PPARR

PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES

IN LOWER MAINLAND URBAN AREAS

Discussion Paper Workshop Proceedings Recommendations for Action

September 1994

Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Fraser River Action Plan

B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Water Management Division l PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND . RIPARIAN RESOURCES 1 (PPARR) .INITIATIVE

Discussion Paper

Prepared on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans & BC Environment, Lower Mainland Region by Dovetail Consulting February 1994 l Discussion Paper

1.0 Introduction Contents: 1.0 Introduction This discussion paper has been prepared as background infonnation for a series of The workshops in the Lower Mainland Region (F.ast Side of the Georgia Basin) ad­ 2.0 Background: PPARR Initiative dressing the stewardship of aquatic and riparian resources. The workshops pro­ Better Use vide a forum for local, regional, provincial and federal governments to explore 3.0 Making of Existing Tools partnership for the protection of local aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Dovetail 4.0 Other Initiatives Consulting will facilitate the workshops and prepare a Sununary Report at the conclusion of the process. · Underway 5.0 Looking to the Future 2.0 Background: The "Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources" (PPARR) Initiative Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources (PPARR) is a joint initiative funded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and B.C. Environment. In the fall and winter of 1993, these agencies convened an ad hoc ''Workshop Development Committee," bringing together representatives of all levels of gov­ ernment to plan a cooperative initiative for improved stewardship. The initiating partners of the PPARR process are listed in the margin.

The PPARR initiative builds on ideas developed through the Federation of B.C. Naturalist's (FBCN) conference on "Ensuiing Livability in the Lower Fraser Val­ ley," and the District of North Vancouver's September 1993 workshop on "Local Government and the Land Development Guidelines."

2.1 The Need for a New Approach to the Protection of Local Aquatic and Riparian Resources

Development pressures in the Lower Mainland Region are increasing. There are now over 40,000 hou~ing starts annually in British Columbia; and population density in the Georgia Basin, which makes up less than 3% of the province's land Partners to Date: area, is about 25 times the provincial average. Population growth rates have risen • Department of to 5% or 6% in recent years and pressures on the natural environment, particularly Fisheries and Oceans development activities around the sensitive habitats in valley bottoms, have had • BC Environment serious impacts. Threats to fish habitat in the Lower Mainland, which produces • Canadian Wildlife 50% of the Fraser stocks of coho, are considerable. With growing public concern for Service environmental protection and the preservation of quality of life, a number of local • District of North and regional planning processes are underway which address conservation and Vancouver protection of environmental resources. In addition, provincial organisations such • Gty of Coquitlam as the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy are placing empha­ • BC Ministry of sis on growth management strategies to address these concerns. Municipal Affairs • Federation of B.C. Naturalists, Land for Nature Initiative

Pagel J Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources

VISion Statement. · Pressures Mounting on the Referrals Process 1 Geolgi.a Basin Initiative, Currently, local development proposals are reviewed through the referrals pro­ B.C Round Table on 1he cess. Once design plans are completed, they may be submitted by the developer to Environment and 1he J local government planning and engineering departments, who may in tum refer F.conomy the applications to provincial and federal agencies for review: Where aquatic and "... Viable areas ofnative riparian resources are affected, the key agencies involved are the Department of 1 vegetation have been J Fisheries and Oceans, who have responsibilities to protect fish and fish habitat preservedfor the under the Fisheries Act, and the two B.C. Environment branches: Water Manage­ enjoyment ofresidents 'l ment and Fish and Wildlife. and wildlife. Wetlands are J protected for their value as There are a number of problems with this arrangement habitat, flood controt water qual.ity and • As the nuritber of referrals has increased with the pace of development, the aesthetic amenities. system is becoming swamped leading to lengthy delays. The referrals process Streams and lakes have also does not address the cumulative effects of development. - been preserved and ··1·.· rehabilitated to improve • Development proposals are often at an advanced stage of planning, design and their ability to sustain fish engineering when they ·are reviewed. Reviews that require significant alter­ and wildlife, to perform ations or refusals result in frustrations and considerable additional expense for l their natural hydrological both the proponent and the municipality. · functiori, and to contribute • Many municipalities are not part of the referrals process and many activities I to the quality ofurban and are not covered through this process. Where municipalities do participate, the j rural landscapes." referrals process may be inconsistently applied and responsibilities for imple­ mentation and monitoring of referral :recommendations may be uncertain. 1 • There are many agencies involved in referrals and the complexity of the J process is confusing, cumbersome and results in high administrative costs for all levels of govenunent. (A partial list of agencies involved in the approvals

process is included in an Ap~dix) 1j

Towards a Pro-Active, Planning Approach l With increasing awareness of the limitations of the referrals process, support is J growing for more pro-active, planning-oriented approaches to the protection of local envirorunental resources. These new approaches would move the review of projects further ahead in the municipal planning and approval process, make more J effective use of planning tools such as zoning and bylaw provisions, and make senior governments more responsive to local efforts. Such changes must be made bearing in mind limitations on resources at all levels and must result in approaches l for habitat protection which are both practical and effective. Creating options to accomplish these goals will be an important product of the PPARR initiative. ·1 ,J A New Climate of Cooperation \ In September 1993, a protocol was signed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and ,l the Ministry of environment Lands and Parks on "Principles for Sharing Environ­ mental Responsibilities." This protocol states: "the parties are committed to the concept of sustainability as the foundation for the integration of environmental, J Ui~iii¥iiiiUi!i~i~UUim!~!~!i! Page2 J Discussion Paper

social and economic activities ...Effective cooperation between the provincial and local governments will lead to certainty and predictability of environmental regulation and promote public confidence and sound economic planning." This protocol sets the stage for joint initiatives stating: "to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, the parties are committed to cooperate in the spirit of partnership, particularly in the harmonization of environmental legislation, regulations, policies, programs and projects."

2.2 The Objective of the PPARR Initiative

The objective of the pPARR initiative is to engage federal and provincial agencies and local governments in a collaborative process to explore and reach agreement on improvements to the way we protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems at the local level. The PPARR initiative will emphasize new planning-oriented ap­ proaches, particularly those which utilize partnerships between all levels of government and non-government organisations (NGOs). Two key elements of the PPARR initiative are (i) the concept of "stewardship" and, (ii) partnerships.

2.3 An Outline of the PPARR Initiative

The first stage of the PPARR initiative comprises a series of four workshops throughout the Lower Mainland Region in March 1994. These workshops will include invited representatives of all levels of government, the NGO community and development interests. The workshops will provide a forum for discussion of topics such as:

• opportunities for improved stewardship of aquatic and riparian resources provided by existing legislation, policies and programs and planning tools such as zoning bylaws and Official Community Plans; • case-studies of innovative approaches for stewardship that are already underway and showing signs of success; • identification of the issues or What is Stewardship? A Working Definition constraints associated with the current system, including weak­ Stewardship refers to cooperative forms of planning and management nesses of the referrals process; of environmental resources in which all users and managers share the • parallel initiatives underway and responsibility for management and conservation. Stewardship new tools, such as the Land Devel­ embodies a new ethic of caring for local ecosystems in the interests of opment Guidelines, the Commu­ long-term sustainability. nity Watershed Guidelines, TRIM Stewardship includes but goes beyond voluntary efforts by commu­ mapping, and database sharing; nity groups. Stewardship requires sharing-sharing of decision­ • the need for a more pro-active, making authority, of responsibility for ecosystem protection, and of the benefits of a given resource. Stewardship provides priorities for planning oriented approach the management of local ecosystems for sustain.ability. based on the principles of stew­ ardship and partnerships.

Page3 J Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources J

Additional workshops may be arranged with First Nations and environmental groups prior to the completion of the Summary Report.

The second stage of the PPARR initiative will be a larger regional conference in the fall of 1994 bringing together a·broader array of interested parties to review the ideas generated through the workshops and to work towards adapting and implementing new approaches (see Figure 1). The anticipated outcomes of the PPARR initiative include: J • informal agreement between senior governments and municipalities; • Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between all levels of government; • enhanced use of local govemment powers under the Municipal Act; J • joint proposals for changes to existing legislation; and, • arrangements for the coordination of mapping and data collection. .... l The PPARR process may also spawn an~ of local initiatives where new approaches can be implemented on an experimental basis. ·1

2.4 Scope and Geographical Area of the 1 Figure 1: An Overview of the PPARR Initiative PPARR Initiative J Fall and Workshop Development The PPARR initiative is focused primarily on Winter 1993-4 Committee Launches PPARR Initiative . aquatic and riparian resources. However, many of the approaches developed are expected to be transferable to other valued February 1994 ~l DISCUSSION PAPER ecosystem components experiencing similar ! development pressures. The geographical '· J area of the PPARR initiative encompasses the HOWE SOUND East side of the Georgia Basin (BC SUNSHINE COAST Environment's Lower Mainland Region). J Series of Four Workshops in the NORTH Lower Mainland FRASER l Region, March 1994 SOUTH FRASER

FRASER J VALLEY

April 1994 SUMMARY REPORT

Fall 1994 REGIONAL CONFERENCE l mi~iii~~nmii!i~i~i!ii~ii~! Page4 ., J Discussion Paper

3.0 Making Better Use of Existing Tools Several opportunities exist for making more effective use of existing planning tools to ensure protection of local aquatic and riparian resources. Some of these are summarized in Figure .

3.1 Provisions Under the Municipal Act

The Municipal Act provides local governments with a mandate for land use and development control. The Act provides considerable autonomy for local govern­ ments and while it is not intended as resource management legislation, there is considerable flexibility for environmental protection. For example, under Part 29, Section 945, paragraphs 4a and 4b, local governments are given the authority to designate areas in a community plan for the "protection of the natural environ­ I ment." _ / An OCP is a general 3.2 Official Community Plans (OCPs) statement of the broad objectives and policies Local governments set the tenns of reference for land development in settled areas of the local government · with Official Community Plans (OCPs). OCPs outline a community's attitude respecting the form and toward planning, development and environmental issues and set a standard by character ofexisting which actions in the corrununity and decisions of local government can be measured. and proposed land use OCPs can include goals and policies for the protection of local ecosystems. For example, Density Bonus Zones create incentives for developers to provide ameni­ ties such as the dedication of or improvement to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (see below) as a condition of allowing higher density on the remainder of the parcel. Development Permit Areas can also be established, which require the protection or dedication of aquatic and riparian resources.

