Advisory
Committee is proposed to consist of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Greater
Vancouver Regional District.
As part of its efforts to coordinate activities among relevant public agencies in the
estuary, FREMP developed the Coordinated Project Review Process. Any proposed
development project in the estuary is referred by the receiving agency to the publicly
accessible Central Project Registry in the FREMP Secretariat Office. This registry sends
proposals or permit applications for review to the appropriate agencies. An
environmental review committee comprised of federal and provincial environment and
fisheries agencies gathers the comments and meets regularly to prepare a single
coordinated response. The responses are sent to a designated lead agency, such as the
Harbor Commissions or Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, where they are
incorporated into shoreline leases and construction approvals (FREMP 199 la).
A draft copy of a report put out by the Fraser River Estuary Management Program lists
50 proposed activities to be considered as part of an action program for the 1991-1994
period. These activities relate to port and industrial development, navigation and
dredging, log management, waste management, recreation, habitat protection and
environmental emergencies. The program's Technical Committees are responsible for
incorporating these recommendations into implementation plans for the estuary. Such
plans include a comprehensive habitat preservation plan, a regional port and industrial
development strategy, a recreation plan, and a water quality plan (FREMP 199 la).
Elements of these reports are being implemented. In June of 1991 the signatory federal
and provincial agencies pledged a total of $600,000 to be spent under the program
during a three year period (Govmt. of Can. 1991).
FREMP Contact:
Michael McPhee
Fraser River Estuary Management Program
(604) 525-1047
Fraser River Basin Action Plan:
In June of 1991, the federal government announced the components of its Fraser River
Basin Action Plan. Developed as an element of Canada's Green Plan, the federal
government pledged $100 million over the next six years to "clean up British Columbia's
Fraser River, return salmon populations to historic abundance and restore the river to
101
-------
environmental health" (Govmt. of Can. 1991). One long-term objective of the plan is to
double the sockeye salmon population in the river over the next twenty years. Elements
of the plan include:
identification and reduction of contaminants entering the river, including
urban/agricultural runoff, air, groundwater, and waste sites ($9.5 million);
enhanced enforcement of environmental regulations, encouragement of public
participation in reporting, and strengthened laboratory support ($10.6 million);
restoration of habitat along the basin and rehabilitation of salmon
populations ($30 million);
identification of toxics in the basin and sources of contamination; development
of an information base to address them and prevent future pollution problems
($18.3 million);
support of research projects that have an ecosystem approach, for example, the
effects of logging on salmon ($14 million);
encouragement of projects that demonstrate sustainable development, such as
habitat restoration ($11 million);
integration of fisheries uses with other resource users in the basin in order to
develop sustainable development strategies for all resource users, for
example sustainable agriculture ($10.6 million); and
development of a Burrard Inlet environmental action plan ($4 million).
(Excerpted from Green Plan Media Backgrounder)
The federal government expects to provide leadership on the implementation of these
objectives through Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Although a
federal initiative, the Action Plan builds on the existing Fraser River Estuary
Management Program and relies on the continued cooperation of provincial, regional,
and port governments as well as industry and the public.
Fraser River Program Contact:
Chris Pharo
Environment Canada
(604) 666-6313
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
The purpose of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan is to "restore and
protect the biological health and diversity of Puget Sound. The strategy for achieving
this purpose is to protect and enhance the Sound's water and sediment quality; its fish
and shellfish; and its wetlands and other habitats" (PSWQA 1990b). The area'addressed
in the plan, as defined by the Washington State legislature, includes Puget Sound south
of Admiralty Inlet, the waters north to the Canadian border, the Strait of San Juan de
Fuca south of the Canadian border, and all the land draining into these waters (Figure
102
-------
Figure 14:
The Area
Addressed in
the Puget Sound
Water Quality
Management Plan
Puget Sound Basin
-------
The first Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan was written for 1987, followed
by plans in 1989 and 1991. In 1990, the Washington State legislature amended the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority's enabling act, calling for an extension of the
Authority until 1995 and for a four-year plan update cycle following the adoption of the
1991 plan.
The 1991 Plan lists the Authority's broad-based priorities, which are as follows:
assess the environmental conditions of Puget Sound, its resources, and the
effects of human activities on them;
clean up existing toxic contamination where sources are controlled;
continue plan programs that have been started and maintain current
funding levels;
control sources of toxic contaminants to Puget Sound;
enhance protection of shellfish beds;
ensure the protection of wetlands and aquatic habitat and stop losses of
wetlands and other habitats;
improve the control and cleanup of nonpoint source pollution;
prevent spills in the Sound and enhance response capability;
provide long-term support for research and education; and
support and improve education and public involvement programs (PSWQA
1990b).
The Puget Sound Plan also contains more specific priorities, discussed on an "element-
by-element basis" in the Action Plan. The major elements of the Action Plan consist of
programs concerned with monitoring; research; education and public involvement; spill
prevention and response; household hazardous waste reduction; municipal and industrial
discharges; wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat protection; nonpoint source pollution
control; shellfish protection; stormwater and combined sewer overflows; and laboratory
support (PSWQA 1990b). Implementation of the Plan's elements depends upon state,
federal, local, and private funding for each specific program.
The Water Quality Authority proposes funding mechanisms, recommends new legislation
as needed, and oversees the implementation of the plan. The Authority is comprised of
11 members, nine of whom are appointed by the governor. Each of the six
congressional districts surrounding Puget Sound is represented by one member. In
addition, cities, counties, and tribes each have a representative. The director of Ecology
and the Commissioner of Public Lands or their respective designees serve as members,
and each has a vote. The director of Ecology serves as the Authority's chair. An
executive director, appointed by the governor, selects, supervises, and manages the work
of the Authority's staff. The planning cycle for the Authority was extended to complete
the next plan by July 1, 1994, coinciding with the next sunset review for the Authority.
Puget Sound was formally designated as part of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) National Estuary Program in March of 1988. This designation was significant as
it brought federal funding for studies, projects, planning, and problem solving, and
increased federal involvement in the management of the Sound. The 1991 Water
104
-------
Quality Management Plan was adopted by the EPA as the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) under the National Estuary Program in May 1991..
Designation as a CCMP indicates that federal activities in the Sound should be
consistent with the elements of the Plan.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) is "a multi-agency group formed to promote
the protection and beneficial use of Puget Sound and its resources; it is jointly chaired
by EPA, Ecology, and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. The members of
PSEP seek an integrated and consistent approach to managing the actions and events
that influence the Sound" (PSEP 1991). One product of this group is the development
of the Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines, a set of methodological and analytical
methods proposed to be uniformly used in environmental sampling throughout the
Sound.
Contact:
Nancy McKay
Executive Director
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
(206) 493-9300
I. MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
Both the U.S. and Canada have similar policies designed to protect the ecological
viability of marine ecosystems. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is currently considering two sites in Washington State for
sanctuary status- one off of the Olympic Coast, and one in Northern Puget Sound. The
proposed Northern Puget Sound Sanctuary would border on the internationally shared
waters of the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca, while the proposed Olympic Coast
Sanctuary would reach to the international border in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. One
area in British Columbia currently being studied for national marine park status
encompasses the Gulf Islands in the Strait of Georgia. A biosphere reserve
encompassing British Columbia's Gulf Islands and Washington's San Juan Islands was
proposed by a B.C. Member of Parliament in 1991.
Canada's Green Plan promotes the establishment of three new national marine parks by
1996, as well as the designation of three other national marine parks in areas to be
confirmed by the year 2000. Both the U.S. and Canadian proposed protected areas are
affected by international recreational and commercial boating traffic, as well as sources
of water pollution originating in Washington and British Columbia. Cooperation in
addressing these issues and the possible establishment of a joint protected area represent
a positive approach to managing the region's shared natural resources.
105
-------
CANADA/B.C. NATIONAL MARINE PARKS
Marine protected areas in British Columbia fall under the National Marine Parks
program of Environment Canada's Park Service. Under this program, jurisdiction over
lands and waters are transferred from the province to Canada, with cooperative
agreements common among the federal and provincial agencies involved.
Federal Marine Park System:
The National Marine Parks Policy was developed in 1986, "to protect and conserve
representative examples of the diversity of Canada's coastal zone and oceans for the
benefit of present and future generations" (ARCG 1987). The national marine parks
normally include the seabed, its subsoil and overlying water column, together with
certain coastal lands and islands. Parks which are wholly offshore may be established to
protect marine areas some distance from Canada's coasts (Env. Can 1986).
The Canadian Parks Service of Environment Canada divided the Pacific, Atlantic,
Arctic, and Great Lakes into 29 geographically distinctive "marine regions," five of which
are in the marine waters of British Columbia (Figure 15) (Mondor and Kenwood eds.
1988). Environment Canada's long-term goal was to establish a marine park or park
reserve within each of the 29 regions. As of 1991, the Canadian Parks Service has
negotiated one marine park agreement in British ColumbiaSouth Moresby/Gwaii
Haanas, which lies in regions 1 and 2 of the five regions (Env Can. 1991). Parks Service
officials are currently analyzing the results of a study identifying representative areas for
a marine park in the Strait of Georgia (Env. Can. 1991).
National marine parks typically are owned by Canada and managed by the Canadian
Parks Service under the National Parks Act of 1988. Before establishing a marine park,
Environment Canada negotiates management agreements with Transport Canada,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the provincial ministries that may be involved.
Federal court decisions establishing a "paramount public right of navigation and fishing,"
help to create a need for the different federal agencies to cooperate in the management
of marine parks (ARCG 1987). In many cases, the province has jurisdictional domain
over the area delineated as potential park land, and an agreement transferring
ownership and administration to the federal government must be designed (Env. Can.
1991). In some cases, agreements with the provinces are required with respect to
fisheries and water management.
Within the national marine parks, "commercial exploration, extraction, or development
of non-renewable resources" is not permitted (ARCG 1987). Before establishing a
marine park, Environment Canada must carry out a mineral and energy resource
assessment (MERA) to assess the potential of renewable and nonrenewable natural
resources in the proposed protected area (Mondor and Henwood eds. 1988).
Although navigation within the marine park may "take into account the need for
essential services such as ferries and northern supply routes," access to and movement
106
-------
Figure IS:
The 29 Marine Regions of Canada's National Park System
Marine Regions
of Canada
ARCTIC OCEAN
1 Beaufort Sea
2 Viscount Melville Sound
3 Northern Arctic
4 Queen Maud Gull
5 Lancaster Sound
6 Eastern Baffin Island Shelf
7 Foxe Basin
8 Davis and Hudson Straits
9 Hudson Bay
10 James Bay
V
t.
T
;
ATLANTIC OCEAN
1 North Labrador Shelf
2 South Labrador Shelf
3 Grand Banks
4 laurenlian Trough
5 Scolian Shell
6 Bay ol Fundy
7 Magdalene Shallows
8 North Gulf Shelf
9 St. Lawrence River
Estuary
PACIFIC OCEAN
1 Hecate Strait
Z West Queen Charlotte Islands
3 Queen Charlotte Sound
4 West Vancouver Island Shell
5 Strait of Georgia
s
\
)
""'*...
