The present FREMP boundary extends to Kanaka Creek and Pitt Lake (upstream).
The FREMP is not an agency and has no statutory authority in itself.
The comments offered by respondents commonly dwelled on the need for "more active enforcement and monitoring of decisions made within the FREMP." This refers to the development review process, which lacks a coordinated monitoring and enforcement mechanism for its decisions.
But agency respondents indicated that the FREMP model has helped improve interagency planning, communication, conflict resolution, and awareness about multiple-use values among departments, and when they were asked if (considering the latter points) the FREMP is useful for their agency 82% answered yes.
Among those who answered "no," there is a preference for the status quo and a definite rejection of any action that would seem to grant the FREMP formal authority.
When ratings of physical quality are used, there are no significant differences among stakeholders in terms of advocating a wastewater permit approval role for the FREMP.
People who support changing the FREMP in this respect consistently rate environmental quality lower than those who do not advocate changing the program's role.
The agencies that support the FREMP participate in a planning process that has no inherent authority.
Those without a direct role in the process are more critical of the FREMP and its impact on the estuary, and more likely to advocate program change.
The FREMP does enjoy a relatively high level of support from its government partners as a venue for integrated planning and decision-making.
The FREMP functions on the premise that authority for environmental management and the regulation of development activities should remain with the agencies that presently hold such power.
Air quality, a significant issue, is outside the FREMP venue.