Comprehensive Development Areas within OCPs give local governments the . ability to create customized zoning regulations for complex sites. They also estab­ lish policies and conditions to guide future rezoning negotiations which could include requirements for the dedication of environmentally sensitive areas. These tools encourage developers to be innovative in site planning while allowing flexibility to achieve economic densities on the remainder of the site.

3.3 Zoning Bylaws .

Z.oning By-laws set out pennitted uses for areas included within the OCP. Each zone has a specific requirement for the size and type of development located on each parcel of land.

Jn some circumstances, it may be possible to create distinct Conservation Zones which recognize positively the conununity value of natural or undeveloped lands.

Page5 : J Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources

The possibility of lower~ land values and lower taxes for such zoning J could be an incentive for such initiatives. As an alternative, a sub-zone designation could be applied in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. More fre­ quently it will be practical to include environmental regulations in a zoning bylaw J as general regulations applicable to all zones, but triggered by proximity to envi­ ronmentally sensitive areas. These regulations might include:

• setbacks to protect fish, fish habitat, and drinking water supplies; • landscape standards providing guidelines for clearing, and tree management l pennits to limit cutting within leavestrips or setbacks; J • pennanent fencing to protect riparian areas and control access; • requirements for phased development; • soil disturbance bylaws to protect cover and food sources for aquatic habitats; • minimum parcel sizes in environmentally sensitive areas.

Rezoning,° whether initiated by landowners or local government, provides oppor­ tunities for the negotiation of habitat protection measures. Local governments can help to avoid protracted negotiations by mcluding a Density Bonus Zone or other incentives. Innovative Bylaws: The District of North \ Vancouver's Environmental Protection and Two mechanisms exist to consider variations to zoning J Preservation Bylaw bylaws. A Board of Variance can consider minor changes in the case of hardship. Development Variance Pennits can Following the release of the· Land Development be issued by local governments to vary the tenns of zoning Guidelines in September 1993 (See Section 3.5, below), the District of North Vancouver became bylaws. the first municipality in British Columbia to adopt a comprehensive EnvirorunentaJ Protection and Preservation Bylaw. The bylaw is designed to 3.4 Designating Environmentally Sensitive Areas enhance the municipality's role in stewardship of (ES As) the natural environment and is aimed at protect­ ing, preserving and coQserving natural settings, As a result of changes in 1987 to Part 29 of the Municipal and ecological systems of watercourses, trees, Act, a nwnber of local governments have begun mapping soils and lands. environmentally sensitive areas (E.5As) within their boundaries. E.5As include fish and wildlife habitat, com­ J munity watersheds, floodplains, unstable slopes, and . unique vegetation, scenery, or recreation areas. E.5As identify important ecosystem features which can be give special designation within the OCP under provisions of J the Municipal Act. Community organisations and local environmental groups can often provide valuable information for the identification of ESAs. J 3.5 Subdivision l . d A variety of methods can be used to protect aquatic and riparian resources during the subdivision process, for example: · J Page6 Discussion Pape1·

Figure 2: Diagram Showing the (i) Current Approach to Referrals and (ii) Possible Im­ provements

Zoning Developme. nt ( Bylaws ·J-1" " Proposals 1-0" REFERRALS (i) CONVENTIONAL APPROACH

(ii) IMPROVED APPROACH Zoning and Environmental Bylaws including: Community Watershed Density Bonl,lses Guidelines Development Pennit Areas Comprehensive Develop­ Land Development OCP ment Areas Development .__ _.....-t Guidelines Conservation Zones Proposals Reduced emphasis on Environmentally Sensitive Areas REFERRALS (ESA) Studies Shared Database and Resource Mapping

• Dedication: ESAs which are to be used as public space for recreation may be dedicated to a local government for management and maintenance. • Covenants: A conservation covenant can be used to attach provisions for the protection of habitat or community drinking waters supplies to the title of the land. • Bylaws and Enforcement: Where a landowner does not wish to provide a covenant or dedication, a buffer area can be protected by local government bylaws. • Voluntary Stewardship: Management for ecosystem protection can be under­ taken by landowners or communities on a voluntary basis, with the sup­ port of government and non-government organization partnerships.

The process of subdivision also provides opportunities for the dedication of parks and networks of open space or "greenways systems" for conservation~ recreation, transportation and for linking communities.

A number of these tools can be used together as suggested in Figure 2, possibly resulting in improvements to the referrals process.

Page7 J Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources J

3.6 Land Development Guidelines J Figure 3: Riparian and Fisheries The Land Development Guidelines were produced by Sensitive Zones the Habitat Management Division of the Department of FISHERIES SENSITIVE ZONE Fisheries and Oceans and the Integrated Management . (FSZ) Branch of the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, and released in 1992. These guidelines replaced similar guidelines from 1978. The purpose of the guidelines is to provide minimum guidelines for the protection of fish l populations and their habitat from the damaging effects J of land development activities. The guidelines apply to Pacific salmon populations, and steelhead, trout, char and other freshwater species. J lltPAAWI AllEA AQUA11C Of'INFWENCE HABITAT The Land Development Guidelines apply to develop­ ments in or adjacent to waters containing fish or fish RIPARIAN ZONE RIPARIAN ZONE . habitat, covering what is referred to as the "Fish Sensitive Zone" (FSZ). These zones include the instream aquatic habitats as well as out-of-stream habitat features such as side channels, wetlands and riparian areas (see Figure 3). J

The Land Development Guidelines assist developers, contractors and local govern­ ments to achieve the following objectives: J

• provision and protection of leave strips adjacent to watercourses; 1 j • control of silt erosion and sediment in runoff water; • control of rates of water runoff to minimize impacts on watercourses; l • control of instream work, construction and diversions on watercourses; J • . maintenance of fish passage in watercourses for all salmonid life stages; and, • prevention of discharge of deleterious substances to watercourses. J An additional goal of the Land Development Guidelines is to encourage the provision of environmental assessment/ impact information to DFO and BC Environment thereby improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory J referral and approval process. The guidelines are intended to assist land develop­ ers to identify problems prior to development and present feasible solutions or measures to prevent negative effects on fish and fish habitat. The use of the guide­ l lines will help to avoid potentially costly mitigation, restoration and compensation requirements. J DFO has recently prepared a training package to assist with the implementation of the Land Development Guidelines.

1 I J

Pages l ,J Discussion Paper

3.7 Commu~ity Watershed Guidelines

The Water Management Branch, BC Environment, is revising a set of "Guidelines for Watershed Management on Crown Lands Used as Community Watershed · Supplies" first released in 1980. These revised guidelines are expected to be passed into legislation in 1995.

The Community Watershed Guidelines seek to maximize the use of natural resources available while minimizing interference with stream water quality and quantity and protecting drinking water supplies. Community watersheds are designated according to size into one of three categories with vru:ying levels of development or other activities such as agriculture, application of pesticides, forestry, recreation and grazing permitted.

4.0 Other Initiatives Underway The concept of stewardship and partnerships for the protection of environmental resources is receiving increasing attention not only in the Lower Mainland Region but throughout B.C. A number of the initiatives underway are discussed below.

GVRD Green Zone The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) continues to show leadership for planning and development in the Lower Mainland through the "Creating Our Future" initiative. As part of this work, the Green Zone process has encouraged local governments to identify areas for protection from urban development.

Information Sharing and Database Coordination A number of parallel efforts are currently underway .to coordinate the sharing of infonnation and to ensure compabbility between databases. For example, BC Environment, Environment Canada and DFO are converting their resource infor­ mation into digital 1:20,000 maps of the Lower Mainland. These maps will show sensitive fisheries resources as well as community watershed boundaries and groundwater resources. This initiative will put environmental infonnation into the hands of local planners.

Planners' and Developers' Guide for Stream Stewardship DFO recently commissioned a "Planners' and Developers' Guide to Stream Stew­ ardship" which is due for release in late spring of 1994. The guide is intended to create an awareness of issues and introduce practical techniques for better stew­ ardship in land development.

Page9 j Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources 1 J

"Habitat is a resource Joint Planning Initiatives that evolves over time Several joint initiatives are underway in the Lower Mainland, including: and cannot be reconstructed at any • Fraser Valley Lowland Wetlands Working Group is a joint effort of BC Environ­ cost. Land development ment, Ducks Unlimited, Nature Trust, the Federation of B.C. Naturalists and techniques ... are Quadra Planning working to identify wetlands, establish priorities and initiate remedial at best and protection efforts. J cannot easily return a stream to full • Ducks Unlimited has extensive experience in stewardship agreements with productivity. landowners and conducts inventories at the request of landowners and local Protecting existing government. habitat will almost • Pacific Coast Joint Venture /Fraser River Action Plan is promoting stewardship certainly be the least of waterfowl and habitat through cooperation with local governments, includ­ expensive and most ing the Gty of Coquitlam, and Delta Rural Land Use Study. productive approach. " • The Nature Trust of British Columbia participates in the Pacific Estuary Con­ Planners' and servation Program and is working with Richmond and Delta regarding their Developers' Guide to preferred land use zoning for sites targeted for acquisition Stream Stewardship • The Federation of B.C. Naturalists' Land forNature Initiative focuses on site 'l (Draft), Lanarc .. J Consultants, Page 3. inventories, forums and workshops to raise awareness of tools and to promote the creation of stewardship partnerships. J

l J

Page10 J Discussion Paper

5.0 Looking to the Future New approaches for the protection of aquatic and riparian resources will need to be developed and refined over time. Coordinating mechanisms need to be estab­ lished with care to avoid complexity and further frustration. New tools will need to be created and experience gained through their application and use.