'-.^
GREAT LAKES
1 Lake Superior
2 Georgian Bay
3 Lake Huron
4 Lake Erie
S Lake Ontario
-------
within marine parks is "managed in such as manner as to furnish protection to
threatened or endangered species and habitats, provide the public with opportunities to
understand and enjoy the marine park, ensure public safety, and minimize conflict
between commercial and recreational uses" (Env. Can. 1986).
Provincial Marine Park System:
British Columbia's Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks manages 28 provincial
marine parks. For the most part, these parks do not always encompass marine waters
(they may be along the shore) and are oriented toward recreational marine users.
Desolation Sound Provincial Marine Park in the Strait of Georgia does include the
marine environment and most resembles a Canadian national marine park.
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact:
Bill Kenwood Planning and Conservation Services
Canadian Parks Service B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
Environment Canada (604) 387-3987
(604) 666-1280
U.S./WASHINGTON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
Although the Marine Sanctuary Program is the most comprehensive marine protection
program in the U.S., the National Estuary Program and National Estuarine Reserve
Research System are closely related and also function to protect and manage significant
marine resources. These three programs will be described under this heading.
Marine Sanctuary Program:
The U.S. Marine Sanctuary Program was established in 1972 when Congress passed the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. The primary purpose of the Program
is to "conserve nationally significant marine areas through management, research and
education (CEE 1988)." The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) National Ocean Services division carries out day-to-day operation of the
Marine Sanctuary Program.
The Marine Sanctuaries Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, with state and local
consultation, to designate and protect discrete areas of the marine environment as
national marine sanctuaries. In addition to being nationally significant, these areas also
have additional controls to ensure comprehensive conservation and management,
including resource protection, scientific research, and public education. The designation
of an area as a national marine sanctuary requires a comprehensive assessment of its
marine resources and commercial and recreational uses, and makes the area eligible for
special management planning under the Marine Sanctuary Program.
108
-------
Figure 16:
Approximate Locations of Proposed Sanctuaries and Study Areas (not to scale)
Location of the Sanctuaries/Study Areas
I Proposed Study Area, Northern Puget Sound National Marine Sanctuary
Proposed Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
-------
The goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program are as follows:
enhance resource protection through comprehensive and coordinated
conservation and management, tailored to the specific resources, that
complements existing regulatory authorities;
support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring of, the
site-specific marine resources to improve management decision-making in
National Marine Sanctuaries;
enhance public awareness, understanding, and wise use of the marine
environment through public interpretive and educational programs;
facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary goal of resource protection,
all public and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not
prohibited pursuant to other authorities; and
identify areas of the marine environment of special national significance due to
their natural resource or human-use values (NOAA 1991).
Multiple-Use is maximized as long as it is consistent with the primary purpose of
preservation. In this regard, commercial and recreational fishing, shipping, and oil and
mineral exploration and extraction are allowable in a marine sanctuary.
Under Congressional legislation, NOAA is currently discussing with the state the
possibility of designing a national marine sanctuary in the waters of Puget Sound. The
proposed Northern Puget Sound Sanctuary (Figure 16) is currently in the study phase,
which includes determining possible sanctuary boundaries, drafting an environmental
impact statement and management plan, and assessing the need for regulation (PSWQA
1990b). The study area boundaries encompass an area that is most likely larger than
what the proposed sanctuary might encompass. A second proposed sanctuary, the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (Figure 16) is further along in planning than
the Puget Sound Sanctuary, and is currently undergoing NEPA review.
National Estuary Program:
Upon the request of a state governor, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may
designate an estuary as being of national significance under Section 320 of the Clean
Water Act. Designated estuaries are not necessarily pristine, but might be threatened by
pollution, development, and overuse. A National Estuary designation entitles that
estuary to federal money and assistance in the preparation of a comprehensive
management plan. Puget Sound has been included in the National Estuary Program
since 1988, and the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan was recently accepted
by the EPA as the National Estuary Program's first Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan.
EPA's Region 10 office in Seattle and the involved state agencies formed a management
committee consisting of numerous work groups to assess water quality and habitat
problems, identify management solutions, and develop and oversee implementation of
plans for addressing the problems. In Puget Sound, a technical advisory committee
110
-------
(which includes Canadian scientists) was also formed to address scientific and technical
issues.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System:
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, provides for a
National Estuarine Research Reserve system to establish and manage, through federal-
state cooperation, a national system of estuarine reserves representative of the 27 coastal
biogeographic regions and estuarine types in the U.S. and its territories. At present, the
system includes over 275,000 acres of estuarine waters, wetlands, and intertidal areas at
20 different sites. Portions of Padilla Bay, in Puget Sound, form one such National
Estuarine Research Reserve. Throughout the reserve system, the purpose of designation
and management is the long-term protection of the estuarine resource as a natural field
laboratory for research, monitoring, and interpretive/educational programs, all directed
at improved coastal management.
The overall reserve system is managed and partially funded by NOAA. The Padilla Bay
reserve is managed by the Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program within
the state's Department of Ecology.
Federal Contact: State Contact:
Marine Sanctuaries National Estuarine Research Reserves
Linda Maxson Terry Stevens
Marine Sanctuaries and Reserves Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research
NOAA Reserve
(206) 526-6304 Department of Ecology
(206) 428-1558
Puget Sound Estuary Program
Jack Gakstatter
Office of Coastal Waters
U.S. EPA
(206-553-0966
111
-------
PART VIII. WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Monitoring can provide information on the environmental health of a water body, and
can indicate the success or failure of pollution controls and regulations. While
monitoring requirements can be included in a regulation or permit, monitoring generally
falls under the scientific and technical realm of environmental management, as well as
under the regulatory sphere. Monitoring ideally represents a means of internationally
sharing information to help improve environmental management decisions on both sides
of the border. For these reasons, this report addresses monitoring separately.
Environmental monitoring refers to the regular sampling over time of specific variables
in designated areas or in biological populations. It is not to be confused with
environmental sampling, which occurs irregularly. Monitoring of a body of water, its
sediments and its biota can help clarify the ways that an ecosystem works and can help
with the assessment of environmental conditions, natural resources, and the effects that
human activities have upon them (PSWQAa 1991). For chemical analyses, monitoring
data "identify the contaminants of concern, the areas of higher concentration, and the
areas of synergistic or additive effects for which remedial actions are required" (FREMP
1990b).
Ambient monitoring helps describe the background qualities of a waterbody, while
monitoring at an effluent source is primarily used by environmental regulators to assess
whether dischargers are in compliance with permits. In both British Columbia and
Washington, a number of agencies regularly sample or monitor effluent discharges, and
long-term, ambient monitoring programs exist in the Fraser River Estuary, Puget Sound,
and select freshwater bodies. In some instances, monitoring programs in both the state
and province follow similar protocols and guidelines.
A. CANADA/B.C WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Environment Canada and B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks have cooperative ambient
monitoring programs in the Fraser River Estuary and in some transboundary freshwater
bodies. For the most part, monitoring programs are lacking in British Columbia's
marine waters, but have been developed for some of the province's freshwater bodies.
Formal protocols have not been published by the province, but exist through contract
agreements with the laboratories that analyze the province's environmental samples.
Environmental monitoring often is required as a condition in permits issued under the
British Columbia Waste Management Act, pursuant to regulations.
Federal Programs:
Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada share responsibility for
monitoring marine water quality. Environment Canada has authority to coordinate
federal policies and programs concerned with environmental quality (including the
marine environment), and is the protector of endangered species, migratory birds, and
112
-------
their habitats. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has a mandate to "coordinate government
programs respecting oceans and marine science" and has statutory responsibility for the
management of fish and marine mammals (Harding 1991). Apart from specific
environmental sampling programs (eg. dioxin program), Fisheries and Oceans Canada
concentrates on monitoring shellfish products for bacterial contamination, and
monitoring fish stocks and marine mammal populations. In addition to research into the
effects of pollutants on fish and fish habitat, the Science Branch of the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans also "monitors" physical oceanographic parameters such as
temperature and density.
Environment Canada's Conservation and Protection has collected data on contaminants
in sediment and biota at about fifty locations along the B.C. coast. These sites include
ocean dump sites and some of the major outfalls, as well as baseline (non-polluted)
areas. Data collected from these sites vary according to the objectives of individual
programs, the analytical and sampling protocols, and the sampling frequencies. This
lack of coordination among sampling programs makes it difficult to compare data
between sites (Harding 1991) or to analyze trends over time (Kay 1989).
Conservation and Protection monitors bacterial quality of shellfish growing water at
numerous stations in commercial growing areas. Pursuant to an international agreement
between the U.S. and Canada, sampling and analytical protocols for shellfish bacterial
analyses are comparable to the U.S. The Canadian Wildlife Service monitors
contaminants in seabird eggs at selected colonies. These two monitoring programs
(bacteria and seabird eggs) are, however, among the few federal programs carried out
regularly (Wells and Rolston 1991).
As participants in the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP),
Conservation and Protection and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have
established sediment sampling stations at irregular intervals along the Fraser River
plume, to monitor contaminants settling from the Fraser river (Harding 1991). Fisheries
and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada are also members on the Burrard Inlet
and Columbia River coordinated monitoring program committees directed at assessing
current levels of contamination and source control technologies.
Provincial Programs:
The provincial waste discharge permits issued by B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
require many point source dischargers to monitor their effluent and adjacent environs,
especially if the discharges may threaten a federally managed resource. Examples of this
type of monitoring particularly relevant to Washington state are the environmental
monitoring programs at Greater Vancouver's lona and Victoria's sewage treatment
outfalls (Harding 1991).
Through a cost-share agreement with Environment Canada, B.C. Environment, Lands
and Parks conducts its ambient freshwater monitoring program, and collects data from
transboundary freshwater stations on the Similkameen, Columbia, and Okanagan rivers
in the interior part of the Province. This federal/provincial agreement establishes
113
-------
protocols for collection and analysis. In fact, all data collected by the Ministry are
generated by one contract laboratory, which has established methods that can only be
changed upon consultation with B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks.
The provincial government generally does not have jurisdiction over marine resources
and thus does not intensively monitor them. As part of its water quality program,
however, B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks regularly samples sites in Vancouver
Harbor, the Fraser Estuary, Kitimat Estuary and other important bodies of water to
determine whether water quality objectives are being met. At other water bodies
throughout the Province where objectives have been developed, B.C. Environment,
Lands and Parks samples water quality for three years and then assesses whether
monitoring should continue. The substances sampled and information sought vary
among sites.
