O Overcoming Jurisdictional Challenges Via Integrated Watershed Planning: Abstract:

Overcoming Jurisdictional Challenges Via
Integrated Watershed Planning:
Learning from the Shuswap (BC) Plan-Making Process
Abstract:
Adam Cseke,
Student, UofM
Marcin Pachcinski,
Planner, CSRD
O
ver the last decade, the Shuswap region of British Columbia has become an increasingly popular area. Its location midway between Vancouver and Calgary along
the Trans Canada Highway and offerings of less expensive lake living (compared to
the Okanagan) have attracted many second home buyers and retirees. This influx
has exacerbated water quality and waste management issues, created recreational
user conflicts and exposed inadequate regulations to control development generally.
While individual regulatory bodies were responding to the increasing pressures being put on the Shuswap watershed, there was no coordinated approach among them.
With this in mind, the BC Ministry of Environment spearheaded an effort to bring
all the relevant players together through the Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP) to address the issues in an integrative fashion. This was a pioneering
approach to integrative planning on a watershed scale that included local, provincial
and federal levels of government, First Nations, elected officials, and representatives
from the public. The collaborative and integrative effort has produced a strategic plan
for the Shuswap and the implementation of the plan’s goals and vision are starting
to be realized.
Case In Point 2011
Through the Water Protection Act (2006), Manitoba has legislated the ability to create Integrated Watershed Management Plans (IWMPs). These plans are developed by
Manitoba Water Stewardship through the Conservation Districts and include stakeholders (residents and interested groups) to develop a plan for the watershed. The
Shuswap experience provides lessons learned for overcoming challenges during the
plan-making process. Other jurisdictions, including IWMPs in Manitoba who are
embarking on a watershed plan-development process can benefit from these lessons.
case
2011
1
Background
and Context:
W
atershed planning is becoming increasingly recognized as the
most appropriate planning unit to
address many of the environmental
issues such as water quality, water
flow, and habitat preservation (Williams, Wood, & Dombeck, 1997).
Watershed planning benefits are not
limited to the environment but provide a multiplicity of opportunities.
Manitoba Water Stewardship, for
example, acknowledges that watershed planning can address a broad
range of environmental , social,
and economic issues beyond the
scope of any one agency or jurisdiction (Manitoba Water Stewardship,
2009).
Cooperation, integration, and coordination amongst various entities
and agencies are necessary on a watershed scale because various mandates and jurisdictions overlap (McGinnis, Wolley, & Gamman, 1999).
“Traditional participatory planning
processes such as public hearings
and comment periods have been
criticized for not creating a planning
environment suitable for addressing
these issues because they: restrict
information sharing; reinforce stereotypes; limit public involvement
and plan development; and promote win-lose solutions (Bentrup,
2001, p. 739).” Collaboration based
planning suggests solutions can be
holistic, equitable as well as have
the necessary support to be implemented (Bentrup, 2001). Bentrup’s
Table 1 illustrates the difference between collaboration based planning
and participatory planning.
Table 1. Characteristics of collaboration-based and participatory planning
Collaboration-based planning
Participatory planning
· Interdisciplinary approach / crossdisciplinary integration
· Multidisciplinary approach - compartmentalization of
disciplines
· Stakeholders educate each other
Informal face to face dialogue among
stakeholders
· Continuous stakeholder participation
throughout the planning process
· Stakeholder participation encouraged to
create a holistic Plan
· Joint information search used to determine
facts
· Generally, consensus is used to make
decisions
Acquired from (Bentrup, 2001).
2
· Education is believed only to be necessary for the
public
· Overreliance on public hearings and other formal
input methods
· Participation of stakeholders only requested at certain
points in the planning process
· Stakeholder participation generally encouraged only
to create support for a plan
· Science used to buttress positions and refute other
parties data
· Generally, voting is used to make decisions
Collaboration-based planning puts
more decision making authority in
the hands of participants (in particular, non-governmental participants).
This, for example, may lead to
greater ownership over local issues
(e.g. water quality) by local residents/groups in the long term.