However, much can be achieved in the shorter term through more effective use of existing tools at all levels. The implementation of the Land Development Guide­ lines, for example, will help to create a better understanding of the need to protect fisheries sensitive zones, and will provide practical methods to ensure site design is sensitive to ecosystems. The use of BSA studies, provisions 'Within the Municipal Act and zoning bylaws can also contribute to improved planning for conservation and encourage an ecosystem perspective at the local level.

Above all, dialogue and improved cooperation is required between all levels of government to enhance awareness and encourage innovation. The contributions of the NGO comnl.unity and developers also need to be recognized and these parties have to be included in new collaborative approaches on the ground. Responsibili­ ties must be established without burdening any of these parties.

The PPARR initiative provides a vehicle to capitalize on the~ opportunities and create new approaches that will ensure the sustainability of aquatic and riparian resources for today and for future generations.

Acknowledgments All errors and omissions in this document are the responsibility of the authors. However, the advice and guidance of the foUowing individuals is. gratefully ac­ knowledged: Otto Langer, Department of Fisheries an~ Oceansi Marion Jamieson B.C. Environment; Erik Karlsen, Ministry of Municipal Affairs; Rick McKelvey, Canadian Wildlife Service; Stephen-Connelly, FBCN, umd for Nature.

Page 11 A Partial List of Agencies Involved in the Referrals Process Agency Legislation Description Department of Fisheries and Oceans Fisl1eries Act Apt roval for activities that impact fish an fish habitat Transport Canada: Canadian Coast Guard Navigable Waters Protection Act Permit for activities in around and over navigable waters Federal Environmental Assessment Review Environmental Assessment and Review Requirement tor impact assessment, Office Guidelines Order environmental protection, EARP screening, assessment and review Environment Canada: Environmental Etivrro11me11tal Protection Bra11cl1 Environment and human health, toxic Protection sQbstances, water/ air quality standards Environment Canada: Canadian Wildlife Canada Wildlife Act Permission tor activities attecting wildlife Service · and wildlife habitat Migraton1 Birds Conventions Act Approval for activities affecting migratory birds and their habitat Ministry of En_vironment, Lands and Parks: Fisheries Act Apt roval for activities thaf impact fish Fish and Wildlife an fish habitat. Provincial wildlife regulations for e~dangered species Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: Water Act Approval tor storage and diversion of water Water Management Branch Approval of alterations and work in and about a stream (Section 7) Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: Waste Management Act Permits for the discharge of emuent or Environmental Protection Branch contaminants into air, )and or water Ministry ot Environment, Lands and Parks: Lmd Act Regulation of the sale, lease, and license of Crown Lands Branch occupation, rights of way, special use permits, assessments, map reserves and construction· on crown lands Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: E11vrrom11ental Management Act Requirement for impact assessment and Environmental Assessment Branch environmental protection as ordered Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Soil Conservation Act Permit for the removal of soil from an Agricultural Land Commission Agricultural Land Reserve Regulations to prevent or control soil erosion Agricultural Land Commission Act Approval to use land in the ALR for other than farm use Ministry of Health: Provincial Health Health Act Approval of construction camps Officer Regulations for potable water supply, sewage disposal, sanitation and food supply operations Regional/Municipal Governments Mwucipal Act Permits for construction Regional and Municipal Bylaws Approval of zoning and re-zoning Regulation of setbacks, development densities, local land use and building codes Permits. for clearing and burning

r ~ PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES (PPARR) INITIATIVE

Sutntnary Report - ·stage 1

J

Prepared on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans & BC Environment, Lower Mairiland Region by Dovetail Consulting April 1994 PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND RIP ARIAN RESOURCES: SUMMARY REPORT - ST AGE 1

. Table of Contents

Overview ...... i 1. INTRODUCTION ...... , ...... 1

2. THE PP ARR INITIATIVE ...... ~ ...... 1 2.1. Towards a Pro-Active, Planning Approach ...... 2 2.2. Objective and Anticipated Outcomes of the PPARR Initiative ...... 2 2.3. An Outline of Stages in the PPARR Initiative ...... 3 3. IMPROVING THE PROTECTION OF LOCAL AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES ...... , ...... 4 3.1. OCPs, Zoning and Bylaws ...... 4 3.2. Land Title, Land Value and Conservation Covenants ...... 6 3.3. Referrals ...... _ ...... o•••······7 3.4. Conflict Resolution ...... 9 3.5. Enforcement, Monitoring and Compliance ...... 9 3.6. Information and Databases ...... 11 3.7. Public Attitudes, Values and Education ...... 12 3.8. The Role of Developers ...... :...... 13 3.9. Public Involvement and Grassroots Initiatives ...... 14 3.10. Local Governments' Role and Priorities ...... 15 3.11. Land Development Guidelines, Community Watershed Guidelines ...... 16 3.12. Regional Planning ...... 17 I 4. 0 VERAR CHING THEMES ...... 19 4.1. Consistency ...... 19 4.2. Staffing and Resources ...... 20 j 4.3. Partnerships ...... 21 4.4 Growth Management...... 22 4.5. Legislative and Policy Changes ...... 22 5. NEXT STEPS FOR THE PPARR INITIATIVE ..•...... •....•..•...... •.•...... ••...... 24 5.1. Where are we at the conclusion of Stage I? ...... 24 5.2. Suggested Next Steps...... 24 / · 6. Appendix: List of Attendees for PPARR Stage 1 Workshops, March 1994 .....•...... 26 l J

PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND RIP ARIAN RESOURCES: SUMMARY REPORT - STAGE 1 'l Overview This Report provides a summary of ideas on the stewardship of aquatic and riparian resources l from four inter-governmental workshops held in the Lower Mainland Region during March, 1994. The workshops formed the first stage in the "Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources" (PP ARR) initiative, launched jointly by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans J (DFO), and B.C. Environment, Lower Mainland Region (BCE). PPARR has also had the support of the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, the District of North Vancouver, the City of Coquitlam, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1 ,j

The PP ARR. Initiative

Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources (PP ARR) is a joint initiative funded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and B.C. Environment. PP ARR is not a new program or body. It is a collaborative process to engage federal and provincial agencies and local governments in exploring and reaching agreement on improvements to the way we protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems at the local level. The anticipated outcomes of the PPARR initiative are: J • informal agreements between senior governments and municipalitiesi • Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between all levels of government; • enhanced use of local government powers under the Municipal Act; • joint proposals for changes to existing legislation; and, • arrangements for the coordination of mapping and data collection.

The PP ARR initiative is focused on the stewardship of aquatic and riparian resources. This limited scope is intended to ensure that discussions lead to specific recommendations for action. However, many of the approaches developed may be transferable to other ecosystem components under similar development pressures. The geographical area of the PPARR initiative encompasses the East side of the Georgia Basin (BC Environment's Lower Mainland Region), stretching from Bute Inlet to Boston Bar.

Stage 1 of the PPARR initiative comprised a series of four workshops at locations in the Lower Mainland Region during March 1994: Gibsons, Burnaby, Surrey and Matsqui. These workshops included representatives of all levels of government and a representative of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists' Land for Nature Initiative. Development interests were represented at one workshop by a member of the Urban Development Institute. Additional workshops may be arranged with First Nations and environmental groups in the coming months.

Stage 2 of the PPARR initiative may include a regional conference in the fall of 1994 bringing together a broader array of interested parties to review the ideas generated through the workshops and to work towards adapting and implementing new approaches.

'l j PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report OVERVIEW · Page i Improving the Protection of Local Aquatic and Riparian Resources

A number of ideas and proposals were generated through the four inter-governmental workshops held in the Lower Mainland during March, 1994.

OCPs, Zoning and Bylaws

Various tools for habitat protection have been incorporated by municipalities within their OCPs: • Density bonus zones are used in some municipalities to create incentives for developers to protect habitat as a condition of allowing higher density on the remainder of a site. • Development Permit Areas (DP As} are used by local governments for preservation of water and watercourses, prevention of flooding and other kinds of land degradation, and protection of fish habitat and prevention of erosion of watercourse banks. • Some municipalities have identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) within their OCP.

Some local governments have stipulated that developers pay cash to replace the 5% parkland requirement and have used these funds for habitat protection. The demand for recreational parks is met through DCCs. There is potential to use roadway plans to protect riparian zones along stream corridors. There is support for greater consistency amongst OCPs in the Lower Mainland Region and the involvement of agencies in an advisory capacity for the review of OCPs. I· Bylaws have also been used to ensure habitat protection, particularly with respect to tree protection and leave strips adjacent to streams, soil removal and placement, and stormwater management and drainage. However, liability is a significant concern for municipalities seeking I to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems through bylaws or other provisions, particularly in the context of: higher costs of administration; legal challenges to expropriation of private land; and, maintenance and insurance. It has been argued that liability should become a shared responsibility of all levels of government covering court costs, maintenance costs, and political liability.

Land Title, Land Value and Conservation Covenants

Measures to protect aquatic and riparian resources which preclude development opportunities or establish new responsibilities and liabilities must address questions of property rights. In the absence of a long-term land management plan, case-by-case habitat protection measures such as restrictive covenants are often opposed by land owners who fear that the value of their land will be negatively affected.

Support has been shown for an educational program for landowners with property adjacent to streams on the importance of habitat protection measures and implications for land values on private land. Access should also be provided for planners, field staff, developers and landowners to the information available on legal tools for the environmental protection of private land.

Referrals Several local governments are frustrated by the lengthy turn-around time required for the review of development applications by senior government agencies. Municipalities are also concerned about the credibility and consistency of reviews. Overall, municipalities and agencies agree on

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report OVERVIEW - Page ii J the need for a referrals system which is accessible, understandable, consistent and which provides a timely response, with information on limitations and constraints up-front.