In 1986, a five year agreement between the Fraser River Harbor Commission and B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks established a sampling program in the Fraser River
Estuary area. This agreement was recently renewed for a further five years. Through
the program, B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks sampled major effluent discharges,
sediments and contaminants in the Fraser River, and completed a study of contaminants
in Boundary Bay's sediments, fish and other biota (FREMP 1990a). The Puget Sound
protocols and guidelines (see U.S./WA discussion) were the analytical protocols used in
the studies conducted under the Fraser River Estuary Monitoring project (Swain 1990).
FREMP is also developing a coordinated monitoring program for the Estuary.
In British Columbia, no studies have been published on the effects of pollutants on
marine mammals. Agencies in the province do not regularly sample for contaminants in
salmon (two recent ad hoc assessments of contaminants in returning Fraser River
Sockeye Salmon showed low to nondetectable levels of metals and selected organics in
the flesh), and have no regular monitoring program for contaminants in groundfish and
invertebrates caught in Canadian waters and sold in local markets (Wells and Rolston
1991).
According to one publication by Environment Canada, in the Pacific marine
environment "the shortage of long-term monitoring programs precludes establishing
many trends in environmental quality. Marine quality indices are largely absent, except
for bacterial standards for shellfish growing waters, residue and effects data for birds
and fish, and guidelines for some chemical contaminants in fish products for human
consumption" (Wells and Rolston 1991).
To address this shortfall, Environment Canada is drafting a proposal to establish a
national marine status and trends network with other federal and provincial agencies.
The Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines are currently being used in part by the
BC/Harbor Commission Fraser River Estuary Monitoring project and are also being
considered in the development of national environmental effects monitoring
requirements for the pulp and paper industry (Harding 1991).
114
-------
Federal Contact: Provincial Contact
Lee Harding Les Swain
Conservation and Protection Water Management Division
Environment Canada B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks
(604) 666-2917 (604) 387-9518
B. U.S./WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY MONITORING
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects
monitoring information from around the nation to analyze environmental trends and the
status of the environment. Other federal contributions to monitoring are done in
conjunction with state programs, such as through the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal
Analysis or the development of the Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines. The Puget
Sound Ambient Monitoring Program represents a cooperative monitoring effort between
state and other governmental agencies, businesses, industry, and the public.
Federal Programs:
NOAA monitors through two major efforts under the National Status and Trends
Program. Since 1986, the Mussel Watch Program has annually sampled eleven stations
in Puget Sound for toxic chemicals in mussels (Mytilus edulis), including PAH,
pesticides, and PCB congeners. The Benthic Surveillance program monitors the
bottomfish and sediment for the same variables as mentioned above for mussels
(excluding PAH in bottomfish). Some sampling and analyzing protocols differ from the
Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines.
The federal and state managers of the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis program
(see Part VII, Dredging) need three types of information: the sediment contamination of
disposal sites, the levels of contamination of sediments to be disposed of on those sites,
and monitoring information at the disposal sites after dumping. Consistent with the
Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines, the four biological indicators used by PSDDA to
obtain this data are amphipod tests, larval sediment tests, the benthic infaunal index,
and Microtox tests. Chemical analysis under PSDDA includes the measurement of
conventional sediment parameters. Chemical testing, when required for dredging
permits, generally involves analysis for 58 chemicals of concern.
State Programs:
Water compliance monitoring is conducted by some point source discharges, and
submitted by the discharger to Ecology. Ecology uses the monitoring information to
determine whether the discharger is in compliance with the terms of its permit. By 1992
some permitted dischargers will be required to monitor conventional and toxic pollutants
in the water column, monitor sediments, and conduct tests determining the effects of the
discharge on the biota.
115
-------
Ecology may also cany out intensive surveys for problem-specific water bodies to
determine whether a water quality problem exists and how it can be ameliorated. The
number of intensive surveys carried out depends upon funding and varies annually.
Ecology currently monitors the Alpine Lakes (in the Cascade Mountains) for a long
term acid deposition study.
The Office of Shellfish Programs of the state's Department of Health "monitors the
water quality of the commercial shellfish growing areas in the state, and classifies these
areas based on the water quality results and pollution source evaluations" (DOH 1991).
Under this program, in 1990, some shellfish harvest areas were sampled near the
international border (e.g. Birch Bay, Georgia Strait, Drayton Harbor) for bacterial
contamination and paralytic shellfish poisoning (DOH 1991). The Office of Shellfish
Programs also participates in the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, described
below.
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) and its member tribes carry out
numerous monitoring programs in both fresh and salt waters, focusing on fish habitat,
water quality, fish stock assessments, shellfish abundance, bacterial content, and
temperature in streams.
Freshwater ambient monitoring programs in Washington involve sampling from rivers,
lakes, and marine waters. Samples are collected monthly from an estimated eighty
stations on the state's rivers. From these stations, field measurements (for temperature,
pH, conductivity) are taken by Ecology staff, and the water is sampled for bacteria,
nutrients, suspended solids, turbidity, and metals. Among these eighty stations are core
stations (monitored "in perpetuity"), rotating stations (monitored every three years), and
floating stations (sampled to address a special need).
Ecology also has a Citizen Monitoring Program for Lakes, through which about fifty
lakes are monitored using a secchi disk. Nutrients may be collected, and (with available
funding), Ecology staff may take additional measurements (e.g. water column profiles).
The marine waters of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are sampled monthly by float
plane for salinity, pH, temperature, conductivity, and water column profiles. The mouth
of the Columbia is not monitored. The waters of Puget Sound are monitored through
the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, described below.
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP):
An ambient monitoring program was called for by the legislation that created the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority and is a major element in the 1991 Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan. Implementation of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program (PSAMP) was added to the Authority's enabling legislation in 1990. The
program began field sampling in 1989. Six state agencies carry out the program, with
the support of other government agencies, businesses, industry, and the public.
116
-------
PSAMP is a comprehensive, long-term monitoring program for measuring ambient, or
background conditions in Puget Sound, as well as the cumulative effects of
contamination and habitat degradation from many individual human actions. Strong
coordination will ensure that PSAMP collects data that are useful to water quality and
natural resource managers, in a cost effective manner over time (PSWQA 199 la). A
summary report of the PSAMP findings is published annually, as are technical reports
from each element of the PSAMP. Copies of these documents can be obtained from
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority at (206) 493-9300.
The eight different elements monitored under PSAMP .are discussed below. Special
mention is made of monitoring stations located near the Canadian border and
cooperative sampling efforts between the province and state are discussed where
appropriate (PSWQA 1991a).
PSAMP Fisheries: The PSAMP design concentrates on measuring contaminant levels in
fish, the effects of contaminants on the fish, and the potential effects to humans who eat
the fish (PSWQA 1991a). PSAMP fish monitoring examines English sole for liver
disease and measures tissue contaminant levels. The program also measures
contaminants in copper and quillback rockfish, chinook and coho salmon, and Pacific
cod. During 1989-1991, fish were analyzed for cooper, arsenic, lead, and mercury and for
many organic compounds including PCB's and pesticides. Near the international border,
English sole were collected south of Point Roberts.
Contacts: Sandie O'Neill, Washington Department of Fisheries, (206) 545-6530; or Chris
Prescott, PSWQA, (206) 493-9300
PSAMP Waterfowl: Under the original PSAMP design, the Department of Wildlife
measures population abundances of marine birds and waterfowl, In the future, PSAMP
will also examine the reproductive success and accumulation of toxic chemicals in
marine birds and waterfowl. During 1989-1991, funds were not available to carry out
the Waterfowl section of the program, but this PSAMP activity has now been funded
and will begin in 1992. Historically, Wildlife surveys waterfowl populations and
intensively surveys brants, dabbling and diving ducks, and snowgeese between Port Susan
Bay and Boundary Bay. The Washington Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries and the
Canadian Wildlife Service cooperatively survey Snow geese. Information on trumpeter
swans and brants is also shared between B.C. and Washington. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is also collecting information on waterfowl and marine birds in Puget
Sound.
Contact: Don Kraege, Washington Department of Wildlife, (206) 586-2758
PSAMP Shellfish: Under PSAMP, the Washington Department of Health (DOH)
samples for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) every other week for six months of the
year, and samples once a month between October and March. PSP is measured at over
100 beaches throughout the Sound, and investigators select 16 of these that are
consistently sampled throughout the year for PSP trend analysis (PSWQA 1991a). In
1990, one of these locations was near Blaine. Beginning in 1989, DOH investigators
117
-------
sampled bivalves (native littleneck clams, manila clams, butter clams, and blue mussels)
for bacterial contamination at recreational beaches, one site was in the San Juan Islands.
Investigators also sampled shellfish for chemical contamination on three beaches
believed to be potentially polluted by nearby urban sources, including Post Point.
Contact: Linda Klote, Washington Department of Health, (206) 586-8736.
PSAMP Marine Mammals: The PSAMP design calls for monitoring the abundance and
reproductive success of marine mammal populations, and tracking chemical toxicant
levels in their tissue. The legislature did not allocate funds for this program during
1989-1991, thus there was no routine collection or analysis of marine mammal tissue
(PSWQA 1991a). This PSAMP activity has been partially funded and will begin in 1992.
The Washington Department of Wildlife has been surveying population size and
reproductive rates of harbor seals, some near Boundary Bay and the San Juans.
Contacts: Don Kraege, Washington Department of Wildlife, (206) 586-2758; or Steve
Jeffries, Washington Department of Wildlife, (206) 964-7278.
PSAMP Nearshore Habitat: Between 1989-1991 no funds were available for this element
of PSAMP monitoring, which calls for an inventory of the estuarine nearshore habitat of
the Sound. The program design was based on a remote sensing, aerial mapping project.
This PSAMP activity has been partially funded and will begin in 1992. Despite the lack
of funding in the past, the Department of Natural Resources has continued to work with
an aircraft based scanner to update the baseline of the National Wetlands Inventory by
monitoring the nearshore, beaches, and salt marshes.
Contact: Tom Mumford, Department of Natural Resources, (206) 753-3703.
PSAMP Freshwater: PSAMP design calls for sampling conventional pollutants and
metals at 75 freshwater stations in the Puget Sound basin. These data are collected by
the Department of Ecology and will show trends in river water quality and sediment
loading over time. Such information will allow managers to estimate pollutant risk to
nearshore resources and take appropriate watershed actions. Because this program was
only about 20% funded during 1989-1991, only conventional pollutants at a limited
number of stations were sampled, none near the international border. Ecology regularly
measures the water quality of 10 major rivers for conventional water quality variables
like temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended sediment, and fecal coliform.
Contact: Dave Hallock, Department of Ecology,(206) 586-5336.