This case in point will explore what
the Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP) accomplished
and extract lessons learned to be utilized by Integrated Watershed Management Plans (IWMPs) produced
by Manitoba Watershed Stewardship through the Conservation Districts.
Figure 1:
Source: SLIPP Steering Committee March 8, 2011
Facts of the
Case:
I
n Betrup’s analysis, he suggested
triggers or as he coins it ‘antecedents’ (e.g. financial incentives or a
crisis) are often the catalyst of collaborative planning ventures or attempts (Bentrup, 2001). In 2007,
SLIPP was initiated as a response
to the significant development pressures surrounding the lake including waste water discharge, development applications, and conflicting
demands on recreational resources
(SLIPP Steering Committee, 2010).
The regulatory environment at the
time consisted of a myriad of public
agencies from every level of government having some jurisdiction,
but no one body able to tackle the
whole range of pressures.
Initial direction for SLIPP came
3
from a steering committee which
consisted of elected officials and
senior staff from the key agencies.
The public was encouraged to engage in the process early on and was
provided with two venues to do so.
One was open public meetings and
the second was individual participation on three public advisory committees.
Public meetings were held early
and often in order to gather input
and information which resulted in
three project work streams: Foreshore Development, Water Quality
and Waste Management, and Recreational Use (SLIPP Steering Committee, 2010). Each work team consisted of technical staff and a public
advisory committee. Figure 1 shows
the relationship between the steering committee and the workgroups
which comprised of public advisory
committees and technical teams.
During the plan creation phase,
guiding principles were agreed upon
early in order to guide and smooth
the discussions on the development
of the plan. The implementation of
the plan`s goals are accomplished
through the same relationship between the steering committee and
its public advisory committees and
technical teams. The public has also
stated a keen desire for continued
engagement throughout implementation of the Strategic Plan.
SLIPP partners have been engaged since 2006 in the development and
implementation of a strategic vision for the watershed
The House Boat Tour
To identify issues facing the
lakes and to determine the
interest among the agencies for
an integrated planning process
Strategic Plan Finalized
MoE, DFO, CSRD, TNRD,
IHA, FBC, Sicamous
E, C & E
Strategies
Funding Secured from
FSWP
2007
2008
SLIPP Governance
2 Public Meetings held, over
12,000 words of input received
2009
2010
Water Quality Strategies
Steering Committee formed
Technical Team meetings and
Public Advisory Committees
formed
~ $1m over 3 years
Initiate
implementation
Strategic Plan Development
2006
SLIPP Funding Pilot
Approved
Grey Water Studies and Report
Foreshore Growth and Long Term Water Quality
Monitoring Plan
Development Strategies
Initiate implementation
2011
SLIPP Steering
Committee
Refreshed
New members for a 2
year term
Source: SLIPP Steering Committee Meeting March 8, 2011
Actions and
Interactions:
T
he great possibility of collaborative planning exercises is the potential to transform the participants into
collaborators instead of spectators
or opponents. Ken Christian, who
is the Director of Health Protection
at the Interior Health Authority and
a participant in SLIPP, stated “the
SLIPP process is multi-agency cooperation; it’s not one organization
doing their thing and another doing
theirs quite separately. This is integration and this is effective use of
4
government resources (BC Public
Service, 2010).”
The benefits do not stop at effective use of government resources
but spill over into society at large.
By including the public and all interested stakeholders in the process,
people can find mutually agreeable
ways forward. For example, the
houseboat industry and representatives of local environmental groups
have often been at odds with each
other. But, when they were put in the
same room together to try to solve
some of these problems, a transformation occurred with the potential
to find consensus. No longer could
groups or agencies be siloed and refer to other organizations as ‘them’
while doing their own individual
thing. The mayor of Kamloops Peter
Milobar said “I think we found that
getting into this process that when
the agencies were all siloed there
wasn’t the same type of coordinated
approach and people were finding it
quite confusing to navigate around
to do developments and things
properly. So now with this whole
integration it’s really starting to pay
some dividends with not confusing
the public but also getting an end
result (BC Public Service, 2010).”
“There are no lines
on the sand in terms
of authorities particular jurisdictions we
have adopted the philosophy that the entire basin needs to be
protected and people
have come together
around that mission.”
