Salmon River Watershed Management Plan
Chris Ling and Nitya Harris
Case Summary
The Salmon River Watershed Management Plan partnership started out as a vibrant and committed group of stakeholders with a desire to produce an effective management plan to protect and conserve one of the last few remaining watersheds in the Greater Vancouver Regional District that is still able to support productive fish stocks. The partnership process suffered from a lack of sustained vision and commitment by some of the major stakeholders, a lack of community engagement and a final product that lacked depth and on-the-ground implementation. This was the result of competing and contrasting agendas, a lack of cohesive vision agreed across the partnership, and eventually a lack of consensus that created a toothless plan with no focus or authority behind it. The root cause of these problems was the poor governance involved in the creation and management of the partnership. It had no decision-making framework, the agencies involved never gave it any authority, and the various stakeholders had a lack of trust in each other and in the involvement of citizens in the process. This lack of integration of citizen and government groups on the round table contributed to the poor engagement with the public during the decision making process.
Sustainable development Characteristics
The Salmon River Watershed is considered one of the last few remaining watersheds in the Greater Vancouver Regional District that is still able to support productive fish stocks and although altered by development pressures, still provides good quality fish and wildlife habitat. It is also an area of fertile soils, attractive rural landscapes and underground water reserves. In 1993, the Environmental Co-ordinator of the Township of Langley noted that the protection of the natural resources in the Salmon River Watershed was seen as a priority for residents and users of the watershed. At the same time, a number of government agencies including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the Fraser Basin Management Program were interested in having a demonstration project that showcased managing a watershed so that it was sustainable.
A number of issues exist that challenge the long-term health and sustainability of the Salmon River Watershed. Each individual issue by itself may not cause a large impact, but the cumulative effect of the issues could well be significant. Similarly, the Partnership endeavoured to capitalize on the cumulative action of the various stakeholders in the watershed to move towards sustainability.
Many of the issues lead to conflicts between the agricultural community and development, between environmental and agricultural interests and between fishery and agricultural goals.
The major issues in the Salmon River watershed include the following:
Flood control: This issue pitches the interests of the agricultural community to control flooding for agricultural purposes versus the fishery and environmental interests to allow flooding to enhance habitat for fish and other species.
Agricultural Practices: The two major concerns regarding agricultural practices in the flood plain include the overloading of manure into the soil and the installation of dykes along the river.
Critical Success Factors
The early days were heady with enthusiasm and a drive to get things done. The leadership consisted of energetic, intelligent people spearheaded by Peter Scales of the Township of Langley and the Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS) and he acted as a bridge between municipal and civil society. The mandate and operating guidelines were unwritten but known and accepted by the group – this worked well at the start when all members were committed to the process – it became more of a problem as the membership started to change.
The Partnership aggressively investigated what the community wanted in the watershed. A fair amount of time was spent in exploring the concept of shared management and in identifying what the various stakeholders expected from the Partnership. The stage was set for deliberative dialogue to occur on the key issues challenging the sustainability of the watershed.
A key advantage that presented itself was the opportunity for the different agencies and stakeholders to pool their resources and then be able to allow the Langley Environmental Partners Society to implement much of the on-the-ground work through youth crews. The projects included data and map compilation, restoration of riparian areas, conducting stream surveys, livestock exclusion fencing projects, road signs at creek crossings and storm drain markings.
What Worked?
The initial enthusiasm of the key people that bought the partnership together was crucial in starting and maintaining the process, and the leadership of Peter Scales, and his links between the township and the SWRMP (the deterioration of which caused his departure in 1997).
Early successes in the Salmon River watershed resulted from the setting the goals, and achieving them. This resulted in public interest as something was seen to be being done. As the relationship between the stakeholders deteriorated in the late 1990s and early 2000s public interest waned as more community linked members dropped out of the process and less tangible work was achieved.
What Didn't Work?
The community was invited to participate in the SRWMP at the start if the Action Plan development, but little participation was forthcoming. This may be due to the initial structure of the SRWMP not admitting members of the public, and a consequent gradual process of disillusionment with the institution over time.
As there was little documentation about the original vision and the mission of the Partnership, an understanding of the rationale for the Partnership was not shared amongst the people around the table. Strong personalities in the group and a continual disagreement with each other’s approaches led to the establishment of operating rules and conflict resolution mechanisms. The original process intended to have a series of committees and sub-committees form the Action Plan, however, whilst it was being developed a number of agencies were reducing their time commitments to the Partnership so many of the sub-committees were disbanded. Consequently most of the items in the Action Plan were worked out at the monthly meetings of the Partnership with many proposals being watered down in order for a consensus to be reached between all parties.