PSAMP Marine Water Column: In this part of the PSAMP, the Sound's waters are
sampled for temperature and salinity, dissolved nutrients and oxygen, chlorophyll and
fecal coliform bacteria. In the first phase of the program Ecology samples a limited
number of open-water stations once a month, in order to evaluate long-term water
quality trends. The second phase looks at areas with known or suspected quality
problems. The third phase of PSAMP involves "solstice monitoring," where for two
weeks on either side of the winter and summer solstices Ecology looks at the total
118
-------
amount of phytoplankton produced, and analyzes samples taken for dissolved nutrients,
algal populations, and sunlight (incident radiation). Ecology sampled 24 stations monthly
during 1989-1990, and the second and third phases have been partially funded. One
sampling site is located north of the San Juan Islands, on the Canadian/U.S. border.
Contact: Carol Jantzen, Department of Ecology, (206) 586-5495.
PSAMP Sediment/Benthic Community: Under PSAMP design, Ecology annually
samples at a total of 50 stations, 32 of which are permanent, 18 of which rotate over a
three year cycle. Ecology samples the benthic invertebrate community as well as metals
and organics (including PCB's and pesticides). The sediment bioassays used are tests for
mortality using an amphipod; tests for abnormal embryonic development using bivalve
(oyster or mussel) larvae; and tests for changes in cell physiology using a luminescent
bacterium (Microtox tests). Due to limited funding in 1989, investigators used only
amphipod and Microtox tests for bioassays, and in 1990 used only the amphipod test.
Some effort at coordinating data collection with the province has been made in the form
of state invitations to observe the sediment sampling process, but weather conditions
prevented the meeting from occurring. In 1992 Ecology will sample from three newly
placed monitoring sites within the Fraser River plume, to detect whether a noticeable
gradient from the river into U.S. waters exists.
Contact: Pete Striplin, Department of Ecology, (206) 753-2835.
Puget Sound Protocols and Guidelines:
As the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) was being developed, a
companion effort was initiated by the U.S. EPA to insure that the environmental data
collected under PSAMP were of a high and consistent quality. This secondary effort
produced the Recommended Protocols for Measuring Selected Environmental Variables
in Puget Sound (PSEP 1991). This "Protocols Manual" was developed through a series
of technical workshops on each of thirteen topics. These workshops were well-attended
by scientists and covered issues like organic chemical analysis of sediment, trawling for
fish and conducting sediment bioassays.
All programs and individuals collecting information in Puget Sound are encouraged to
use these protocols whenever possible. The net result of the protocol development
process has been that the PSAMP and other studies are now using similar protocols and
the data being gathered under PSAMP can be greatly enhanced and expanded by
including the data from many of the smaller data collection efforts in the Sound (i.e.
permit monitoring, short term studies, monitoring by aquaria, universities and
aquaculture facilities). The Protocols will be maintained and updated by the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority beginning in 1992.
Federal Contact:
John Armstrong
Environmental Protection Agency
(206) 553-1368
State Contact:
Chris Prescott, Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority
(206) 493-9300
119
-------
PART IX. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES
A variety of environmental review processes have been adopted in the U.S. and Canada
to address the environmental implications of proposed government activities and major
private projects. These review processes offer a chance for governmental agencies as
well as concerned members of the public to comment on proposed activities that may
affect the environment. In Washington, a review process for federally sponsored
activities exists, as does one for projects sponsored by state or local government. The
state also has a coordinated review process for major (nonhydro) energy projects. In
British Columbia, several review processes exist that specifically apply to energy projects,
mining projects, major provincial projects, and projects where a federal agency has a
decision-making authority or is a proponent.
Currently, the review process in Washington incorporates public comment more
completely than do the provincial and federal processes in British Columbia. However,
both the Canadian federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) and
the provincial review processes are undergoing revisions which should enhance public
input in permit approvals and disapprovals.
The opportunities for public comment in either nation's review processes may provide
openings (if the proposed opportunity for input is publicized) for citizens or government
officials on either side of the border to formally comment on proposed activities that
may have transboundary impacts. Environmental reviews can thus serve as established
methods for promoting communication between different governments and invoking
cooperative efforts toward resolving transboundary environmental problems.
One formal effort at addressing projects with transboundary impacts is the International
Convention on Environmental Assessment in a Transboundary Context, signed by the
U.S. and Canada under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE). Specific types of projects, including groundwater extraction, mining,
and port development, would be subject to the provisions of the convention, which
would include assessments of the international environmental and social impacts of the
proposed projects. As of September 1991, neither the U.S. nor Canada had ratified the
convention, and it is unclear how and whether the provisions will be implemented.
While many avenues for review and public comment on proposed activities exist in both
British Columbia and Washington, the following discussion summarizes the most major
environmental review processes currently used, and highlights available avenues for
public comment.
120
-------
A. CANADIAN FEDERAL REVIEW PROCESSES
The following discussion summarizes the federal EARP process, the most significant
environmental review processes involving the federal government in British Columbia.
Two review processes which involve coordination and participation between federal and
provincial agencies are discussed in Section B.
The Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP):
The federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) was first
established in 1973. It was strengthened and updated in 1984 with the introduction of
the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order. Originally, the
process came into play when a federal entity intended to undertake a proposal of its
own, or when a project occurred on lands administered by the federal government,
required federal financial commitment, or involved a significant federal decision-making
responsibility due to its effects on federal resources (FEARO 1987).
Court decisions since 1988 have interpreted the EARP guidelines to apply to all projects
over which the federal government has any kind of decision making authority. These
decisions have greatly expanded the federal government's role in reviewing proposals.
Legislation is currently being considered in Parliament to clarify the federal
government's mandate in this realm, but review responsibilities will most likely still be
broader than under the 1984 Guidelines Order.
The Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) in Ottawa administers
the process for eastern and central Canada, while the Western and Northern Regional
Office, located in Vancouver, B.C., administers the process for the territories, British
Columbia, and Alberta. FEARO receives administrative support from Environment
Canada but maintains an independent relationship with the department. The federal
government actively works to coordinate review activities with the provinces and
territories, and every effort is made to minimize or eliminate duplication of review
procedures. However, the recent Court decisions have imposed a new and added
environmental assessment responsibility of federal agencies that could lead to some
duplication.
The first step in the EARP is the Initial Assessment, at which point a department
responsible for making a decision (the initiator) determines whether a proposal may
have potential adverse environmental effects, and if so, the significance of such effects.
If the initiator decides that the project may potentially have significant environmental
impacts, it must develop an Environmental Impact Statement. Public consultation can
be a significant part of the initial assessment process (FEARO 1987).
The project can proceed if the initiator determines that it would not produce any
adverse environmental effects that could not be mitigated. If a department can not
determine a proposal's environmental effects without further study, the proposal must go
through a more detailed examination called an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE).
After a decision has been made regarding the IEE, the information is made available to
121
-------
the public, members of which have an opportunity to respond before the proposal is
carried out (FEARO 1987). The EARP guidelines encourage the initiating departments
to seek public involvement, but this is not in any way mandatory. For the most part, if a
project does not go through a review panel (see below), its review does not incorporate
a great deal of public participation.
Projects deemed to have significant environmental effects or to be of great concern to
the public undergo review by an independent Environmental Assessment Panel selected
by the Minister of Environment. The panel review involves extensive public comment
and offers a clear process for public involvement. Each initiating department has
developed a list which identifies those types of proposals that are automatically referred
for panel review.
The panel issues specific "guidelines" to the project proponent (whether federal agency
or private corporation) which identify the parameters that must be addressed in the
proponent's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Panels may request public comment
before issuing the guidelines. Throughout the review process, all documents submitted
to the panel become public information (FEARO 1980).
The proponent follows the guidelines and submits to the panel an Environmental Impact
Statement which contains the full environmental implications of the proposal, including
social and resource use impacts. The EIS identifies alternatives and indicates how
adverse impacts of the proposal will be reduced or avoided. In its review of the EIS the
panel consults with "experts" and the public through EIS referrals and public hearings.
Relevant agencies commonly review the document and address remarks to the panel at
public hearings. Typically, two or three months are allowed for the agencies and public
to review and comment on the EIS.
When public hearings are completed, the panel writes an advisory report to the Minister
of the Environment and other involved agencies. The panel's report is always made
public. The initiator decides to what extent panel recommendations must be adopted
before the proposal can proceed. These are incorporated into the design, construction,
and operation of the proposal.
The initiator must see that decisions on suitable implementation, inspection, and
monitoring programs are carried out. Interdepartmental committees, sometimes
containing representatives from provinces or territories and the private sector, may be
established to direct the implementation of the proposal (FEARO 1987).
Summary of Public Involvement in EARP: The public may have a limited opportunity
to comment on a proposed project during its initial assessment. More formalized
opportunities for public involvement, including public hearings, are provided for those
projects that undergo a review by a panel. The panel incorporates public comment in its
guidelines, and public meetings are held to discuss Environmental Impact Statements.
FEARO publishes a quarterly "Register of Panel Projects." The Minister of the
Environment notifies the press when panels are formed. If a proposal is not deemed
significant enough to be reviewed by a panel, public notification and incorporation of
122
-------
Figure 17:
Comparison of EARP and Proposed Assessment and Review Process
^oeiai Environmental Bureau tecerai Gtf«ami>n
Asstfssmeni Review O"'Cft aes evaluations onvircnneTientaies
FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESS/WENT
new
directions
4. Comparison of Current and Proposed Environmental Assessment
and Review Processes
1. Comparison of Changes Arising from Proposed Legislation
Issue
Authority
Need for public review
Application to regulatory
agencies and Crown
Corporations
Scope of assessment
Public reviews
Duplicate hearings with
other federal and
provincial processes
Transborder effects
Current
Proposed
Guidelines Order approved by Canadian Environmental
Governor-in-Council
Assessment Act, binding on all
federal Crown entities
Decision by minister responsible Decision of Environment Minister
for project
Unclear or voluntary
No clear guidelines
Panel review only option
Possible
No federal role
Follow-up and monitoring Not clearly required
Administration
Federal Environmental
Assessment Review Office,
dependent on Environment
Canada
Evaluation and reporting No systematic process
Explicit requirements through
regulation
Requirements to describe need
for project and assess practical
alternatives, cumulative effects
and sustainability of resources
Mediation and panel are options;
panel review given subpoena
powers
Provisions to avoid duplicate
hearings
Substantial federal role
Plans required as part of
assessment; proponent must
implement
Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency, independent
of any other federal department
or agency
Regular process of examination
and reporting
Canada
-------
Figure 17:
Comparison of EARP and Proposed Assessment and Review Process
2. Comparison of Changes Arising from Regulation, Orders and Guidelines
Issue
Exclusion list
Class assessments
Mandatory assessments
Procedures
Current
Proposed
Prepared by some departments One government-wide list
without public consultation prepared with public consultation
Not practiced
None required
None specified
Practiced
List of projects requiring
mandatory assessments
Specified
3. Comparison of Changes Arising from Government Decision
Issue
Consideration of
environmental matters in
policy and program
decisions before Cabinet
Participant funding
Indian lands where no
federal decision-making
authority exists
Current
Uneven, discretionary
Occasionally provided
Exempt
Proposed
Environmental assessment to be
included - statement to be
published
Program established
Land claims and self-government
negotiators to address
environmental assessment needs
September 1990
-------
public comment are not required. New legislation should address the need for better
public access to the process.