- Peter Milobar
Mayor of Kamloops
Conclusions
and Outcomes:
A
fter a large collaborative effort, the finalized version of the strategic plan was adopted in 2008 for
the Shuswap Watershed. A strategic
framework was captured as an outcome during the planning process
and is illustrated by the diagram
below. The collaborative effort led
to a compelling future for the lake
system by expressing a vision, three
goals, and supporting strategies to
realize those goals. This strategic
plan is now the guiding document for
5
the SLIPP steering committee and
for the implementation of its goals.
Since the finalization of the strategic plan SLIPP continues to progress on its implementation. SLIPP
has had remarkable and ongoing
support and engagement from the
public, First Nations, elected representatives, and government agencies. SLIPP has been recognized by
the Premier of BC and has received
a gold award in the partnership
category. Finally, one million dollars of funding has been secured to
implement a three year SLIPP pilot.
The governance structure of SLIPP
is illustrated by figure 1 and the new
terms of reference for the SLIPP
steering committee to guide the
implementation of this pilot project
is finalized and waiting approval.
Planned Actions:
Source: SLIPP Strategic Plan For Shuswap and Mara Lakes
Implementation Status:
6







Form an Inter-Agency Technical Committee to review development proposals
Develop a coordinated water quality monitoring program
Establish a coordinated education, compliance and enforcement planning process
Create a site sensitivity map (initiated, 75% complete)
Develop a model for assessing foreshore cumulative impacts (initiated, 40% complete)
Completed a study on effects of boat discharges on the lakes
Streamline the development application review process (initiated, 60% complete)



Develop a recreation management plan for the Shuswap and Mara lakes
Create a Professional and Scientific Advisory Group
Engage stakeholders in education, compliance and enforcement initiatives
Lessons
Learned:
M
anagers who only exercise
their “expert opinion role” are limiting what is possible in an organizational setting (Selin & Chavez,
1995). They need to develop new
skills in order to move to an empowerment role as a mediator, catalyst, or broker (Selin & Chavez,
1995).” The coordinator and leader
of SLIPP, Ian McGregor, working
at the Ministry of Environment in
the Environmental Stewardship
Division, was integral in the success of this planning project. His
personality lent itself to collaboration with other players, and given
how many actors were involved;
his openness was a prerequisite
for the process to move forward.
These traits were important because forcing through a process
like SLIPP would not work due to
the inherent collaboration it entails.
The individuals whose patience and
contribution to the process over
the years are very proud at what
they have achieved. Not only has
a planning initiative at this scale,
level of integration, and collaboration never been attempted before
but it occurred when the Province
was (and is) in a phase of trying
to shift certain functions, such as
oversight of septic tank installations and protection of near stream
vegetation (riparian areas), away
from their agencies to either local
government or to the private sector.
The situation in the Shuswap boiled
7
down to the agencies being faced
with more problems from the influx
of people to the Shuswap (and all
the additional strains that entails)
while having less money and resources to deal with it. The public
was demanding for government action. The Columbia Shuswap Regional District started to take action
with numerous large scale planning
projects (i.e. Official Community
Plans). Much of the initial work
began with introducing regulations to areas that did not have any
or very little. The other agencies
were strapped for resources therefore collaboration was the obvious
solution to pool resources together.
The collaborative approach helped
to overcome some inherent struc-
tural rigidity in government agencies. Because each agency is bound
by their own, separate piece of
legislation, participants could not
simply create a new entity from
scratch. This obstacle was overcome by political and senior level
staff buy-in into SLIPP at the beginning. The public was already
on board because they wanted
government action as soon as possible to curtail development issues.
Flexibility and genuine collaboration amongst participants was also
necessary for this process to succeed. For example, environmental
groups played an important role
in building support on the ground
for this initiative. However, these
groups’ initial expectations were
that SLIPP would be a new government body with authority of its own
(like a local government) which
would put additional controls on development. The realization that this
was not the case did deflate their
expectations a bit but they did not
quit the process. They were dedicated to see it through which was
essential for the survival of the process as there were other organizations that had similar experiences.