There is support for the use of the Land Development Guidelines and Community Watershed Guidelines to establish standards and expectations for habitat protection measures, and indicate to developers, through a checklist, supporting information that should be submitted to accompany a development application.

Local government and agencies both support reducing the complexity of the referrals process by moving towards a "one window" approach. A simple first step to reduce complexity is the identification of a contact person both within agencies and within each City Hall to improve communication. A different approach to support coordinated agency response is a "joint project review," bringing agency and local government staff together on a scheduled basis. As agency staffing cannot cope with separate meetings for each local government, groups of 4 or 5 adjacent local governments could become "combined joint project review areas." J The Land Development Guidelines provide a de facto form of screening by establishing clearer standards for development applications. Additional measures for screening might include the development of an "exclusion list" for those projects which do not require review. J Conflict Resolution

There is currently no formal process of conflict resolution included in habitat planning and management systems. However, the UBCM/B.C. Environment protocol signed in the fall of 1993 sets a preliminary framework for such a system. Municipalities and agency staff support the establishment of a more structured, inter-agency dispute resolution system that is: J incorporated into a joint project review mechanisms; is timely and results in mutually beneficial agreements; makes use of mediation, negotiation and other cooperative problem-solving methods; is incorporated early into the planning process; is flexible and can accommodate J different interests; and, involves representative groups that are accountable and carry authority. 1 j Enforcement, Monitoring and Compliance Agency staffing levels limit the ability of BCE and DFO to maintain an active presence in the field. Environmental Monitors have provided assistance by serving as a "watchdog" with the responsibility for ensuring that mitigative measures are implemented satisfactorily and with the power to stop the work. The terms of reference for Monitors have recently been revised to include a requirement to submit a report to the lead agency which is expected to improve ] compliance. Another approach is to empower Building Inspectors or other municipal staff to undertake these additional responsibilities.

Agencies and local governments agree that enforcement is difficult and costly. Court cases are l also expensive and time-consuming. Although municipalities do have some powers of enforcement, particularly when guidelines are associated with ESAs, habitat protection measures often function on a "bluff' basis. Opinion differs on whether municipal legislation should be amended to increase local powers. Monitoring can provide a valuable educational function. However, the current framework of responsibilities and consequences for non-compliance needs to be clear and readily accessible for public consumption·. Good working relationships can be undermined by inappropriate enforcement measures.

All parties involved in habitat protection agree that enforcement and monitoring need to be more closely linked into an integrated planning and management system. Support has also been J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report OVERVIEW - fage iii l expressed for a "team approach" in which local governments and agencies support each others' efforts. A law review is required to support such an initiative by identifying new enforcement tools, ticketing options, model environmental bylaws and mechanisms to deal with covenant violations.

Community-policing can be encouraged with a 24hour1-800 number for reporting offenders. Disincentive I incentive programs can also be used involving the publication of violators names in local media and good corporate citizens being recognised and rewarded. Statutory declarations of compliance and performance bonding can also help.

Information and Databases

Representatives of all levels of government agree that the data base supporting protection measures for riparian resources is inadequate. Concerns relate both to quality and quantity. While initiatives such s TRIM mapping will ease current difficulties, a mapped inventory of resources with sensitivity coding is in demand.

Data collected needs to be complete and accurate-;--computerized systems are no help if information is poor. Common standards for data collection, management and presentation can help to maintain quality in information bases. Citizens can also assist in information collection. Community residents have considerable knowledge and information based on their experience of living in a place. Organized groups can be quite sophisticated in their information gathering activities.

Getting information to developers is particularly important to the implementation of stewardship measures. Some. developers may not understand the information requirements for government review. Small developers in particular lack the ability to generate and access good data. A master list of permit requirements and an information package including a checklist of environmental mitigation requirements would be helpful.

Public Attitudes, Values and.Education

Opinions vary on the level of public support that exists for environmental protection. If individual values and expectations are inconsistent with agency goals, protection will be difficult to achieve. Communities on the whole would likely be more supportive of stewardship and take a more active role if they were better informed and educated about the environment and government strategies to address habitat protection.

Ultimately, if communities could develop a long term vision expressing an understanding of the ecosystem, public contributions to stewardship would be the norm rather than the exception. In the meantime, more modest increases in public understanding and support might be achieved by educating the public about responsibilities for enforcement and basic laws and guidelines, and by paying attention to the way people want local resources managed.

The Role of Developers

The main concern of developers is that they be assured of consistency as a basis for planning. The development community contends that such consistency can come to be reflected in land values. Cooperative work can likewise increase developers' familiarity with habitat requiremen~s, as well as help tailor regulations to specific situations.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report OVERVIEW , Page iv J Public Involvement and Grassroots Initiatives J Opportunities exist for general public input into the development process at the planning level (OCP) and during zoning approvals. Opportunities are not normally provided at the subdivision approval or building permit stages, when significant impacts on the environment can occur. Public meetings to review project proposals could help fill this gap.

Goverrunent agencies have created programs to support and encourage citizens who wish to take on a more pro-active volunteer role. Agencies must be aware that staffing and other resources are required to, support outreach to environmental non-government organizations or J the general public. Limitations in support can "turn the public off" by giving volunteers the impression that they are being let down. Conversely, if non-government organizations "know the rules" they can act independently. The stewardship efforts of volunteers snould be rewarded l through recognition. Some municipal governments have established environmental advisory groups which have J considerable potential if terms of reference and reporting relationships are clear, However, if local government gives an advisory committee a voice, then it has to be prepared to hear things that may not be complimentary. J Local Governments' Role and Priorities The role of local government in habitat protection is strong and increasing, but full use of the tools available for riparian stewardship depends on Councils, Planning Directors and staff all being "on board." This is easier said than done, since environmental protection is only one of the many community goals that must be balanced by municipalities.

The level of pub~ic support for habitat protection is critical to Council support. Public support therefore needs to be explicit-for example via phone calls to staff or Council. Costs are J another key factor in the priority setting process. User fees could be applied to greater effect to address costs as well, although this may require legislative changes in the Municipal Act. Legal responsibilities for land stewardship and associated costs are a growing concern. J Councils need to be kept informed of senior government agency needs and stewardship priorities. Presentations to Councils or Regional District Boards by senior agencies have been suggested. The Union of B.C. Municipalities could also help Councils become more sensitive to enviromnental issues by hosting workshops and making presentations to Councils.

Councils can provide leadership and direction for riparian stewardship in many different ways. ,] For example, they can promote strata subdivisions (to get density localised into nodes); they can provide programs for marking drains to discourage the dumping of pollutants into the water system; tlley can build incentives for developers to protect habitat; and they can pass bylaws to prevent the loss of trees. J

Land Development Guidelines, Community Watershed Guidelines The Land Development Guidelines (LDG) and Community Watershed Guidelines (CWG) are a compilation of best management practices fot land development and for resource planning in ,J community watersheds respectively. They serve a number of purposes, including: setting the standards for due diligence for municipalities, providing direction to developers, ensuring consistency between municipal development projects, and helping with cooperation between levels of government. ,]

PP ARR Stage 1: Summary Report 'OVERVIEW , Page v -1 J An important way to ensure the LDG and CWG are used consistently and to make them more understandable is to distribute them widely and provide training to municipal staff and developers. Public education on the guidelines is also called for. DFO and B.C. Environment are in the process of developing a training program to assist with making the Guidelines more widely known and understood, and workshops will be offered to municipalities in the near future.

Regional Plannin~ Many feel that the achievement of aquatic and riparian stewardship depends on a collective vision of the Lower Fraser Valley that will provide direction to municipalities. Senior government agencies like Environment Canada would work with municipalities to ensure that a common vision is achieved. The vision could take the form of, for example, a 30 year plan for the livable region including the watershed from Vancouver to Hope, starting from the Green Zone strategy. A strong argument has been presented that a regional strategy, generated through a multi-stakeholder process and agreed to by all levels of government, is key to: ecologically­ based planning, the balancing of development trade-offs, the consideration of cumulative impacts, and growth management.

Overarching Themes

Five themes have implications for most of the twelve topics summarized above: consistency, staffing and resources, partnerships, growth management and legislative changes. Consistency is important to everyone involved in stewardship efforts: it makes communications easier, information management more efficient, priority-setting more straightforward; time spent in learning guidelines a better investment, and development plans more secure.

Staffing limitations are one a pivotal constraint in the effectiveness of stewardship initiatives. Local governments and senior agencies both lack the staff they need to meet the full range of stewardship needs, from planning through implementation, monitoring and assessment. Small developers similarly.lack the expert assistance they could benefit from. These constraints are a primary force behind the partnerships initiative. Some effective partnerships involving municipalities, community groups and senior agencies have already been established. Further progress in partnerships depends on factors such as well-defined objectives and memorandums of understanding to ensure a clear understanding of roles. The role of First Nations will become increasingly important.

Like staffing limitations, population and development growth pressures increase the difficulty of achieving stewardship objectives. Especially from the perspective of municipal staff, growth management has to occur concurrently with pro-active approaches to the protection of aquatic and riparian resources. Some call for growth management legislation. Currently, the legislative base for local habitat protection is spread among several provincial and federal acts. Changes that will strengthen legal foundations are underway. Suggestions for additional legislative changes need to be carefully considered with a view to maintaining flexibility and a pro-active approach in stewardship activities.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report OVERVIEW' Page vi J

PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND J RIP ARIAN RESOURCES: SUMMARY REPORT - STAGE 1 J

1. INTRODUCTION J This Report provides a summary of ideas on the stewardship of aquatic and riparian resources J from four inter-governmental workshops held in the Lower Mainland Region during March1 1994. The workshops formed the first stage in the "Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian 1 Resources' (PP ARR) initiative1 launched jointly by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

(DF0)1 and B.C. Environment1 Lower Mainland Region (BCE). PPARR has also had the

support of the Canadian Wildlife Service1 the Federation of B.C. Naturalists1 the District of

North Vancouver1 the City of Coquitlam1 and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The Summary Report for Stage I has been prepared by Dovetail Consulting. This firm facilitated 1 a series of preliminary meetings with DF01 BCE and other supporting "partners/ prepared a Discussion Paper1 and facilitated the workshops. ] The report is organised as follows:

• Section 2 describes the origins1 objectives and scope of the PPARR initiative.