The proposed Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would greatly alter the current
federal review process. Among other requirements, it would include provisions for
assessing and mitigating transborder environmental effects, and would provide greater
opportunity for public involvement at all stages of project assessment. A comparison of
the present and proposed review process is shown in Figure 17.
Contact: Paul Scott, FEARO Western and Northern Region, (604) 666-2431.
Other Federal Environmental Reviews:
While the EARP process applies to most projects that undergo federal review, other
review processes exist. The most major of these other review entities is the National
Energy Board, which reviews major energy projects that have transboundary impacts.
Certain types of energy projects require public hearings. These hearings are more
formal and adjudicative then those in the EARP process. In some cases, FEARO and
the Energy Board may be duplicative, but the new environmental assessment legislation
should address this issue.
B. COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES
Eraser River Estuary Management Program's (FREMP) Coordinated Project Review
Process:
The Coordinated Project Review Process was developed under the Fraser River Estuary
Management Program (Part VII, Estuary Management Programs) in 1986 to formally
coordinate the review of all proposed projects by federal and provincial regulatory and
management authorities in the estuary. All projects proposed in the Fraser River
Estuary are referred to the "Central Project Registry" in the FREMP Secretariat Office.
An Environmental Review Committee consisting of the key provincial and federal
environmental agencies in the Fraser Estuary, coordinates agency comments, which are
sent to the proponent through a designated lead agency (typically a Harbour
Commission). Proposed projects are screened by the Committee, and depending on the
significance of potential impacts, may be assessed through one of the three mechanisms:
Interagency Referral, Task Force Review, or Formal Environmental Impact Assessment.
Application and review procedures have been established for each level of review,
including coordinating with other provincial and federal review processes.
FREMP Public Involvement: All project applications in the Central Project Registry
(described above) are available for public review, and comments by the public on any
particular project application are welcomed by the environmental review committee. To
keep the public better informed regarding proposed projects, FREMP intends to have
project applicants put notices in newspapers and plans to maintain a mailing list for
updates on the Central Project Registry.
125
-------
Contact: FREMP, (604) 525-1047.
Cowichan Estuary Project Review Process:
The Cowichan Estuary is located in southeastern Vancouver Island, north of Victoria.
Proposed development activities in this estuary are generally subject to a single review
procedure in which all regulatory agencies (federal, provincial, local) participate as
appropriate. Proposals cannot proceed without approval from the designated lead
agency responsible for administering the process. Provisions are made for
environmental impact assessment administration scope and procedures, and the roles of
various agencies and the public. Specifically, the review of development proposals
within these management areas is designed to determine the environmental impacts of
proposed development activities; to establish a level of conformity with area designation
and objectives identified in the plan; and to evaluate the consequences of development
relative to the land/resource base.
Contact: Sharon Daly, Environmental Assessment Branch, B.C. Environment, Lands and
Parks (604) 387-9674
C. PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES
In British Columbia, review and approval processes have been tailored to accommodate
a broad range of development proposals, from simple applications for routine water
withdrawals or waste discharge permits, to large, complex projects, such as mine or
hydroelectric developments. There exist at least three mechanisms by which potential
environmental impacts can be reviewed. These include the Government Referral
System, Land/Resource Planning Processes, and Formal Integrated Project Review
Processes.
Government Referral Processes:
The majority of small-scale, routine provincial, municipal, and private sector proposals
are assessed through informal interagency referral processes (B.C. Env. 1990b).
Interagency referral processes ensure that the program and policy concerns of various
provincial agencies are considered in the review and approval of development
applications and permits, and that final operations are environmentally sound and in the
public interest. Separate review/approval processes are administered by various
agencies to assess the following types of activities:
navigable waters and small harbors (federal);
foreshore development and mariculture proposals;
waste discharge permitting
allocation of harvesting rights for timber on Crown Lands;
water licenses and permits;
pesticide use permits;
126
-------
Crown Land disposition;
mining road construction, petroleum exploration, and mineral
exploration notices of work;
oil and gas development proposals for geophysical programs, stream crossings,
access routes, well sites, small petroleum facilities;
environmental resource management plans; and
local government official community plans (municipal).
Public Consultation during the Government Referral System: Public participation in the
referral process is not legislated. The lead Ministry may inform the affected public of
the proposal through regional offices or require the proponent to inform the public of
the proposal (e.g. license for water use or diversion, under the Water Act). In many
cases, public notice of the proposed development activity is printed in the local
newspaper. In some cases, the proponent or the public may appeal a decision on a
proposal to a more senior government official (e.g. Waste Management Permit Process),
the responsible Minister (e.g. the Land Disposition Referral Procedure), or to the
Environmental Appeal Board (Pesticide Use Permit Process).
2. Land/Resource Planning Processes:
2a. Regional Review Processes:
There are two regional review processes which are used to assess proposed projects
within specified areas, namely the Fraser River Estuary and the Cowichan River Estuary.
Under these review processes, all project proposals are screened for potential
environmental impacts. Those projects which require extensive collection and analysis of
project-related information are referred to one of the formal integrated EIA review
processes. Public consultation is a component of the regional review processes. Both of
these review processes are discussed in Section B, above.
2b. Area-Wide Planning Processes:
A number of provincial agencies administer area-wide planning processes to address
more complex activities or development in sensitive areas which cannot be adequately
handled by the normal government referral processes. As with the referral processes,
lead agencies assure that government and public interests are incorporated in plan and
program development, and there is usually a mechanism for public involvement. For
example, the Ministry of Forests chairs a number of interagency planning processes (e.g.
Timber Supply Area Plans, Five Year Resource Plans, and Integrated Watershed
Management Plans) to ensure that the resource/land allocation needs and forest values
of other agencies, organizations, and the public are considered. Other agencies, such as
the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks have similar planning processes for
establishing priorities and strategies.
127
-------
3a. Integrated Project Review-Major Project Review Process:
This review process was introduced in 1990 as a non-legislated working policy of the
Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development (CCSD). The review process is
administered and coordinated by a Major Project Steering Committee. The Ministries
of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, and Environment, Lands and
Parks co-chair the Steering Committee. Other representatives to the Committee include
the Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Ministry
of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, Environment Canada, and FEARO.
Representatives from the municipalities or regional district where the project would be
located are also invited to join the Steering Committee for deliberations concerning the
project (B.C. Env. 1991b).
The process provides for the comprehensive assessment of technical, socio-economic and
environmental impacts of projects in four main categories: pulp and paper production,
mineral smelting and refining, petrochemical, and ports and some marinas. Projects
must receive approval-in-principle from the Project Steering Committee prior to
permitting and construction. A number of diverse projects are being reviewed under the
MPRP. One of the first projects to be reviewed under this process was the proposed
expansion/modernization of the Celgar pulp mill at Castlegar.
The Major Project Review Process is divided into four steps, and is initiated when the
proponent submits a Project Prospectus. For projects with no significant impacts as
established by the Steering Committee, the Committee will grant approval-in-principle.
If a project proceeds beyond the prospectus stage, the Steering Committee identifies a
lead agency to chair an interagency working group. This working group designs project-
specific "terms of reference" (i.e. the technical, social, and environmental issues should
be addressed) upon which the proponent must base a Stage I report (B.C. Env. 1990b).
A Stage II report may be required for proponents that have not resolved the issues in
their Stage I report. Once approval-in-principle is given, the proponent proceeds to
Stage III to deal directly with government agencies for approvals, permits, and licenses
(B.C. Env. 1990b).
Public Consultation during the Major Project Review Process: The Prospectus, Stage I
and Stage II reports are available for public review and written comments. The public
has 40 days to comment on a prospectus. Within two weeks of the prospectus release,
the proponent must hold a public information meeting. In Stage I, the proponent must
hold public information sessions to obtain additional feedback on the proposed project
and potential impacts. At Stage II the CCSD may instruct the Steering Committee to
provide for further public involvement by way of one of the following:
appointment of an individual or a panel to conduct a fact-finding mission in
order to verify and/or supplement existing information;
appointment of a mediator/facilitator to meet separately with the affected
parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution; or
appointment of an individual or advisory panel to hold public hearings in order
128
-------
to make recommendations to the CCSD.
Provincial Contact: David Parsons, Environmental Assessment Branch, B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks (604) 387-9677.
3b. Integrated Project Review-Provincial Energy Projects:
The Utilities Commission Act of 1980 authorizes the Ministry of Energy, Mines and
Petroleum Resources (MEMPR) to regulate projects defined according to the amount of
energy used or involved in transmission. The Energy Project Review Process (EPRP) is
the review process under which regulated projects obtain certification. The Minister of
Environment, Lands and Parks and the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum
Resources jointly approve applications for energy project certificates (EPC's) and energy
operation certificates. An Energy Project Coordinating Committee, consisting of
representatives from the two Ministries, the British Columbia Utilities Commission and
an advisory representative from FEARO, coordinates the EPC application process. The
EPC application process provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the
environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposed projects. Legal
requirements for the EPC application process are set out by regulation under the
Utilities Commission Act.
Public Consultation during the Provincial Energy Project Review Process: A project
proponent's application should contain a summary of information dissemination, public
responses, major issues and concerns, and the potential resolution of such issues and
concerns. The proponent is advised to initiate contact with the public and local interest
groups, but this responsibility is not mandatory. A provision for a public hearing for all
regulated energy projects exists, but is discretionary.
Contact: Denise Mullen, Energy Project Analysis Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and
Petroleum Resources, (604) 356-2154.
3c. Integrated Project Review-Mine Development Assessment Process:
In August 1991, the Mine Development Assessment Act was proclaimed, establishing the
Mine Development Assessment Process (MDAP). This process integrates environmental
management with economic development by facilitating technically-sound and
environmentally-acceptable coal and metal mining ventures in British Columbia.
Objectives of the process include: providing a "one window" point of contact with
government agencies regarding the information and regulatory requirements for specific
projects; encouraging early identification of potential environmental and socio-economic
issues; and ensuring consultation with the public and specific local governmental,
aboriginal and non-governmental groups and interests.
The lead agency for the MDAP is the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum
Resources. A Management Committee, comprised of senior representatives of the
ministries of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources, and Environment, Lands and
Parks, is responsible for administering the Act. The Mine Development Assessment
129
-------
Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, coordinates the overall
review of proposed mine developments.
To facilitate the preparation and review of an application, proponents are expected to
submit a prospectus. This document contains a brief description of the project and
potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, and proposed consultation
program. During the review of the prospectus, information gaps are identified before
mine proponents submit a formal application.