At the same time as LEPS and residents spent considerable time and money on restoration and prevention of destruction of habitat, a number of significant infractions in the streambed were allowed to incur without any consequences. Neither the DFO or the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP) took a strong stand in the enforcement of rules. Rather, they preferred to negotiate with the violators on a bilateral basis. And the result was a corresponding lack of disengagement, alienation and subsequent weakening of commitment to the process by the other stakeholders (Dale and Onyx 2005).
This lack of enforcement spurred the creation of the Salmon River Enhancement Society in 1995. Several founding members of the group who had been active in SRWMP found that there was a need for a separate citizens group which could work with the government agencies but would also increase public involvement and lobby the government agencies when appropriate.
After the first three years, a number of the key drivers of the Partnership left to be replaced by others. At the same time, the funding that had initiated the Partnership had run out and so the coordinator’s position was terminated. Many of the replacements did not have an ongoing or shared vision for the group and soon the momentum of the group was faltering. In addition, some members of the partnership became disillusioned with the process. It became apparent that the management plan, when it was produced would, in reality have little real impact on the management of Salmon River. This lack of implementation has proven to be the case.
By the middle of 2000, after innumerable revisions to the Plan, the members around the table still could not agree. Finally, a push was made by a few members to finish the Plan. By this time, the plan did not have many concrete outcomes, mainly recommendations and was diluted enough to be accepted by all the members. Furthermore, there was no commitment from the Township to implement the Plan.
As members left the Partnership, including key founding members, the vision of the management plan was lost. This had a number of effects:
- The stakeholders lost interest and focus, resulting in a dilute plan that was too broad and too unfocused.
- The process was superseded by a fisheries/farmers conflict over the role of the floodplain. The fisheries wanted to maintain habitat integrity, the farmers wasted to construct flood defences. This led to the Town of Langley acting as mediator between Federal and Provincial agencies and the time and resources available to other elements of the plan were lost.
- As interest was lost key the profile of the process within the stakeholder organisations was lost, people with less authority as decision makers were attending meetings leading to a loss of integrity of the process.
Due to a lack of legislative oversight the plan has no authority, continuing the legacy of poor enforcement. This is partly the cause of a lack of interest in the plan by the community or the stakeholders in the partnership. The lack of authority may be attributed to the plan being broad and lacking in concrete commitments for any organisation, and the topics covered by the plan frequently cut across organisations boundaries, and without legislation attributing authority it is easy for any one organisation to dispute responsibility.
Financial Costs and Funding Sources
The process was largely driven through the employment of a full-time coordinator. This funded position allowed for time and resources to be spent to maintain the profile and momentum of the process. Once this funding was lost the process began to slow down and the partnership disintegrated. There was a brief resurgence while the plan was being produced due to the coordination responsibility being held by the DFO, and the coordination role being paid for as part of a regular job, but this role was also eventually withdrawn.
Research Analysis
Community partnerships can be a valuable and productive way of producing environmental management plans, enhancing social capital in the community in the process and bringing disparate groups together. However, it is difficult to maintain a partnership, or engage successfully with the wider community, if there is a perception that the resulting document will not have the impact or the policy/management relevance that it requires to achieve the goals of that community or the stakeholders in the process.
Such partnerships also have a momentum; once key people star to leave, or the process gets disrupted or slows down then that momentum is lost and the results are likely less than expected or required, leading to further disillusionment.
Setting out an initial consensus around a vision, or series of goals and building a plan around these shared values will ensure that the partnership works together from the start. The SRWMP did not have this shared vision at the start, and this led to a lack of focus to interest the public and intractable disagreements between stakeholders.
Detailed Background Case Description
The Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership (SRWMP) was initiated as a cooperative effort of federal and provincial government agencies, the Township of Langley and watershed residents. The Partnership was established to move the management of the Salmon River Watershed towards sustainability
The competing interests in the watershed are those of agriculture on an industrial scale, increasing urban development, a major golf course and fisheries. The goal of sustainability necessitated a co-operative and accommodating means of interaction between these various interests while protecting the natural environment. As there was a lack of an entity that could plan across the watershed, the Partnership was envisioned as the network that would take the lead in balancing the needs of all these stakeholders.
The Partnership was originally set up as a government roundtable which consisted of a Steering Committee of Ministries and the Township. The broader vision of significant public involvement was not in place. A public committee of residents brought issues to the Steering Committee. The Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS) was also formed at this time to do the work on the ground and to source funding for the projects. Many of the residents that came to the meetings were only concerned about one issue and they soon dropped out.
Through time, the government and citizen groups were integrated and the stakeholders now include various Ministries, the Township, environmental non-governmental associations, a farmers association, a golf course, associated academic institutions and a few interested residents.
To promote awareness in the community, the members of the Partnership wrote a series of articles in the local newspapers on a variety of watershed-related topics. And the open houses held by the Partnership were well attended by the community.