• Section 3 provides a summary of results from the four workshops1 organised according to topic. ' l • Section 4 identifies some overarching themes that have emerged during the first stage of the PP ARR initiative. J • Section 5 presents recommendations and suggested next steps.

2. THE PP ARR INITIATIVE

Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources (PPARR) is a joint initiative funded by ] the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and B.C. Environment. In the fall and winter of

19931 these agencies convened an ad hoc "Workshop Development Committee/' bringing together representatives of all levels of government to plan a cooperative initiative for improving local stewardship. The initiating partners of the PP ARR process are listed in Box 1. J

The PPARR initiative builds on ideas Box 1: PPARR: Initiating Partners l developed through the Federation of B.C. J Naturalist's (FBCN) conference on • Department of Fisheries and Oceans1 Fraser "Ensuring Livability in the Lower Fraser River Action Plan Valley/ and the District of North • Canadian Wildlife Service Vancouver's September 1993 workshop l on "Local Government and the Land • B.C. Environment1 Lower Mainland Region Development Guidelines." • Ministry of Municipal Affairs • District of North Vancouver J • City of Coquitlam • Federation of B.C. Naturalist

l J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Pagel J 2.1. Towards a Pro-Active, Planning Approach With increasing awareness of the limitations of the current referrals process, and with rising development pressures in the Lower Mainland, support has grown for more pro-active, planning-oriented approaches to the protection of local environmental resources. These new approaches would move the review of projects further ahead in the municipal planning and approval process, make more effective use of planning tools such as Official Community Plans, (OCPs), zoning and bylaw provisions, make senior governments more responsive to local efforts, and reduce the reliance on the Fisheries Act as the primary legislation for protecting local ecosystems. Such changes must be made bearing in mind limitations on government resources at all levels and must result in approaches for habitat protection which are both practical and effective. Creating options to accomplish these goals is part of the PP ARR initiative.

Box 2: A New Climate of Cooperation In September 1993, a protocol was signed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks on "Principles for Sharing Environmental Responsibilities." This protocol states: "the parties are committed to the concept of sustainability as the foundation for the integration of environmental, social and economic activities ... Effective cooperation between the provincial and local governments will lead to certainty and predictability of environmental regulation and promote public confidence and sound economic I planning." This protocol sets the stage for joint initiatives stating: "to maximize efficiency and effectiveness, the parties are committed to cooperate in the spirit of partnership, particularly in the harmonization of environmental legislation, regulations, policies,. programs and projects." I

2.2. Objective and Anticipated Outcomes pf the PP ARR Initiative PPARR is not a new program or body. It is a collaborative process to engage federal and provincial agencies and local governments in exploring and reaching agreement on improvements to the way we protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems at the local level. The anticipated outcomes of the PP ARR initiative are: • informal agreements between senior governments and municipalities; • Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between all levels of government; • enhanced use of local government powers under the Municipal Act; • joint proposals for changes to existing legislation; and, • arrangements for the coordination of mapping and data collection.

The PPARR process may also spawn a number of local initiatives where new approaches can be implemented on an experimental basis.

The PPARR initiative is focused on the stewardship of aquatic and riparian resources (See Box 3). This limited scope is intended to ensure that discussions are focused and lead to specific recommendations for action. However, many of the approaches developed may be transferable to other ecosystem components under similar development pressures. The geographical area of the PP ARR initiative encompasses the East side of the Georgia Basin (BC Environment's Lower Mainland Region), stretching from Bute Inlet to Boston Bar.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 2 J

Box 3: Stewardship: A Working Definition Stewardship refers to cooperative forms of planning and management of environmental resources in which all users and managers share responsibilities for management and conservation. Stewardship embodies a new ethic of caring for local ecosystems in the interest of sustainability. Stewardship includes but goes beyond voluntary efforts by community groups. Stewardship requires sharing of decision-making authority, of responsibility for ecosystem protection, and of the benefits of a given resource. Stewardship also includes accountability to .accompany this shared responsibility. Thesethree features-responsibility, authority, and accountability-are the key ingredients of effective stewardship. J 2.3. An Outline of Stages in the PP ARR Initiative 'J Stage 1 of the PP ARR initiative comprised a series of four workshops at locations in the tower Mainland Region during March 1994: Gibsons, Burnaby, Surrey and Matsqui. These workshops included representatives of all levels of government and a representative of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists' Land for Nature Initiative. Development interests were represented at one workshop by a member of the Urban Development Institute. Additional workshops may be arranged with First Nations and environmental groups in the coming months. J Stage 2 of the PPARR initiative may include a regional conference in the fall of 1994 bringing together a broader array of interested parties to review the ideas generated through the workshops and to work towards adapting and implementing new approaches. 'J l J l j

l ;) l '1 J

l j

J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 3 ] 3. IMPROVING THE PROTECTION OF LOCAL AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES

This section of the report provides a summary of ideas generated at the four workshops held in the Lower Mainland during March, 1994. The authors have attempted to include all of the ideas generated at the workshops in this summary. Participants' own words have been used wherever possible. The comments and ideas of participants have been organised under various topic headings. Some topics are addressed under more than one topic heading.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of individuals and groups of individuals­ they do not necessarily reflect the consensus of the workshop participants.

3.1. OCPs, Zoning and Bylaws Local governments set the terms of reference for development in most settled areas with Official Community Plans (OCPs). OCPs are a general statement of the objectives and policies respecting the form and character of existing and proposed land use. OCPs do not directly regulate land use. However, any bylaw passed by municipal councils must be consistent with the OCP. The Municipal Act creates the tools to manage development, not to manage resources or the environment. ·

OCPs are the main planning vehicle for local government and although they are relatively stable-renewed only once every 5 years or so-they are subject to amendments at any time which can weaken or strengthen provisions for habitat protection. For example, West Vancouver has recently made amendments to include 7 open space principles to protect creeks in new development areas. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has a planning grants program (up to $30,000) which supports local governments wishing to update OCPs. Expanded environmental strategies have been supported under this program. The priorities for this program include: environmental planning; growth management; and, social planning. Some municipalities have also included more detailed neighbourhood plans which provide further opportunities for habitat protection and stewardship.

The following local planning tools for habitat protection can also be incorporated within OCPs: • Density bonus zones are used in some municipalities to create incentives for developers to protect habitat as a condition of allowing higher density on the remainder of a site. For example, the City of Surrey's OCP includes a "gross density" bonus which allows the land protection provision to be increased from 5% to 15%. • Development Permit Areas (DP As) are used by local governments for preservation of water and watercourses, prevention of flooding and other kinds of land degradation, and protection of fisheries and prevention of erosion of watercourse banks. The Corporation of Delta has used this approach for areas adjacent to the shoreline, although primarily for management of hazard areas rather than habitat protection. Maple Ridge has identified 50 metre DPAs adjacent to all streams thus establishing protection measures prior to any development. Development applications for these areas require automatic referral to senior agencies. • So:r;µe municipalities have identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) within their OCP. The City of Surrey has used this approach although the requirement for development permits in ESAs has met with resistance from farmers who fear that property values may be affected (see Section 3.2). Delta, Richmond and Matsqui have also identified ESAs.

Under Section 992 (1) of the Municipal Act, developers are required to set aside up to 5% of a site for park land or pay to the Municipality acash in lieu amount that equals 5% of the average

PPARR Stage·l: Summary Report Page 4 market value of the site. Local governments have the option to stipulate whether the park land dedication is to be in kind or in cash if there is an "official community plan or a rural land use bylaw [which] contains policies and designations respecting the location and types of future parks." This latter alternative has been used in Maple Ridge to establish a system whereby the park land requirement is waived for sites containing habitat of limited value in return for a contribution of funds to purchase property with more valuable habitat. The demand for recreational parks has been met through development cost charges (DCCs).

There is potential to use roadway plans and include a corridor alongside a creek as a right of way. In this case, the municipality must have the explicit intention of developing the right of way for transportation (for example, as a trail), which may be incompatible with riparian protection. '] Several municipalities appear to be supportive of greater consistency in the language and approach used in OCPs throughout the Lower Mainland Region. Model bylaws could be established which could be tailored to suit local conditions. There is also support for the J involvement of senior government agencies in an advisory capacity during the development or revision of OCPs. Senior agencies are not always up to date concerning the schedule of revisions for OCPs or the details of typical OCP planning processes. Finally, it has been suggested that one of the public hearings during the OCP review process be dedicated to environmental issues, J and that technical reports could be prepared by environmental consultants or a public advisory committee to identify opportunities and constraints. J Bylaws have also been used to ensure habitat protection. These include bylaws for tree protection and leave strips adjacent to streams, soil removal and placement, and stormwater management and drainage. Perhaps the most comprehensive environmental protection bylaw in the Lower Mainland Region has been put in place in the District of North Vancouver, based on J the Land Development Guidelines. The City of Surrey passed a tree preservation bylaw in 1992, which works on a 2-for-1 basis-two trees are to be planted for every one removed. Burnaby has also used bylaws to protect riparian zones and ensure public access along the Fraser River J waterfront. Bylaws are limited however, in that they are susceptible to legal challenges and require political will to create and implement.