Applications contain a detailed plan of the proposed mine development as well as a
detailed assessment of the environmental and socio-economic impacts, and impact
mitigation or management proposals. Upon completion, the Management Committee
makes recommendations to the Ministers of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources,
and Environment, Lands and Parks, regarding the disposition of the application.
Public Consultation During the Mine Development Assessment Process: Opportunities
for input from local governments, aboriginal groups and the public are provided at all
stages of the MDAP. Consultation is required before an application is accepted for
disposition, during the review and disposition of an application. Public involvement
programs are developed on a project-by-project basis.
Contact: Anne Currie, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, (604) 356-
2195.
D. U.S. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides for the most comprehensive
environmental review at the federal review, although federal activities may undergo
review at the state and local level, or may be subject to more minor types of federal
review.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
The National Environmental Policy Act, signed in 1970, created the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process, which requires every federal agency to prepare a
detailed statement on any major action it proposes that would significantly affect the
environment-whether it involves funding a local highway project, licensing a new
powerplant, or constructing a federal building (Orloff 1978).
The process involves four major stages:
Stage 1. The federal agency performs an environmental assessment to determine
whether an EIS must be prepared for the proposed action. The law requires an EIS
whenever an agency proposes to take an action that "significantly affects" the
environment. Each agency has guidelines specific to its activities.
130
-------
Stage 2. If an EIS is required, the agency prepares a draft statement-a preliminary
report on the environmental consequences of the project. At this time, the agency
identifies alternatives^ including those which may be more environmentally preferable. If
a statement is not required, the agency will proceed with its action, concluding its
environmental review with a "Finding of No Significant Impact."
Stage 3. The agency sends the draft EIS to all groups and individuals having an interest
in the proposed action, including governments, businesses, and interest groups. These
parties usually have about 45 days to send comments on the draft to the agency. The
agency prepares a final EIS by revising the draft to incorporate the agency's response to
the comments.
Stage 4. The agency proceeds to make a decision on the project, based on the analysis
contained in the EIS as well as non-environmental factors (Orloff 1978). The agency
must explain why the alternative was chosen in its Record of Decision, which concludes
the environmental review process.
Summary of Public Involvement in the NEPA process: Citizen comments are addressed
in an agency's final impact statement. Although a federal department is not required to
choose the most environmentally preferable alternative, the EIS process ensures that the
alternatives will be considered and that the public will be allowed to comment upon the
identified choices available. Federal Contact: Jerry Opatz, Environmental Review
Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (206) 553-8505.
Other Federal Review Processes:
Although NEPA is the most comprehensive and major of the U.S. federal environmental
review processes, others exist. For example, the Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits
(for the discharge of dredge and fill material) are reviewed by the Corps, EPA, and
other agencies. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reviews license
applications for many non-federal hydroelectric projects. Various review processes for
hazardous substance storage and disposal also exist under the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
E. WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES
While many types of review processes occur at the state and the local level, the
following discussion summarizes the most well-known and commonly used processes.
State Environmental Policy Act:
Modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) requires all state and local government agencies to review the
environmental effects of all governmental actions and all projects that require state or
local permits. Some actions and projects (like NPDES permits) are categorically
131
-------
exempt, as determined by SEPA rules established by special councils set up by the
legislature to design certain aspects of the process.
City and county governments typically serve as the lead agency in the SEPA review
process. However, for thirteen categories of major projects, the SEPA rules require
specific state agencies (typically Ecology or the Department of Natural Resources) to
take the lead.
Environmental review entails the use of a fifteen page environmental checklist filled out
by the applicant and submitted to the lead agency. Following submission, the lead
agency issues a determination of significance or non-significance. If a determination of
non-significance is issued, the project may go forward as planned, unless it falls under
one of four categories:
1. Another agency also has jurisdiction over the proposal.
2. The lead agency identifies mitigative actions which will make the project acceptable.
3. The proposal is a certain type of demolition project.
4. The proposal is a certain type of grade and fill project.
If the proposed project meets one of the above criteria, a fifteen day comment period is
required on the determination. The lead agency sends the environmental checklist and
determination of non-significance to Ecology and interested parties, and gives public
notice. Following comment, the lead agency may decide to change its determination.
If a project is deemed significant, the "scoping process" occurs. This process entails an
announcement (made by the lead agency) which states that an Environmental Impact
Statement will be written and asks for comment on what issues need to be included.
Affected and interested parties and agencies have 21 days to respond to the
announcement.
Once through the scoping process, the lead agency writes a draft EIS. When the draft
EIS is completed, the agency issues a public notice and sends copies of the draft to all
interested parties. A 30 day comment period follows.
Fifteen days after the release of the draft, the lead agency can choose to have a public
hearing, but SEPA does not require hearings.
The final environmental impact statement responds to the comments received by the
lead agency. SEPA does not require that public notice be given on the final EIS, but it
must be sent to all parties and agencies that received a copy of the draft and/or '
commented on the draft. The agency has seven days to consider the EIS. In order to
deny a project, an agency must find that the proposal would result in significant adverse
impacts that were identified in the project EIS and that cannot be mitigated with
reasonable control measures (PSWQA 1986b).
Throughout the environmental review process, the lead agency's conditions and denials
must be based upon policies incorporated into the regulations, plans, or codes that the
132
-------
agency formally designated as possible bases for decisions pursuant to SEPA (PSWQA
1986b).
Summary of Public Involvement in the SEPA process: The public has fifteen days to
comment on some projects that are deemed non-significant. During the scoping process,
interested parties have twenty-one days to make recommendations regarding issues that
should be addressed in the draft EIS. Once the lead agency releases the draft EIS, the
public has thirty days to comment. In the final environmental impact statement, the
lead agency must respond to comments made by the public on the draft. These
comments may be written or gathered through public hearings.
Contact: Barbara Ritchie, Department of Ecology, Central Programs and Enforcement,
(206) 459-6025.
Shoreline Management Act:
Under the Shoreline Management Act, shoreline permits are required for certain
activities that occur within 200 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of streams and
rivers with average flows greater than 20 cubic feet per second, lakes greater than 20
acres, Puget Sound, and wetlands associated with the shorelines of the above waters. All
shoreline substantial development permits (for projects over $1000 in cost) and
exemptions to the permit process are reviewed by Ecology. The public must be notified
of all permit applications or exemptions, and public comment must be considered in
decisions regarding the issuance of permits. A permit appeal process exists for citizens,
citizen groups, and or government agencies. These appeals are heard by the Shorelines
Hearings Board, a six-member quasi-judicial body appointed by the Governor (PSWQA
1990c).
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council:
This independent agency was first formed in 1970 and is comprised of thirteen
representatives of state agencies and one citizen chair appointed by the Governor.
Currently three staff members support the council, and work out of the Washington
State Energy Office. The Council serves as a coordinated environmental review process
for major energy facilities such as thermal power plants above 250 megawatts, major oil
and natural gas pipelines within the state, natural gas storage fields, and some types of
oil refinery expansions or new facilities. The Council typically contracts with a
consultant, state agency, or combination of the two to perform the review.
As soon as the application is received, the Council begins drafting an environmental
impact statement. The first stages of the review process entail the determination of
whether the proposed project is in compliance with local land-use and zoning plans.
Within sixty days of the Council's receipt of the project application, the contractors
schedule land-use hearings and hearings for public comment in the areas to be impacted
by the project. After a project is deemed to be in compliance with local land-use, a
formal, adjudicative hearing takes place in which expert witnesses testify as to the
technical, economic, social, or environmental significance of the project. Usually the
133
-------
hearings process is completed within a year. Before the hearings begin, if the proponent
chooses, it can ask the Council to conduct a preliminary site study to identify what issues
will need to be addressed during the hearings process (the Transmountain Low Point
Project, a proposed crude oil pipeline and facilities that would run under parts of Puget
Sound from west of Port Angeles to Ferndale and Anacortes, is in this stage of the
review process).
Based upon the results of the hearing and other information received, the Council issues
a final EIS. After the release of this EIS, the members of the Council collectively decide
whether to approve or disapprove of the project, and recommend to the Governor that^a
license should or should not be issued. The Governor can accept or reject the Council's
recommendation, or can send it back to the Council for further deliberation. In the
past, the Governor has always accepted the Council's recommendations.
Once a license has been issued, that license takes the place of all other state permits
and licenses, including Shoreline permits and NPDES permits. The Council is
responsible for monitoring and enforcing the permit holders' compliance with the
environmental requirements in the site certificate agreements.
Summary of Public Involvement in the Energy Facility Siting process: The state's
citizens have a chance to comment during the (optional) preliminary site study, at the
local land-use and public hearings, and can comment on the draft EIS once it has been
released. Comments are considered in the Council's final EIS.
Contact: Jason Zellar, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, (206) 956-2047.
Other State Environmental Review Processes:
In addition to the review processes mentioned above, many other permit and license
applicants must undergo project review and public comment in order take certain
actions. National Point Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are subject to
public review, as are the new air regulation permits, water rights permits, and many
projects reviewed at the local level. Floodplain development projects are reviewed by
local governments and may require a public hearing, as do zoning code variances, some
building permits, and some subdivision approvals (Ecology 1990a).
134
-------
PART X. TOWARD CONTINUED TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION
Despite the differences between systems of government, administrative structure, and
environmental ideologies, the United States and Canada, and Washington and British
Columbia, have a history of cooperation and communication on issues of a
transboundary nature. Treaties and agreements signed by parties on both sides of the
border range from long-standing arrangements such as the Boundary Waters Treaty to
the recently signed Air Quality Agreement. At the regional level, formal cooperation
has resulted in the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guard's management of transportation
routes in shared inland waters as well as the recently formed Oil Spill Task Force.
Other informal arrangements for addressing transboundary pollution have been designed
as the need has arisen. Some of these formal and informal means of cooperation are
discussed in the following section, and may serve as a basis for future cooperative
efforts.
A. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
The Boundary Waters Treaty/The International Joint Commission:
The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 established the International Joint Commission
(constituted in 1911). The Treaty establishes that each country has equal and similar
rights in the use of boundary waters. It also maintains that "waters flowing across the
boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property of the
other." The Commission serves as the permanent administrative body for preventing
and solving water apportionment and quality disputes between the U.S. and Canada
(Sadler 1987).
The Commission is composed of six members, three from each country, and is supported
by a Secretariat in Ottawa and D.C. Most of the specialized work of the IJC is
undertaken through appointed boards of qualified experts from state, provincial, and
federal governments, and occasionally from nongovernmental organizations (Sadler
1987).
The IJC becomes involved in a boundary waters dispute when the dispute affects
national sovereignty and the two federal governments are not able to negotiate an
agreement. The process is activated when the U.S. State Department and Canadian
Department of External Affairs contact their respective secretariats.
The Commission performs three major functions:
1. It operates as a quasi-judicial body for approving and regulating projects or
developments that affect boundary waters.
2. It conducts investigations and prepares reports on water issues and other matters
referred by the two nations.
