Resources

Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding the Dock Management Plan (DMP)

Dear [Recipient's Name],

I am writing as a concerned homeowner and resident of [location], a vibrant community significantly impacted by the proposed DMP. The plan, as it stands, threatens our way of life, local economy, and the environmental balance we cherish.

1. Community Impact and Lack of Consultation:
   Our community is not just a series of docks, it's a thriving environment where tourism, boating, and local businesses interconnect. The DMP, without proper consultation or consideration of local input, endangers this delicate ecosystem. The lack of a transparent, inclusive process in developing these regulations undermines our trust in the decision-making process.
2. Environmental and Archaeological Concerns:
   While the goals of protecting marine resources and archaeological sites are commendable, the DMP's approach seems misaligned with its objectives. There is a lack of independent scientific evidence supporting the claim that upgraded docks negatively impact marine life. In fact, local fauna thrives here on existing dock structures. Also, the potential disturbance of archaeological sites due to dock removal is counterintuitive to the plan's objectives.
3. Safety and Practicality of Dock Regulations:
   The proposed dock size limitations contradict international safety guidelines. Many local vessels exceed the size that can be safely accommodated by the newly proposed dock dimensions. This not only raises safety concerns but also questions the practicality of these regulations for a community deeply reliant on marine activities. This also speaks to a lack of adequate research and consultation.
4. Financial Burden and Property Value Concerns:
   Residents have invested significantly to comply with previous environmental standards. The sudden shift in regulations presents a financial strain, with no clear compensation plan for those who have already upgraded their docks. Furthermore, the potential decrease in property values due to these regulations creates an unfair economic burden on homeowners.
5. Potential for Environmental Damage from Alternative Practices:
   If docks are removed, boats will likely anchor in local bays or be pulled onto shores, causing more harm to the seabed and marine life and scouring the bottom with chains. How are larger vessels to connect to shore power? These unintended consequences contradict the DMP's environmental preservation goals.
6. Call for Collaborative and Fair Solutions:
   Members of our community such as myself are owed a balanced, scientifically driven plan that respects the rights and livelihoods of all affected stakeholders. A plan that genuinely addresses environmental concerns while preserving the cultural and economic fabric of our region.
7. Grandfathering Existing Structures:
   An essential amendment to the DMP is the inclusion of a grandfathering clause for existing docks and structures. Many residents, in good faith, have invested heavily to comply with prior standards. It is only fair that these past efforts are recognized and respected. The sudden invalidation of these investments not only undermines trust in regulatory processes but also imposes unnecessary financial and logistical burdens on the community. A grandfathering clause would honor past commitments and provide a balanced approach to transitioning into new regulations.

In conclusion, I urge a reconsideration of the DMP as a whole and further consultation with the affected residents, environmental experts, and other relevant stakeholders. We seek a plan that is fair, practical, and beneficial for all parties involved, including the environment we all aim to protect. Your proposed plan has been drafted with zero accountability and no consultation afforded to those most affected.

Thank you for your attention to these critical issues. I look forward to your response and a constructive inclusive dialogue on this matter.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

If you are planning to write a letter to the government regarding compliance with the amended Dock Management Plan and your upcoming/looming interim tenure expiration, the following outline can serve as a guide for some of the concepts you may want to include. 

Please feel free to use the parts that are most relevant to your specific situation. The outline covers various aspects, including background context, challenges related to compliance, financial implications, and the uncertainty due to potential future amendments. Tailor the letter to include the specific action items you want from the government (seeking clarity on how to proceed, given the uncertainty, lack of a finalized DMP, financial implications, scheduling and timing concerns, etc.)

Recipients:

• Stephan.Zimmermann@gov.bc.ca
• Julia.Grant@gov.bc.ca
• nicholas.simons.MLA@leg.bc.ca
• WLRS.minister@gov.bc.ca
• Your MLA
• premier@gov.bc.ca
• BC United leader: kevin.falcon.mla@leg.bc.ca
• Conservative BC leader: john.rustad@conservativebc.ca

Introduction:

• Identify yourself and your dock's specifics (location, Crown Land File No.).
• Reference your tenure and its expiration date.

Context and Background:

• Mention your initial communication received in March (or other time if different) 2023.
• Highlight FrontCounter BC’s recommendations about holding off on dock modifications due to impending amendments.
• Note the release of the Proposed Amended shíshálh swiya Dock Management Plan on November 24 2023 and its ongoing review/comment/feedback process open until January 12, 2024.
• Note that the proposed amendments are draft and could be further modified from received feedback.