Liability is a significant concern for municipalities seeking to protect riparian and aquatic ecosystems through bylaws or other provisions, particularly in the context of: • higher costs of administration; • legal challenges to expropriation of private land; and, • maintenance and insurance. J It has been argued that liability should become a shared responsibility of all levels of government covering court costs, maintenance costs, and political liability. To make such an approach effective, it has been suggested that senior governments need to clarify habitat protection objectives (for example, through emphasizing the Land Development Guidelines) to J establish a framework and standards for "due diligence." One limitation is that the Land Development Guidelines (discussed in greater detail in Section 3.11) represent a compilation of best practices and serve only as a minimum standard. In some cases. bylaws may be more J conservative and the prosecution of contractors who have not met more stringent standards is unlikely to be successful if the more minimal requirements of the Land Development Guidelines have been satisfied. Protocols and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) could be of assistance in resolving this difficulty. Another approach to limiting liability would be to use risk management to assess the legal or financial risks associated with designation or expropriation. Arbitration or tribunals can also provide a more flexible and less costly alternative to court cases. J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 5 OCPs, Zoning and Bylaws: Options for Action • Include amendments in OCPs to cover habitat stewardship or environmental protection . • Take advantage of the planning grants program offered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to update OCPs and include environmental strategies. . • Use Density Bonus Zones to create incentives for habitat protection . • Explore more fully the use of Development Permit Areas for achievin& habitat protection . • Establish ESAs and integrate them with an overall environmental planning strategy for the municipality. • Stipulate payment in cash as an alternative to the 5% park land dedication on subdivision to direct additional funds towards habitat protection measures. • Explore the use of park designations and roadway planning for the protection of riparian corridors. • Develop common terminology and consistency between OCPs in the Lower Mainland Region. I • Establish an inventory of environmental protection bylaws established to date in the Lower Mainland Region. • Draft and implement a model environmental bylaw . • Encourage tree preservation and soil protection bylaws . I • Establish a schedule of OCP revisions for circulation to all agencies and involve senior government agency staff as advisors in the OCP review process. • Establish the extent of legal liability and develop MOUs to clarify "due diligence" for cases where local bylaws are more restrictive than the Land Development Guidelines.

3.2. Land Title, Land Value and Conservation Covenants A great part of the Lower Fraser Valley is private land and freedom to develop property is part of a deeply ingrained set of Canadian values and attitudes. Measures to protect aquatic and riparian resources which preclude development opportunities or establish new responsibilities and liabilities must address questions of property rights. Some solutions to these difficulties already mentioned include the use of tax concessions or density bonus provisions (see Section 3.1).

Not all municipalities have a clearly defined environmental strategy to provide a context for protection of land and resources. In the absence of a long-term land management plan, case-by-. case habitat protection measures such as restrictive covenants-used to establish setbacks on streams under Section 215 of the Land Titles Ae.t-are often opposed by land owners who fear that the value of their land will be negatively affected. This opposition is one the fundamental difficulties of a "piecemeal" approach to habitat protection. In some cases, the establishment of leave strips (on either private property or crown land) can increase the desirability of sites for residential development but this can cause further problems due to speculation.

Purchasing private land is another approach to ensuring habitat protection. However, with land values rising over recent years and with the limited funds available for securing riparian zones and wetlands under increasing budgetary pressures, purchase is becoming a less feasible option. At the same time, there is concern amongst municipalities that alternative tools available for putting valuable habitat into public trust are limited. Some of these concerns have been addressed through a recent report, "Here Today, Here Tomorrow: Legal Tools for the Voluntary Protection of Private Land in British Columbia," produced by the West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA). This study and other information will be made available by WCELA on an electronic bulletin board system accessible by modem.

Various forms of covenants provide alternatives for habitat protection:. One of the limitations of this approach is that subsequent land owners do not always know that restrictions have been

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page6 J.

placed on the property. Another limitation is the lack of enforcement capability to ensure that · 1·. covenants are being respected. To ensure the protection of habitat when land is transferred, a _ clause can be included in the covenant stating that land cannot be sold until any damage has been rehabilitated. It has also been suggested that dedication of land is generally more effective as the land is protected in perpetuity. J Land Title, Land Value and Covenants: Options fior Action • Develop an educational program for landowners with property adjacent to streams on the " J importance of habitat protection measures and implications for land values on private land. • Provide a coherent approach to habitat protection measures to be used on private land

through the development of an environmental strategy for the municipality. - · ' ·1·· • Provide access for planners, field staff, developers and landowners to the information base on legal tools for the environmental protection of private land available through WCELA.

3.3. Referrals The referrals system is a key mechanism for habitat protection. While there are many criticisms 'J of the system and although the use of protocol agreements can reduce dependency on this system considerably, it is widely accepted that referrals will remain a useful tool which is unlikely to be replaced entirely. ]

Several local governments are frustrated by the lengthy tum-around time required for the review of development applications by senior government agencies. Similar criticisms have been directed at the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan (BIEAP) which plays a coordinating J role for referrals. However, experience varies on a case-by-case basis and some municipalities were supportive of BIEAP and B.C. Environment. They reported rapid response times, helpful staff and improving consistency. J Municipalities are also concerned about the credibility and consistency of reviews. Referrals requiring review under Section 7 of the Water Act are particularly complex and uncertainties are · high, although this is being addressed through revisions to legislation currently underway. Overall, municipalities and agencies agree on the need for a referrals system which is accessible, understandable, consistent and which provides a timely response, with information on limitations and constraints up-front. ,J

All parties are keen to reduce the number of referrals required. One widely-supported approach to achieving this is the use of explicit guidelines in advance of the review process. The Land J Development Guidelines released in October 1993 provide a solid first step in this direction, although they have yet to be implemented consistently throughout the region. The Community Watershed Guidelines, shortly to be released, will also clarify requirements for developers in the planning stage (see Section 3.11). Such guidelines not only establish standards and expectations J for habitat protection measures, but indicate to developers, through a checklist, supporting information that should be submitted to accompany a development application. The "Planners' and Developers' Guide to Stream Stewardship" to be released shortly by DFO may also provide guidance in this regard.

Some heavily urbanised municipalities seek further guidance from senior agencies on handling marginal habitat and whether to accept payment in lieu of mitigative measures. Other municipalities in areas where development is less constrained also request guidance on whether minor disturbance to streams can be accepted "as a cost of doing business." Explicit guidance on these questions is required from senior agencies, although the problem of cumulative effects is J widely acknowledged and concern is shared over the incremental loss of habitat or opportunities for restoration in urban areas. ·

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page7 l Local government and agencies both support reducing the complexity of the referrals process by moving towards a /1 one window" approach. Some municipalities have warned that in rural areas where agency presence is minimal and enforcement capability is limited, the public will ignore the referrals process unless it is accessible and easy to use. A simple first step to reduce complexity is the identification of a contact person both within agencies and within each municipal hall or regional district office to improve communication. More ambitious changes are also needed and DFO and BCE are already cooperating to provide a single letter or response to development proposals, and are starting to involve other federal agencies. Such improvements are based on informal arrangements and have been developed only in the context of water management-a one window approach is not yet used consistently.

A different approach to support coordinated agency response is a "joint project review," bringing agency and local government staff together on a scheduled basis. This approach is similar to the "review committee" system adopted by BIEAP and FREMP. Under this arrangement, each municipality in effect becomes the single window where information is compiled. DFO already has regular, informal "environmental review committee" meetings or similar discussions with Coquitlam, the District of North Vancouver, Surrey and Squamish. While this approach could be extended to the other municipalities in the Lower Mainland Region, agency staffing cannot cope with separate meetings for each local government. It has been suggested therefore that groups of 4 or 5 adjacent local governments become /1 combined joint project review areas."

Oneproblem with these combined joint project review meetings is the need for different agencies to have input at different stages of the development process. A mechanism for staging input may be required to address this difficulty. It has also been acknowledged that these meetings may be more useful for identifying projects which will require review than for detailed agency input to local planning processes.

Another strategy to reduce the load on the referrals process is to establish some form of screening mechanism. The Land Development Guidelines provide a de facto form of screening by establishing clearer standards for development applications. Additional measures for screening might include the development of an "exclusion list" for those projects which do not require review.

Referrals: Options for Action • Resolve outstanding uncertainties related to referrals under Section 7 as a matter of priority. • Clarify the role of the Land Development Guidelines and Community Watershed Guidelines in serving as screening mechanisms for referrals. • Include checklists of information to be submitted with development permit applications in the Land Development Guidelines and Community Watershed Guidelines. • Establish clearer guidelines on habitat protection measures to be adopted for marginal habitat in heavily urbanised areas. • Identify a consistent contact person in each local government and agency to simplify communication on referrals and ensure maintenance of a mailing list so that changes can be communicated to those that need to know. • Revise senior government policy and develop formal agreements to enable a one window approach to referrals. . • Establish monthly "combined, joint project review committee" meetings for neighbouring groups of municipalities. • Develop an exclusion list. • Establish clear criteria for local government screening of referrals. • Clarify the criteria that will be used to review development applications.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Pages J 3.4. Conflict Resolution J There is currently no formal process of conflict resolution included in habitat pfanning and management systems. However, the UBCM/B.C. Environment protocol signed in the fall of 1993 sets a preliminary framework for such a system (see UBM/BC Environment joint publication of draft policies and procedures, dated April 1994). In addition, various informal J processes are being used to address disputes with varying levels of success.

Municipalities and agency staff support the establishment of a more structured, inter-agency dispute resolution system that is incorporated into a joint project review mechanisms and: • is timely and results in mutually beneficial agreements; • makes use of mediation, negotiation and other cooperative problem-solving methods; J • is incorporated early into the planning process;

• is flexible and can accommodate different interests; and1 • involves·representative groups that are accountable and carry authority.

There is widespread support for strategies which avoid conflicts such as anticipating potential areas of conflict and providing timely advice on changes in information or changes in J requirements.

Conflict Resolution: Options for Action • Establish a collaborative process to develop an inter-agency I inter-governmental conflict resolution mechanism. • Identify potential sources of conflict and develop a set of standard strategies to overcome ·1 them. • Avoid conflict by providing timely advice on changes to information or requirements.