During the SLIPP funding negotiations, public and environmental
groups organized a song contest
to celebrate the Shuswap Watershed. The event was well attended
and created a sense of awareness,
pride, and fortitude amongst the
people involved to celebrate the
successes and to pressure for implementation of the SLIPP initiative.
At the beginning of the planning
process there were some hurdles to
working together. These hurdles included: (1) history of each agency
working in its own silo (2) recent
downloading, in the view of local governments, of Provincial responsibilities to local governments
without accompanying funds and
(3) some just ‘old school’ thinking. This last point speaks to the
predominant rationale comprehensive planning model that existed at
all the agencies. Once staff persons
at each agency were able to open
to working in a collaborative way,
fears of losing authority or taking
on additional tasks were alleviated.
Integrated Watershed Management Plans (IWMPs) in Manitoba
should take a look at how success-
8
ful the SLIPP process has been.
The importance of patience, collaboration, and integration cannot
be stressed enough. Involving and
integrating all levels of government,
the public, and First Nations will
strengthen the plan and produce tangible results in watershed planning.
In 2006, the Water Protection Act
was adopted as enabling legislation
in Manitoba to provide a basis for
watershed planning which includes
provisions to allow for integration
with local development plans (Manitoba Water Stewardship, 2009). In
Manitoba, Conservation Districts
are the Water Planning Authority and they set up a Project Management Team (PMT) to guide the
planning process and to produce the
plan. The PMT usually consist of individual stakeholders residing in the
watershed supported by the ecological expertise of the technical teams
at the Conservation District. The
problem is in the implementation of
the plan because the recommendations are usually for education of the
public (if there are enforcement issues identified during the planning
process) and for voluntary actions to
be taken by individuals and senior
levels of government to achieve
its goals. Integrating senior levels
of governments, Aboriginal governments, aboriginal people, and
elected officials during the planning
process as collaborators may create more ownership over the implementation of the IWMP’s goals
and help contribute to its success.
References:
BC Public Service. (2010). 2009/10 Premier’s Awards Finalist - Shuswap Lake integrated planning Process. BC, Canada.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XokCYxRWfpA
Bentrup, G. (2001). Evaluation of a collaborative model: a case study analysis of watershed planning in the intermountain
west. Environment management , 739-748.
Manitoba Water Stewardship. (2009). Integrated Watershed Management Planning in Western Manitoba.
http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/iwmp/index.html
Manitoba Water Stewardship. (2009). Integrated Watershed Management Planning: What you should know before starting.
Retrieved October 15, 2010, from http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/agencies/cd/pdf/iwmp_brochure_detailed.pdf
McGinnis, M., Wolley, J., & Gamman, J. (1999). Bioregional conflict resolutions: rebuilding community in watershed planning and organizing. Environmental Management , 24 (1):112.
Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental management , 189-195.
SLIPP Steering Committee. (2010). SLIPP Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process: Strategic Plan for Shuswap and Mara
lakes.
Williams, J., Wood, C., & Dombeck, M. (1997). Watershed restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society .
Authors:
9
Adam Cseke is a City Planning
Masters student at the University
of Manitoba. He grew up in Salmon Arm and moved to Vancouver
to complete his Bachelors degree
in environmental science at UBC.
After the Shuswap Lake Integrated
Plan Process completed its strategic
plan and decision makers were negotiating its funding future, Adam
participated in the Songs for the
Shuswap event and contributed
to a survey initiative sponsored
by local environmental groups to
gather residents’ opinions and information on funding for SLIPP.
Marcin Pachcinski has been a
long-range planner at the Columbia Shuswap Regional District in
Salmon Arm, BC, since 2006. He
went through the University of
Manitoba City Planning program
immediately preceding his current job. At the CSRD, he works
primarily on Official Community
Plans, which involve a lot of public engagement, something he found
the City Planning program helped
prepare him for very well. His
other time is spent on lake regulations, including preparing a zoning
bylaw for Shuswap and six smaller lakes and serving as the planning staff representative for SLIPP.