135
-------
3. Has a mandate to act as an arbitrator of specific disputes (Sadler 1987).
During the past 80 years, the UC has functioned primarily in an approval and regulatory
capacity, but over the last twenty years its investigative activities have increased (Sadler
1987). The IJC has been most active solving disputes over the Great Lakes, however m
the Pacific Northwest it has worked toward settling controversies over the Skagit-Ross
Dam and developing the Columbia River Treaty (which addressed power, flood control,
and irrigation). Although the UC may seem an obvious alternative for peacefully
resolving international disputes, the process is lengthy and is preferred by most parties
for those instances of international significance when informal negotiations or solutions
are unlikely.
Canada/U.S. Air Quality Agreement:
The recently signed Air Quality Agreement seeks to control transboundary air pollution
between the two countries and spells out emissions limitations for sulphur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides (precursors to acid rain). The agreement calls for the establishment of
objectives for emissions limitations or reductions of other air pollutants, and requires
that environmental impact assessments and mitigative actions be undertaken for new
industrial projects that potentially affect the other side of the border. Both the U.S. and
Canada agree to carry out coordinated or cooperative scientific and technical activities
and economic research, and to establish the necessary institutional arrangements. The
agreement was signed by the nations' two leaders in March 1991, and is slightly less
binding than a formal treaty.
Migratoiy Birds Convention:
Because "many species of birds in the course of their annual migrations traverse certain
parts of the Dominion of Canada and the United States," this convention between the
U.S. and Canada serves to protect migratory birds in the two countries. Both federal
governments are given jurisdiction over regulations in their respective countries
regarding hunting, taking, shipping, and exporting migratory bird species, and may
permanently protect habitat lands or waters for the purposes of this convention. Under
this treaty, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan was developed, one
element of which is the recently designed Pacific Coast Joint Venture. This Joint
Venture is a cooperative agreement between government agents in British Columbia,
Washington, Oregon, and California to protect and save wetlands significant to migratory
birds.
U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, 1985:
This treaty provides a forum for Washington, British Columbia, Idaho, Oregon, twenty-
four Indian Tribes, the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Interior, and State,
Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and External Affairs Canada to
develop international quotas for salmon species caught in interception salmon fisheries
136
-------
A bilateral Commission finalizes negotiated annual fishery regimes, allocating fisheries
quota to each nation (MFC 1990).
B. STATE/PROVINCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
States/B.C. Oil Spill Memorandum of Agreement and Task Force:
In recognition that the "Province and the States share and manage transboundary fish
and wildlife in and near the waters of the Pacific Ocean," and in concurrence that "such
fish and wildlife and the supporting environment must be given fullest protection from
damage caused .by spills and other discharges of oil," British Columbia and Washington,
Alaska, Oregon, and California signed the Oil Spill Memorandum of Agreement in 1989.
Under this agreement, the Oil Spill Task Force was formed to develop coordinated
programs for oil pollution prevention, abatement, and response. The Task Force is
chaired jointly by the British Columbia Deputy Minister of Environment and the
Directors/Commissioners of the stages' chief environmental agencies. Representatives of
each agency are appointed to maintain the agreement and meet annually to review
progress and plan future cooperation.
Four subcommittees address prevention alternatives, technology sharing, emergency
response, and financial recovery. Specific issues discussed include:
creation of a joint emergency response plan;
evaluation of capabilities and technologies for spill prevention;
review of tanker safety, routes and operating requirements;
inventory of equipment, material, and personnel available to either the
Province or the States for use in oil spill control and clean-up operations; and
joint spill response drills and training (Memorandum 1989).
Each party bears its own expenses of cooperating, and no separate legal or
administrative entity is formed by the Memorandum.
B.C./Washington Memorandum of Understanding on the Environment:
Washington's Department of Ecology and British Columbia's Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks have begun discussions on a memorandum of cooperation between the
Province and the State on environmental matters. This agreement would be along the
same lines as existing agreements concerned with trade, investment, and tourism, and
would provide for enhanced communication and cooperation between the two
jurisdictions on transboundary environmental matters.
Contacts: Carol Jolly, Department of Ecology (206) 493-9111; Jamie Alley, B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks, (604) 387-9670.
137
-------
The Pacific Northwest Economic Region:
This group of about 60 legislators from Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, Idaho,
Montana, Oregon, and Washington formed in 1989 to explore pooling resources and
cooperating on economic matters as well as education, research and development,
energy and natural resources. Staffed by the Northwest Policy Center at the University
of Washington, the group has discussed compacts on topics such as creating markets for
recycled products and environmental protection. It is one avenue for legislators from
around the region to exchange ideas and promote interstate and international
cooperation (Claiborne 1991).
Contact: The Northwest Policy Center (206) 543-7900.
Nooksack River Task Force:
This task force was convened after the 1990 flooding of the Nooksack River into Canada
near Abbotsford, B.C. Representatives of Whatcom County (Washington), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington's Departments of Ecology and Health, B.C.
Environment, Lands and Parks, and Environment Canada have met to discuss possible
solutions to the flooding problem. A report on the Task Force's findings is expected in
early 1992.
Contacts: Ron Henry, B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks, (604) 852-5404; Jerry
Louthain, Washington Department of Ecology (206) 459-6791.
Lynden-Everson-Nooksack-Sumas (LENS) Groundwater Study:
Spearheaded by Whatcom County's planning department, with funding assistance from
the Department of Ecology, the U.S. Geological Survey is studying the groundwater
from which these four incorporated areas (Lynden, Everson, Nooksack, Sumas) draw
their drinking supplies, and is seeking to identify the sources of the groundwater's nitrate
pollution. Because the aquifer extends into British Columbia, the study participants
anticipate working closely with Canadian and provincial environmental, agricultural, and
health officials to survey the province's portion of the aquifer and collect information.
The study is expected to be completed by July of 1992, at which time possible
transboundary management issues will be discussed.
Contact: Craig Mapel, Whatcom County Planning (206) 398-1310.
The Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council:
This Council recently formed to plan and manage a federally funded program designed
to protect water quality and clean up dioxins and other pollutants that have settled in
the lake behind the Grand Coulee Dam. The Council consists of representatives of
local citizen groups and state, tribal, and federal government agencies. Representatives
from Environment Canada and B.C. Environment, Lands and Parks have also been
invited to participate in the planning and management process.
138
-------
Contact: Judith Leckrone, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (206) 553-6911.
C. COOPERATION ALONG OTHER PARTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BORDER
While the states, provinces, and federal governments are working to solve transboundary
environmental disputes at many points along the border, the following two examples
seem relevant to any potential cooperative agreement regarding the management of the
Puget Sound/Georgia Strait body of water.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972 and 1978:
The purpose of the agreements is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In order to
achieve this purpose, the U.S. and Canada will make a maximum effort to develop
programs, practices, and technology necessary for a better understanding of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable
the discharge of pollutants into the Great Lakes System.
Contact: Great Lakes National Program Office, (312) 353-3503.
The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment:
This council was established by the governors of Maine, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, and the Premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to improve the
environmental management of the Gulf of Maine. The Council's working group,
(consisting of representatives from federal, state, and provincial agencies) and
Secretariat produced an Action Plan in July 1991. The plan included provisions for
coordinated monitoring and research between the states and provinces, public
participation and education, and improved management of coastal and marine resources.
Contact: John Catena, Maine State Planning, (207) 289-3261.
139
-------
PART XI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
This report has outlined the structure of governments in British Columbia and
Washington, and has discussed the environmental policies, regulations, and programs
most relevant to managing surface water quality on both sides of the border. By also
summarizing monitoring efforts, environmental review processes, modes of public
participation, and existing means of cooperation, this report has provided the reader
with the basic background to understand and work toward resolving transboundary
environmental issues. To augment those cooperative arrangements that currently exist,
and effectively progress toward responsible management of a shared environment,
several recommended approaches should be explored by regulators and citizens
concerned with transboundary issues.
1. The first of these approaches encourages enhanced and regular communication
between regulatory officials, decision makers, and citizens groups in British Columbia
and Washington State. Meetings or conference calls between upper-level government
administrators should occur at regular intervals to keep one another informed about
issues of concern, including future regulatory actions and potential political changes.
Other decision makers and regulators involved with potential transboundary issues
should also make contact with their counterparts in the other nation, to promote
cooperative and efficient government actions. Citizens groups should continue efforts to
work together to help develop and monitor policies that affect both sides of the border.
Efforts toward achieving better communication have begun, and should proceed on a
regular basis, both in order to share knowledge and to avoid conflict between the two
separate jurisdictions.
2. Efforts should be made to collect and share relevant monitoring and scientific
information with technical counterparts in the other nation, and a process for
information exchange should be developed. This could be achieved through
international conferences, sharing of published materials, and/or regular, informal
contact between federal, provincial and state public officials. To make technical
information relevant to both sides, the potential for standardized protocols for sampling
and analysis could also be explored. With shared environmental data, mutual decisions
could be made regarding whether a transboundary pollution problem exists.
3. A third recommendation involves the concept of similarly protective environmental
policies for shared natural resources. Through the years, several suggestions have been
made concerning international treaties or agreements for the shared waters of the
Pacific Northwest. One such suggestion is to declare the Straits of Juan de Fuca and
Georgia to be an inland sea, and develop an international treaty similar to that of the
Great Lakes. Another approach, put forth by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
is to develop an international water quality management plan for Puget Sound and the
Strait of Georgia, which would comprehensively address pollution issues on both sides of
the border (PSWQA 1987). A third proposal involves the negotiation of a system of
site-specific water quality standards or guidelines for transboundary waters, with shared
monitoring responsibilities (Carroll 1979). These ideas should be examined further as
140
-------
similar environmental policies could lead to pooled technical and financial resources,
enhanced environmental protection, and the avoidance of potentially costly conflict.
4. The fourth and final approach to responsibly managing transboundary resources is to
continue to cooperate on management decisions. The current effort to produce an
environmental protection agreement between Washington and British Columbia (see
Part X, Section B) should continue, as this agreement could provide a formal means of
promoting cooperation and communication. Such an agreement could also legitimize
inquiry into prospective problems before they become controversial. Citizen groups and
government organizations should proceed with efforts to form international task forces
and committees to address transboundary issues. The work of the States/B.C. Oil Spill
Task Force should especially be maintained, as it provides the region with an example of
how the states and provinces can successfully work together to address environmental
concerns.
In order to successfully address the issue of transboundary pollution, agencies in both
nations must recognize it as significant and assign staff time to resolving the conflicts
that arise. The political traditions of the different governments must be understood and
respected by citizens and regulators on both sides. The natural environment of the
Northwest is a resource shared by the residents of the region as well as its visitors, and
is an environment worthy of international protection. While this report has focused on
the quality of water, other resources such as the atmosphere, the land, and the living
creatures of the region also depend upon international cooperation for protection.