3.5. Enforcement, Monitoring and Compliance J Agency staffing levels limit the ability' of BCE and DFO to maintain an active presence in the fiel& For example, agency staff are rarely able to monitor whether restrictive covenants are being observed. As a result, action is only taken when complaints are received from the public and some contend that even then agencies do not address every issue. J

In recent years, Environmental Monitors have provided assistance in cases where agency staff shortages limit effective follow-up. Monitors are environmental consultants hired as a l "watchdog" with the responsibility for ensuring that mitigative measures are implemented · satisfactorily and with the power to stop the work. Research undertaken by DFO has shown that this approach has had limited success with average compliance at only 50%. The terms of J reference for Monitors have recently been revised to include a requirement to submit a report to the lead agency which is expected to improve compliance. Another approach, used in the District of North Vancouver, is to empower Building Inspectors to inspect streams to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Bylaw. To make such an approach effective, job descriptions have to be revised and periodic assessments included in personnel reviews. Training is often required where staff responsibilities are expanded.

l j PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page9 Agencies and local governments agree that enforcement is difficult and costly. Court cases ate also expensive and time-consuming. Although municipalities do have some powers of enforcement, particularly when guidelines are associated with ESAs, habitat protection measures often function on a "bluff" basis. To address this, some municipalities have suggested that local government authority be increased through amendments in the Municipal Act or Land Titles Act. Some municipalities are sceptical about this option on the grounds that: (i) liability issues are as yet not fully resolved (see Section 3.2 and 3.11); (ii) responsibilities for enforcement which more appropriately rest with senior government should not be included in legislation for local government (see Section 4.4); and, (iii) Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) should be considered before resorting to changes to legislation.

Where compliance is not achieved, municipalities are often unclear at what point action should be taken against offenders. For example, it is not clear when marginal encroachment on a riparian zone becomes an offense worthy of action. Clearer direction is required from senior agencies in this regard. Where habitat is damaged, agencies and municipalities agree that repair is difficult and responsibilities for restoration and rehabilitation are often uncertain. There may be potential for the use of creative sentencing which would keep income from fines in the community and provide funds for restoration.

For example, fencing-off riparian zones achieves the goal of riparian protection, and may deal with liability concerns, but can be viewed as overly restrictive by the local community or · landowners.

All parties involved in habitat protection agree that enforcement and monitoring need to be more closely linked into an integrated planning and management system. Support has also been expressed for a "team approach" in which local governments and agencies support each others' efforts (including joint educational programs and enforcement training courses). A team approach.would require: • clearly defined roles for all players; • political will to back it up; • on-going dialogue amongst all involved (an annual review by bylaw enforcement officers and fish officers); • clear identification of anticipated enforcement problems; and, • a shared understanding of who will take the lead with what kind of support from others.

A law review is required to support these efforts by identifying new enforcement tools, ticketing options, model environmental bylaws and mechanisms to deal with covenant violations.Various strategies can be used in the interim to encourage compliance. Community-policing can be encouraged with a 24hour1-800 number for reporting offenders. (A toll-free, general inquiries line for B,C. Environment is in place: 1-800-665-7027. A similar line is available through DFO: 1-800-465-4336). There is also the "Observe, Record, Report" strategy encouraged as part of the Stream Keepers program. Disincentive I incentive programs can also be used involving the publication of violators names in local media and good corporate citizens being recognised and rewarded. Statutory declarations of compliance and performance bonding .can also help.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 10 J

Enforcement and Monitoring: Options for Action ] • Identify mechanisms for monitoring of covenants in the field. J • Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the "environmental monitors" program and explore the possibility of extending this program to all munieipalities. l • Resolve liability issues with regard to enforcement. J • Determine specific "triggers" for taking action on offenders. • Determine responsibilities for rehabilitation of damaged habitat. • Explore options for creative sentencing to keep fines within the community to cover the costs of habitat restoration. J • Distribute a public guide clarifying responsibilities for landowners and consequences for non-compliance. • Establish a: team approach to enforcement and monitoring. • Undertake a law review to identify enforcement tools, ticketing options, and mechanisms to deal with regulation, permit, and covenant violations. · • Establish an inter-agency 1-800 reporting line for environmental offenses. • Introduce requirements for contractors to submit a statutory declaration to establish that they had met terms and conditions set out by government. J 3.6. Information and Databases ·1 J Representatives of all levels of government agree that the data base supporting protection measures for riparian resources is inadequate. Concerns relate both to quality and quantity. Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping now available will help by adding aquatic information on the 1:20,000 scale, as will the Fisheries Information Summary System (FISS), Environment , Canada's data base for migratory birds and other information bases on stream hydrology under development. However these products will not deal completely with the lack of site level information. A mapped inventory of resources with sensitivity coding (as used by the Fraser River Estuary Management Program or in Green Zone mapping) is in considerable demand.

In addition, senior government staff need to improve their knowledge of local planning ] regulations. Local governments similarly need to be kept informed of new legislation.

To be worthwhile, the data collected needs to be complete and accurate-computerized systems are no help if information is poor. Variations in the quality of drainage maps have been observed. Common standards could help to maintain quality in information bases. . 'l Assembling quality data via inventories and mapping can be labour and technology intensive, "j although much can be achieved through partnerships with graduate programs in Colleges and Universities. For example, base data for a stream survey in North Vancouver's cost in the order of $4000 only. BCIT students have undertaken watershed studies around Burnaby Lake at minimal cost and the Port Moody Ecological Society invited BCIT to do a stream study to share costs and labour. The Township of Langley has worked with Westwater Research Centre at UBC to produce a Geographical Information System (GIS) for land management.

One example is the B.C. Federation of Naturalists' Land for Nature Project and another is a state of the art GIS mapping project which a citizens' group has underway on Bowen Island with local government assistance (see Section 3.8). A regional initiative, the Sechelt Inlet Coastal ] Strategy, was successful in getting all stakeholders together to produce a multiple use map based on field work. ·

To be useful, data or infom1ation has to be accessible. GIS should be available in places like J libraries. Inter-governmental exchange of information could be expedited by identifying a liaison ·1 .J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 11 l person in each agency who could answer detailed questions. Municipalities could take the lead role in assembling all relevant information in one accessible place.

Getting information to developers is particularly important to the implementation of stewardship measures. Some developers may not understand the information requirements for government review. Small developers in particular lack the ability to generate and access good data. A master list of permit requirements and an information package including a checklist of environmental mitigation requirements would be helpful.

Long term coordination of data collection and management between governments is called for. GISs are an often-mentioned example of incompatibility, and uncertainty exists as to how agencies will mesh data from different systems. Suggestions for integration include senior governments assisting local governments to prioritize the data required, and for B.C. Environment to forward information to local governments. Federal and provincial initiatives themselves could be better coordinated. Overall, coordination of information requires greater agreement on data collection standards, priorities, and standardized data presentations and mapping scales.

Information and Databases: Options for Action • Produce a mapped inventory of resources with sensitivity coding. • Improve senior government staff knowledge of local planning regulations. • Keep local governments informed of new legislation, regulations, guidelines and procedures. • Establish standards for quality and compatibility in information bases and presentation of data. • Seek support in data collection from colleges, community residents and volunteer organizations-involve stakeholders. • Encourage municipal level riparian and stream habitat planning studies. • Make data accessible to all potential users, especially developers. • Improve arrangements for sharing information and coordinating data gathering between levels of government and between senior government agencies.

3.7. Public Attitudes, Values and Education Opinions vary on the level of public support that exists for environmental protection. Those who detect public apathy towards the environment (or at least a low priority on the environment) feel that governments may not have a sufficient mandate froin their constituents to support protection measures. Others feel that public pressure to protect the environment is coming at the same time as calls to downsize government, creating pressure to do more with less. The reality may be that there are discrepancies within the general public in its concern for the environment.

In any case, if individual values and expectations are inconsistent with agency goals, protection will be difficult to achieve. For example, some government staff from the Lower Fraser Valley question whether GVRD Livable Region goals concerning population growth reflect the priorities of the residents of their municipalities for habitat protection.

Communities on the whole would likely be more supportive of stewardship and take a more active role if they were better informed and educated about the environment and government strategies to address habitat protection. It is, however, difficult to change attitudes and values, to the extent that adults may have to be educated "through their wallets," via methods such as full cost accounting. If environmental education is started from early school years, a land ethic is more likely to emerge, in tum reducing the need for reliance on technical protective measures. Formal educational programs can also be supplemented by efforts of resource agencies and non-

PP ARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 12 J government organizations. Ultimately, if communities could develop a long term vision l. expressing an understanding of the ecosystem, public contributions to stewardship would be J the norm rather than the exception. In the meantime, more modest increases in public understanding and support might be achieved by educating the public about responsibilities for enforcement and basidaws and guidelines, and by paying attention to the way people want J.•· local resources managed. Public Attitudes, Values and Education: Options for Action , J • Articulate clearly the range of government strategies for local and site-specific environmental protection for stream-side landowners. • Inform and educate communities about the environment via programs offered by schools, 1 non-government organizations, or goverrunent agencies. _J • Investigate options for full cost accounting. • Model cooperative attitudes to environmental protection between government agencies. · 1 • Educate the public about responsibilities for enforcement and basic laws and guidelines. J • Be attentive to community wishes for the management of local resources, . ] 3.8. The Role of Developers The main concern of developers-a person or organization that acquires land for development-is that they be assured of consistency as a basis for planning. The development community contends that such consistency can come to be reflected in land values. Common "I standards, of the type set by the Land Development Guidelines, help minimize potential inequities in the way different developers are treated; Inequities also arise from differing J abilities of developers to make land trade-offs for habitat protection-smaller developers are less flexible in this regard. Providing all developers with the same information helps "level the playing field."