The Shuswap Watershed
The Shuswap watershed is part of the traditional territory of the Secwepemc people who have resided here for over eight thousand
years. A provincial treasure, the Shuswap forms the major southeast contributor to the Fraser River watershed and provides key habitat
for a significant percentage of provincial fish stocks. Home to diverse wildlife and plant species, the watershed also provides water for
drinking, development and agriculture. A popular location to live, visit, recreate and earn a living, the watershed deserves the best
environmentally sustainable management and greater public awareness of its many values.
Province of
British Columbia
Shuswap Watershed Facts
The drainage area of the watershed is 1,552,058 hectares or 5,993 square miles
The Shuswap watershed is located near the headwaters of the Fraser River system
The highest point completely within the watershed is Mt. English at 2,701 metres above sea level
The lowest point in the watershed is the exit of Little Shuswap Lake at Chase at only 346 metres above sea level
Shuswap Lake produces 19% of the Sockeye population of the entire Fraser River system
Of the Shuswap fish population, 70% require shoreline habitat for their survival
Shuswap Lake is the 7th largest lake in B.C.
Key Threats
Invasive species –
Non-native plant and animal species can have detrimental impacts on the ecosystem. They can compete with native
species for food, shelter and habitat which may change ecosystems dynamics and can lead to the extinction of both fish
and wildlife species. Some examples of non-native species include perch, bass, sunfish, and European starling.
Resource use –
Extraction of resources for agriculture, forestry, mining, and urban/rural development can impact aquatic and wildlife habitat.
Clearing land results in increased sediment transport and erosion that can lower water quality and destroy fish and wildlife
habitat through in-filling and burying plants, insects, and spawning areas.
A
Foreshore development –
Shoreline development such as retaining walls, creation of beaches, beach grooming, landscaping, removal of shoreline
vegetation, the construction of docks, boat houses, and boat launches alter the natural shoreline functions and result in
cumulative impacts on wildlife and aquatic species. Alterations to foreshore areas degrade the quality and quantity of
habitat available to fish species for rearing, migrating and spawning activities.
da
ms
R iv
Upper Seymour
River Park
er
Pollution –
Sewage effluent, agricultural run-off, fuel and oil spills, houseboat grey-water and storm-water run-off decreases water
quality and increases the likelihood of algae blooms and aquatic weed growth. Decreased water quality may result in
fish kills or raise human health issues.
Ad
Recreational use –
The Shuswap watershed is subject to a high level of recreational use including boating, fishing, hiking, and hunting
activities. Fuel or oil spills, erosion of foreshore areas, creation of docks or clearing of brush can all result from recreational
use. These can lead to reduced habitat and survival for all species of wildlife that rely on the lake and its resources.
am
sR
Seymour River
Harbour-Dudgeon
Lakes Park
i v er
eC
r ee
k
r Riv
nn
mou
ye
Sey
C
a
Fish and Fisheries
er
Upper Adams
River Park
Climate change –
As the planet continues to warm up there will be an increased potential for flooding, erosion, and drought, as well
as more forest fires.
There are a wide variety of fish species that rely on the natural resources of the Shuswap watershed. These species use
the rivers, streams and lakes of the Shuswap for rearing, food supply, spawning, and migration. Fish habitat not only includes
the water they live in, but also the adjacent land, animal and plant communities. The Shuswap watershed is home to several
fish species including rainbow trout, bull trout, lake char, kokanee, whitefish, and 4 of the 5 species of Pacific salmon
(coho, chinook, sockeye and pink salmon). The most well known population of fish in the system is the world
famous Adams River sockeye.
sL
Within the Shuswap drainage area are significant wetlands that include swamps,
marshes and bogs. Wetlands are a critical part of a healthy ecosystem. They
absorb floodwaters, provide habitat for a vast number of animals, filter
toxins and chemicals from our water systems, and hold water in reserve
to supply the ecosystem through hot, dry summers. Wetlands are found
on only three percent of Shuswap Lake’s shoreline.
An
ste
yR
iver
ak
e
Wetlands
Celista
Creek
Momich Lake
Park
Ad
am
Pukeashun
Park
Anstey
Arm
Hunakwa
tc h C
reek
Park
Sey
S co
mo
ur
First Nations
Water has always been sacred to the Secwepemc people since time immemorial, as the
appreciation of water's life sustaining values have long been part of Secwepemc culture.