Concerns Over Compliance Feasibility:

• Address the challenges of complying with the new requirements within the short timeframe.
• Emphasize the extensive engineering, environmental assessments, and reports required as per the amended Plan.
• Highlight the financial and time implications of these requirements and the scheduling required to coordinate the complex reporting work alongside the actual implementation (wait lists, disposal, construction, 

Uncertainty Due to Ongoing Amendments:

• Discuss the uncertainty caused by the open nature of the amendments and the potential for future changes.
• Express concern about the lack of a grandfathering provision in the Plan, leading to the risk of current compliance efforts being invalidated by future amendments and the need for certainty with the time and cost investments required.
• Express concern with expending funds for work that may have to be repeated, should the DMP be modified as has been done in 2018, 2021 and now 2023. 

Financial and Logistical Implications:

• Detail the financial burdens and logistical complexities of undertaking the required compliance work.
• Stress the impracticality of completing these processes within the existing tenure period, where the finalization date of the proposed draft DMP is still not known.
• Highlight the amount of interim tenure time that has elapsed where DMP uncertainty hampered your efforts to commence work.

Request for Guidance and Clarification:

• Seek specific instructions on how to proceed, considering the tight timeline and evolving nature of the Plan.
• Ask for information on potential tenure extension or modifications to compliance requirements. 
• Request guidance on how the department plans to handle situations where compliance efforts may be nullified by future amendments. 
• Question when the DMP will be finalized. Are approvals made now retroactive and for how long?
• Mention that there are no published timelines for an application to be processed.
• Who is accountable? What is the appeal process? If elected officials do not have the final say under the proposed decision making model, what recourse is available to applicants?

Closing:

• State your intended commitment to adhering to environmental and archaeological protection goals, 
• Reiterate the complexities involved and your reliance on finalized regulations to ensure successful implementation.
• Emphasize the need for timely guidance to plan and act responsibly.
• Provide your contact information for further communication.

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Province, Postal Code] / [Email] / [Phone Number]
[Date]

Ministry of Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship - South Coast Regional Office
CC: [Your MLA], Hon. Nathan Cullen, Hon. David Eby

Subject: Request for Clarification and Guidance Regarding Interim Tenure Status and the Amended shíshálh swiya Dock Management Plan

Dear [Recipient Name],

I am writing to seek guidance regarding compliance with the amended shíshálh swiya Dock Management Plan, particularly in relation to my dock at [specific location], under Crown Land File No. [Your File Number]. My tenure is set to expire on [expiration date], and I am concerned about the feasibility of meeting the new requirements in the given timeframe and current uncertainty with respect to the amendments.

The amended plan necessitates extensive engineering evaluations, environmental assessments, and reports from qualified professionals. These processes are not only time-consuming but also will incur substantial costs. Given the open nature of the amendments, still subject to public consultation and feedback, there is significant uncertainty. This uncertainty affects our ability to plan effectively, as future amendments could potentially invalidate any work performed to date.

Moreover, I understand that the proposed Dock Management Plan does not include a grandfathering provision. This omission means that any compliance efforts and financial investments made currently could be rendered obsolete if further amendments are introduced. The lack of a grandfathering clause places us in a precarious position, risking substantial financial and resource investments in compliance measures that may no longer be relevant in the near future.

Additionally, I am concerned about the absence of published timelines for the processing of applications under the DMP, adding uncertainty to our planning. Clarity on who is accountable in the decision-making process and the recourse and remedies available for applicants if initial submissions are denied. This information is essential to ensure transparency and fairness, and to allow me and others to effectively navigate the compliance process with certainty.

In light of these challenges, I am seeking specific guidance on how to proceed. Clarifications on the possibility of an extension to the current tenure or adjustments to compliance requirements is very important and would be exceedingly helpful at this stage. Furthermore, information on how your department plans to address situations where recent compliance efforts may be nullified by future amendments would greatly assist in my planning.

My goal is to ensure that our dock aligns with the environmental and archaeological protection goals set by the Province and the shíshálh Nation. However, the current timeline, combined with the evolving nature of the Plan's requirements and the significant financial implications, make it challenging to undertake the necessary actions effectively and this is not something that should be rushed.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your guidance. Please feel free to contact me at [Your Email] / [Your Phone Number] for any further discussion or information.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

Curious about dock licenses? Here are some tools that the government employs to manage and track dock licenses.

Take a look and follow our how-to guide here.

Gator Tool Link

Imap Link