In 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding was developed to try and document an understanding of all the members. Part of this process was the development of a Vision and Mission statement and the Goals of the Partnership. The members around the table also set out to draft a Management Plan for the watershed.
Two major projects were initiated and completed by the Partnership at this time – the construction of a fish-friendly pump station and a public kiosk at Williams Park.
The constant renewal of the membership of the Partnership resulted in a slow and arduous process for developing the Management Plan. Finally, in 1999 a co-ordinator was hired for the Partnership with funding from the DFO, Environment Canada and in-kind contribution from the Township. The co-ordinator provided the much needed energy and commitment to complete the development of the Management Plan. The emphasis was placed on an Action Plan outlining the remedial actions and the associated responsibilities.
The Partnership with the Township had also evolved at this time. Although the Township had been instrumental in initiating and leading the Partnership in the early years, the political climate of the municipality had changed. A more business-oriented mayor and council came into place who did not share the same appreciation for environmental concerns. The Partnership was largely ignored by the municipality.
The Partnership saw the involvement of the Township as being crucial to implementing the Management Plan. With the Township’s waning interest over the value of the Partnership, the Management Plan was soon put aside.
By the middle of 2000, after innumerable revisions to the Plan, the members around the table still could not agree. Finally, a push was made by a few members to make the Plan consumable to the majority. By this time, the plan did not have many directed items, mainly recommendations and was diluted enough to be accepted by all the members. Furthermore, there was no commitment from the Township to use the Plan in any way.
The Partnership was a good forum for discussion on various issues but was not conducive to decision making. A number of residents and environmental groups became frustrated at the lack of action. One key concern was the low standard of enforcement. As LEPS and residents spent considerable time and money on restoration and prevention of destruction of habitat, a number of significant infractions in the streambed were allowed to incur without any consequences. Neither the DFO or the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP) took a strong stand in the enforcement of rules. Rather, they preferred to negotiate with the violators.
A lack of interest characterizes the state of the Partnership today. As one LEPS representative states “Working in partnership takes time, cooperation, sacrifice and understanding. I’m not sure that all the stakeholders are willing to continue putting in what it takes.” Limited resources forbid the hiring of a full-time co-ordinator and without a mandate, the group is rudderless. Most of the partnership stakeholder believe the process has ceased although there was never a formal dissolution.
As the Partnership was winding up its Management Plan, the Township had begun its Water Resources Management Strategy to develop an integrated plan for the management of ground water and surface water for the entire municipality. Instead of using the Partnership, another public advisory committee was formed and the Partnership was given one seat on this committee. Although, several of the members of the Partnership felt that SRWMP had been put aside by the Township, it allowed the Partnership to participate in the Township’s process.
The focus of what was left of the partnership became largely directed towards flood management on the lowlands around the river – even the term floodplain became contested. Since 2002 this has been the chief concern of the remnants of the stakeholder partnership specifically the farming, fisheries and township stakeholders. The issue of flooding, flood control and its conflict with fisheries habitat formed one of the Partnership’s sub-committees, but this sub-committee was the only meaningful group that survived the end of the management process.
This subcommittee contained some of the stakeholders of the original partnership, but far from all, and was dominated by the Town of Langley engineering department, and various Federal, Provincial and local fisheries and agriculture lobbies. The debate largely focused on the conflict between the desires of farmers to protect agricultural land, and the fisheries agencies that required the protection of habitat. The flood protection lobby was strengthened by perceived negative impacts of developments upstream and past bad land use decisions in the agricultural lowland areas putting pressure on the agricultural land. In addition downstream, in the City of Surrey flood defence systems have been built. Although the management plan did not allow for dykes, some landowners took is upon themselves to build them, with no legal teeth this was impossible to control.
More recently, the municipality has been embarking on a flood management strategy and the remnants of the Partnership have been part of this process. The main stakeholders in this process have been Federal and Provincial agencies representing fisheries and farmers, with the Town of Langley acting as a mediator between them. The compromise reached is one of some areas of flood defence in the most valuable and at risk agricultural land, and some areas of natural floodplain and river habitat. It is not clear what the scientific rational of this plan is, or the support it has in the wider community. The Salmon River Enhancement Society and LEPS were not involved in this process.
Strategic Questions
- How does the lack of a collective vision or plan affect the long-term viability of community processes?
- Should there be a formal decision-making process be established between government and non-government stakeholders?
- Is there a relationship between the lack of a vision or plan and subsequent building of trust and social capital between stakeholders?
- What frameworks are required to ensure implementation in cases of multiple jurisdictions over management of a watershed?
- Is there a way to embed community processes such as round tables and community plans into the formal decision-making structures?