As our Stsptekwle (our oral histories) teach us, one of the few gifts we received from Old
One, our Chief on High, was the Sq'ilye (sweat lodge) - our place of prayer and meditation
and cleansing and healing. Our Tqeltk Kukpi7 instructed the Fir Boughs' Spirit and the
Water Spirit to assist the Spirit of Sq'ilye in answering the prayers of the Secwepemc.
rm
hC
reek
An
ste
yA
Sco
tc
Re Sewllkwe (Water) yiri7 tekwemite7 re txexetens re Secwepemc. Stslex yem yiri7 ren
tsuwet.s re Secwepemc. Ne stspetékwles-kucw ri7 re slexéy'ems re stet'ex7éms-kucw yew k
yiri7 k skectéls-kucw re Tqeltk Kukpi7 te sq'ilye es yucwmins-kucw, ell-ekwe qwel7ey'ens re
swumecs re qweltsen ell re sewllkwe es knucwens re sq'ilye tkenhe7e es yucwmenstés re
Secwepemc e qweqwentsinmenses le ullcwes ne sq'ilye.
Perry Riv
er
The fact that the Shuswap Nation and its vast traditional territory is named after the
Shuswap watershed shows how significant Shuswap Lake and its tributaries are to all
the Secwepemc people.
m
Celista
Main Ar
p Lake
Shuswa
Roderick
Haig-Brown
da Park
ms
R ive
r
gle
Ea
r
Rive
A
Mount
English
Blind Bay
p
wa
us
Sh e
tle Lak
Lit
Lake
gle
Ea
r
Rive
Mount
Griffin
Park
k
Cree
Wap
rm
nA
Kingfisher
Creek
Park
Wa
pC
lmo
Greenbush Lake
Protected Area
Th
om
ps
o
n
Riv
er
Ma
ra
Sa
ree
k
Sicamous
Chase
La
ke
The Sacred Healing Powers of Water for the Secwepemc, by Dr. Ronald E. Ignace, PhD
Shuswap Watershed Sub-Drainages
White
So
ut
h
Salmon Arm
Shu
sw
w
ap
Shuswap River
Island Park
a p R iv e r
Falkland
River
Skookumchuk
Rapids Park
Mabel La
ke
Enderby
Sh
us
Salmon River
Enderby
Cliffs
Park
Monashee
Park
Westwold
Salm
on River
The 12 significant sub-drainages in the Shuswap
watershed which contribute to one of the mightiest
rivers in Canada, the Fraser River, are:
Spallumcheen
Sugar
Lake
Silver Star
Park
B
Shuswap River
440,722 Ha
Adams River / Lake
286,010 Ha
Salmon River
155,322 Ha
Eagle River
81,420 Ha
Seymour River
80,950 Ha
Bessette Creek
79,393 Ha
Scotch Creek
61,522 Ha
Momich River / Cayenne Creek
47,740 Ha
Perry River
43,646 Ha
Celista Creek
28,205 Ha
Anstey River
23,998 Ha
Wap Creek
21,059 Ha
Mabel Lake
Park
Armstrong
Vernon
es
re
te C
s et
ek
Lumby
Cherryville
Coldstream
Echo Lake
Park
Educational Links
Greystokes
Park
Provincial Parks
Hiking Trails
nd
North Okanagan-Shuswap
School District #83
utors
10
artners
Pacific salmon information: www.thinksalmon.com
Shoreline living information: The Living by Water Project: www.livingbywater.ca
Wetland information at Ducks Unlimited: www.ducks.ca
BC Lake Stewardship Society: www.bclss.org
Shuswap environmental news and information: www.seas.ca
Fraser Basin information and news: www.fraserbasin.bc.ca
Federal salmon management: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Watershed resource guide and maps: www.shuswapwatershed.ca
Shuswap trails: www.shuswaptrails.com
Shuswap Lake mapping project, community plans, liquid waste water management plans, regional parks: www.csrd.bc.ca
Salmon Migration
Agriculture, Cutblocks, Height of Land
Wetlands
Geographic Elevations