As the Pacific Northwest continues to grow both economically and in population,
transboundary environmental issues and pollution will become more critical. Additional
pressures on the region's treasured natural resources will continue to draw attention to
the problems and the public will continue to call for solutions. Whether due to vehicle
traffic, oil pollution, sewage discharge, industrial waste, or hazardous materials
production, issues affecting both sides of the border will need to be addressed at an
international level. To effectively protect and enhance the region's environment and
prevent misunderstanding, the federal, state, and provincial governments must work
together to solve common problems. The contents of this report should provide a
background for enhanced cooperative efforts in resource protection, but it is the
responsibility of the region's citizens and public officials to move forward in that
direction.
141
-------
PART XII. REFERENCES
Aquatic Resources Conservation Group. 1987. Working Paper on Marine Protected
Areas and the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program. For the Center for
Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. 205 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. 1991. Annual Report 1989-1990. Victoria,
B.C. 52 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Crown Lands. 1989. Annual Report for the Period April 1, 1988 to
March 31, 1989. Victoria, B.C. 47 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Environment. 199 la. B.C. Environment Overview. Prepared for B.C.
Environment/Washington State Department of Ecology Meeting on Transboundary
Environmental Issues-May 29, 1991.
B.C. Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism. 199 Ib.
Major Project Review Process, Guidelines, Revised. Victoria, B.C. 34 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Environment. 1991c. Environment 2001: Strategic Directions for British
Columbia. Victoria, B.C. 71 pp.
B.C Ministry of Environment and Parks. 1986. Principles for Preparing Water Quality
Objectives in British Columbia. Water Management Branch, Victoria B.C. 20 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Environment. 1990a. The Attainment of Ambient Water Quality
Objectives in 1989. Water Management Branch, Victoria B.C. 170 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Environment. 1990b. Environmental Impact Assessment in British
Columbia. Prepared for the 14th Annual Assembly of Canadian Environmental Advisory
Councils in Manitoba, September 19-22, 1990. 22 pp. + appendices.
B.C. Ministry of Environment. 1977. Metal Mining Liquid Effluent Regulations and
Guidelines, Regulations, Codes and Protocols. Report EPS l-WP-77-1. Water Pollution
Control Directorate, Victoria, B.C. 16 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Environment. 1990c. Oil Spills: A Strategy for British Columbia
Victoria, B.C. 11 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Forests 1991. Annual Report 1989-1990. Victoria, B.C. 120 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (MEMPR). 1987. Mine
Development Review Process: An Introduction. Victoria, B.C. 23 pp. + appendices.
142
-------
Botts, Paul. 1991. Environment Canada faces chorus of criticism. In: The Great Lakes
Reporter, July/August, p. 3. The Center for the Great Lakes, Chicago, IL.
Caldwell, Lynton K. 1985. Binational Responsibilities for a Shared Environment. In:
Canada and the United States: Enduring Friendship, Persistent Stress. Charles F. Doran
and John H. Siglor, eds. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp. 203-230.
Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (CCREM). 1987. Canadian
Water Quality Guidelines, prepared by the Task Force on Water Quality Guidelines,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Capital Regional District (CRD). 1991. Liquid Waste Management Plan - Stage II.
Sewage Treatment Options and Locations of Sites, Summary Report. Victoria, B.C. 13
pp.
Carroll, John E. 1979. Differences in the Environmental Regulatory Climate of Canada
and the United States. In: Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4: pp. 17-25.
Carroll, John E. 1989. Environmental Policy. In: Peter Karl Dresl, ed. Seen from the
South. Brigham Young University, UT. pp. 193-222.
Claiborae, William. 1991. Cascadia: A Culture Evolves in Northwest, States, Provinces
Find Common Bonds. In: The Washington Post, May 5. A29, A34 col 1.
Cooper Consultants, Inc. and Envirosphere Company. 1986. Open-Water Disposal of
Material in Canadian Waters. Prepared for Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis
and submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. 17 pp.
Day, J.C., and Don B. Gamble. 1990. Coastal Zone Management in British Columbia:
An Institutional Comparison with Washington, Oregon, and California. In: Marc J.
Hershman, ed. Coastal Management, vol. 18, no. 2. pp. 115-141.
Environment Canada. 1991. Status of Planning for New National Parks and National
Marine Parks in British Columbia. A paper prepared by the National Parks Systems
Branch, National Parks Directorate, Environment Canada, N. Vancouver, B.C. 7 pp.
Environment Canada. 1988. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Enforcement and
Compliance Policy. Cat. No En 40-356/1988E. Ottawa, Ontario. 58 pp.
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). 1987. The Federal
Environmental Assessment Review Process. Ministry of Supply and Services Cat no.
Enl06-4/1987. Ottawa, Ontario. 10 pp.
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). 1986. Initial Assessment
Guide, Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process. PJ.B. Duffy ed.
Ministry of Supply and Services, Cat no. Enl05-36/1986. Ottawa, Ontario. 36 pp.
143
-------
Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO). 1988. Environmental
Assessment Panels-What they are, what they do. Ministry of Supply and Services Cat
no. En 105-12/1980. Ottawa, Ontario. 15 pp.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1986. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans Policy for
the Management of Fish Habitat. Ottawa, Ontario. 30 pp.
Foster, Harold D., and W.R. Derrick Sewell. 1981. Water, the Emerging Crisis in
Canada. James Lorimer & Co., Toronto, Ontario, pp. 86-95.
Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP). 1990a. A Recommended Waste
Management Activity Plan, New Westminster, B.C. 133 pp.
Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP). 1990b. Status Report on Water
Quality in the Fraser River Estuary-1990. New Westminster, B.C. 112 pp.
Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP). 199la. Draft Summary of
Activity Programs and Proposed Framework for Action. New Westminster, B.C. 39 pp.
Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP). 199Ib. Navigation, Dredging and
Environment in the Fraser River Estuary. New Westminster, B.C. 89 pp.
Gibbins, Roger. 1988. Conflict and Unity, an Introduction to Canadian Political Life,
Nelson Canada, Scarborough, Ontario. 388 pp.
Government of Canada. 1990. Canada's Green Plan for a Healthy Environment. Cat no.
EN21-94/1990E. Ottawa, Ontario. 174 pp.
Government of Canada. 1991. Federal Government Announces $100-Million Program to
Clean Up Fraser River. News Release PR-HQ-091-23, June 1.
Gulf of Maine Working Group for the Council on the Marine Environment. 1991. Gulf
of Maine Action Plan. Augusta, Maine, (from John Catena, Maine State Planning
Office).
Harding, Lee. 1991. Marine Transboundary Water Quality Problems in the Strait of
Georgia and Strait of Juan de Fuca. From presentation at the American Fisheries
Society, North Pacific International Chapter, 1991 Annual Meeting, March 11-13
Penticton, B.C. 11 pp.
Harding, Lee, Rob Langford and Les Swain. 1987. Water Quality Management in
Coastal British Columbia. In: Coastal Zone '87, vol 3. Proceedings of the Fifth
Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management at the Westin Hotel, Seattle, WA.
Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 2896-2909.
Hunter, David. 1986. Great Lakes Water Quality, An Inventory of Canadian Federal and
Provincial Laws. Prepared for the Center for the Great Lakes, Chicago, IL. 198 pp.
144
-------
Jackson, Robert J., and Doreen Jackson. 1990. Politics in Canada, Culture, Institutions,
Behaviour and Public Policy, second ed., Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Scarborough,
Ontario. 671 pp. + appendix.
Jessup, Deborah Hitchcock. 1990. Guide to State Environmental Programs. Bureau of
National Affairs, Washington D.C.
Kay, B. 1989. Pollutants in the B.C. Marine Environment. Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario. Cat. 80E-89-01.
Leach, Richard H., Donald E. Walker and Thomas Allen Levy. 1973. Province-State
Transborder-Relations: A Preliminary Assessment. In: Canadian Public Administration.
vol. 16. no. 1. pp.468-482.
League of Women Voters (LWV). 1988. The State We're In: Washington. A Citizen's
guide to Washington State Government. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
78 pp.
lipset, Martin Seymour. 1990. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the
United States and Canada. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc. New York. pp. 132-145.
Lucas, Alastair R. 1978. Fundamental Prerequisites for Citizen Participation. In:
Involvement and Environment, Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Public
Participation, Banff, Alberta, Oct 1977. vol 1. Barry Sadler, ed. Published by The
Environment Council of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, pp. 43-57.
Lyons, Bob. 1989. Dire Straits: Pollution in the Strait of Georgia, B.C. Canada. For
Greenpeace Canada, Vancouver, B.C. 123 pp.
Marine Law Institute. 1991. Comparative Assessment of State Laws Protecting the
Marine Environment of the Gulf of Maine. Prepared for the Gulf of Maine Council on
Marine Environment. 61 pp. + appendices.
McClenaghan, William A. 1988. Magruder's American Government, revised. Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mondor, Claude, and Bill Henwood, eds. 1988. Proceedings of the Workshop on
National Marine Park Planning, Hull, Quebec, February 23-25, 1988. 152 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1989. NOAA Media Guide, How to
Find NOAA People and Programs. U.S. Department of Commerce. 28 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1991. Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary, Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C. 312 pp.
145
-------
Northwest Policy Center. 1990. Northwest Resources for Regional
University of Washington Graduate School of Public Affairs, Seattle, WA. H/ pp.
Northwest Territories Data Book (NWT), 1990-1991. 1990. Published by Outcrop
Limited, Yellowknife, NWT.
Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, U.S. Public Law 101-380. 104 Stat. 484. August 18,
1990.
Oil Spill Memorandum of Cooperation, June 1989.
Orloff, Neil. 1978. The Environmental Impact Statement Process, A Guide to Citizen
Action. Information Resources Press; Washington, D.C. 122 pp. + appendices.
Pilon, Paul and M. Anne Kerr. 1984. Land Use Change on Wetlands in the
Southwestern Fraser Lowland, British Columbia. Prepared for the Canada Land Use
Monitoring Program, Working Paper No. 34. Environment Canada, Pacific and Yukon
Region. N. Vancouver, B.C. 21 pp. + appendices.
Pommen, L.W. 1991. Approved and Working Criteria for Water Quality. Water
Management Division, Water Quality Branch, B.C. Ministry of Environment. Victoria,
B.C. 41 pp.
Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP). 1991. Recommended Protocols for Measuring
Selected Environmental Variables in Puget Sound. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA. 1991.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986c. Issue Paper: Habitat and Wetlands
Protection. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. 70 pp.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986a. Issue Paper: Industrial and Municipal
Discharges. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. 136 pp. + appendices.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986b. Issue Paper: Nonpoint Source Pollution.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990c. Issue Paper: Protecting Fish and Wildlife
Habitat in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA, 113 pp.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990a. Issue Paper: Spill Prevention. Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA. 87 pp. + appendices
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 199la. Puget Sound Update: Second Annual
Report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, Olympia, WA, 87 pp. J
146
------- |