Governments at all levels needs to recognize the cost to developers of environmental protection, 1 and in this context, senior agencies should regard local governments as developers to the extent J that they provide infrastructure and manage municipal lands. Again consistency is important: if developers know in advance the policies for habitat protection and the requirements for -,, protective measures, they can take these into account in the purchase price of land and in I, development plans. Delays due to having to meet unexpected requirements are costly. J

One development representative asserted that developers work well with incentives, and that they will act responsibly if they know the implications of their actions. Regulations, he contends, are more for those who are not familiar with requirements. Familiarity with regulations can be increased via the educational effect of government monitoring. Further government efforts to raise the awareness of developers on stewardship topics would be useful.

Cooperative work can likewise increase developers' familiarity with habitat requirements, as well as help tailor regulations to specific situations. For example, in Coquitlam, sediment l control guidelines were developed in conjunction with DFO and a developer for a particular ,J development. If development interests are supported by qualified professionals this kind of cooperation is even more effective.

J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 13 l Role of Developers: Options for Action • Ensure consistency in the application of standards and policies for habitat protection over time and amongst developments. • Take into account the limited resources of small developers and the cumulative impact of their activities. • Encourage developers to leave the responsibility for the management of riparian zones in the hands of government. • Proyide educational opportunities for developers on stewardship topics, including the Land Development Guidelines and the Community Watershed Guidelines. • Work cooperatively with developers and professionals in the tailoring of regulations to specific situations.

3.9. Public Involvement and Grassroots Initiatives Opportunities exist for general public input into the land use and development process at the planning level (OCP) and during zoning approvals. Opportunities are not normally provided at the subdivision approval or building permit stages, when significant impacts on the environment can occur. Public meetings to review project proposals could help fill this gap. Involvement in OCPs could go further, to include the public in designating environmentally sensitive areas during planning. Current approaches to the use of /1 advisory panels" could be extended to the establishment of /1 environmental panels."

Government agen~ies have created programs to support and encourage citizens who wish to take on a more pro-active volunteer role. An examples is DFO's "Stream Keepers" program, supported through the longer standing Salmonid Enhancement Program. The activities which volunteers undertake include stream clean ups, "watch-dog" activities to support enforcement, '4'11:.· monitoring of water quality and fauna, and local planting. Support for the environmental protection mandates.of government can be enhanced by volunteer stewardship as well. The stewardship efforts of volunteers should be rewarded through recognition.

Agencies must be aware that staffing and other resources are required to support outreach to environmental non-government organizations or the general public. Limitations in support can "turn the public off" by giving volunteers the impression that they are being let down. Conversely, if non-government organizations "know the rules" they can act independently.

Volunteer organizations have taken significant initiatives to mobilize citizens for stewardship work. A notable example is the Federation of B.C. Naturalists' Land for Nature Project. Through this province-wide initiative groups like Vancouver Island Naturalists undertake projects to protect habitat. The program provides communication and information services to government and the public. It brings sources of local knowledge to planning processes and provides a knowledgeable constituency for government to tap into.

At a local or regional level "volunteer stewards" have formed groups such as the following: • The Allouette River Management group: This non-profit society is producing a management plan for the watershed. It acts as an interface between government agencies and the local land owners and as a sounding board for local government. I • The Bowen Island Forest and Water Management Society: This group is contributing to their I OCP with mapping skills applied to geographical information systems. • The Langley Environmental Partnerships Society (LEPS) is a not-for-profit society which provides volunteers to undertake local stewardship initiatives.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 14 J Some groups are established specifically to provide input to municipal government such as Delta's Environmental Advisory Committee which is comprised of public representatives and one Council member. Richmond has a similar committee. These committees have considerable J potential if terms of reference and reporting relationships are clear. However, problems can l emerge around the political role of such committees. If local government gives an advisory committee a voice, then it has to be prepared to hear things that may not be complimentary. J

Tools can be provided to the public to help them contribute to stewardship on a more informal '1 basis; for example, Burnaby has produced and distributed a map containing watercourse j information. \ Public Involvement and Grassroots Initiatives: Options for Action j • Provide opportunities for public involvement in the project review process and in the designation of environmentally sensitive areas. l • Continue to provide programs and tools such as maps to support and encourage volunteer j stewardship efforts, and ensure that these programs are well staffed. • Draw upon the assistance provided by the initiatives of non-government organizations. l • Be prepared to deal constructively with criticism coming from advisory groups. .J

3.10. Local Governments' Role and Priorities

The role of local government in habitat protection is str9ng and increasing, but full use of the 1 I tools available for riparian stewardship depends on municipal councils, regional district _J boards, Planning Directors and staff all being "on board." This is easier said than done, since environmental protection is only one of the many community goals that must be balanced by municipalities. For example, most locally elected officials want to provide local jobs, a range of 1 housing, and other elements contributing to quality of life, as well as environmental protection. J Trade-offs are inevitable between growth and environment, especially as many municipalities do not have a defined environmental strategy. The priority placed on environmental protection within this balancing act varies between municipalities and within municipalities over time, as Councils and Regional District Boards are affected by elections every three years. Even within municipalities at a given time there are internal conflicts around priorities to be placed on 1 different objectives and goals. The nature of the relationship between local government and BC I Environment is becoming clearer through on-going efforts to finalise the protocol agreement. ' j

The level of public support for habitat protection is critical to Council and Regional Board support. Public support therefore needs to be explicit-for example via phone calls to staff or Council. If a land ethic were to gain strength, community support for stewardship would be more dependable (see Section 3.7, Public Attitudes) and the problem of getting private land owners to agree to government stewardship initiatives would be alleviated (see Section 3.2, l Land Title). J

Costs are another key factor in the priority setting process. The cost of habitat protection initiatives such as legal costs, restoration and monitoring and enforcement have increased and l the public might not want their tax dollars to be applied to these costs. Legal responsibilities for land stewardship and associated costs are a growing concern. Uncertainty exists around the distribution of fiscal responsibilities between levels of government or agencies for activities such as monitoring. Costs of environmental protection are more easily c.overed at the municipal level if they are anticipated in budget planning. User fees could be applied to greater effect to address costs as well, although this may require legislative changes in the Municipal Act.

Senior governments need to be informed of the complex factors behind "political will," such as public support and financial constraints. Conversely, Councils and Regional Board District J .PP ARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 15 J Electoral Area Directors need to be kept informed of senior government agency needs and stewardship priorities. Presentations to Councils or Regional District Boards by senior agencies have been suggested. The Union of B.C. Municipalities could also help Councils and Regional District Boards become more sensitive to environmental issues by hosting workshops and making presentations. Community groups may also make briefings to local elected officials on environmental concerns. Some Councils or Regional District Boards might wish to hold retreats for training sessions or to discuss habitat protection.

Via OCPs, bylaws, policies, and programs, .municipalities and regional districts can provide leadership and direction for riparian stewardship in many different ways. For example, they can promote strata subdivisions (to get density localised into nodes); they can provide programs for marking drains to discourage the dumping of pollutants into the water system; they can build incentives for developers to protect habitat; and they can pass bylaws to prevent the loss of trees. Many municipalities have appointed an environmental technician or officer to assist with such initiatives.

Environmentally Significant Area studies such as that undertaken by Surrey are a significant step in municipal stewardship efforts (see Section 3.1). However~ implementing the results of such studies has proven to be difficult for some municipalities as landowners resist the requirement for development permits. Factors influencing "political will," discussed above, determine whether municipal Councils and Regional District Boards can stand up to such I resistance or not. Support for such initiatives can be developed more easily by establishing . I ESAs in undeveloped areas as a first step .

Local Governments' Role and Priorities: Options for Action • Encourage the public to communicate support for stewardship measures to locally elected officials. • Take into account the cost to local government of habitat protection initiatives. • Clarify the financial and legal responsibilities for land stewardship of different levels of government and government agencies. • Anticipate the costs of environmental protection in local government budget planning. • Consider the application of user fees to address the costs of stewardship. • Keep local governments informed of senior government agency needs and stewardship priorities via presentations or other communications. • Hold Council and Regional District Board retreats or otherwise provide opportunities for localy elected officials to learn about environmental issues. • Seek the appointment of an environmental technician in every municipality.

3.11. Land Development Guidelines, Community Watershed Guidelines The Land Development Guidelines (LDG) and Community Watershed Guidelines (CWG) are a compilation of best management practices for land development and for resource planning in community watersheds respectively. They serve a number of purposes, including: setting the standards for due diligence for municipalities, providing direction to developers, ensuring consistency between municipal development projects, and helping with cooperation between levels of government.

The LDG can be incorporated into local government planning processes, for example, by appending them to bylaws. Some feel that the Guidelines are a minimum and that bylaws can go further in stewardship provisions. Where the Guidelines and bylaws address the same topic, like setbacks, the requirements from the two sources need to be consistent.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 16 Questions exist around the practicality of both sets of Guidelines: Do they apply in site-specific 1 situations? Are they useful if they are not implemented by DFO and B.C. Environment? j Municipal staff suggest that the LDG need to be: • definitive and provide timelines as to the review process; • realistic and defensible; • integrated with all other existing guidelines, including floodplain management; • consistent; and • simplified.

An important way to ensure the LDG and CWG are used consistently and to make them more understandable is to distribute them widely and provide training to municipal staff and ' 1 developers. Public education on the guidelines is also called for. DFO and B.C. Environment are ' J in the process of developing a training program to assist with making the Guidelines more widely known and understood, and workshops will be offered to municipalities in the near future. A "Planners' and Developers' Guide to Stream Stewardship" is to be published soon by DFO, which will also support the Guidelines. ' '1 Land Development Guidelines, Community Watershed Guidelines: Options for .J Action • Incorporate the Land Development Guidelines and Community Watershed Guideline into municipal planning and regulatory processes. J • Ensure consistency between Guidelines and bylaws. • Ensure that the Guidelines are implemented consistently. • Fine tune aspects of the Guidelines to make them more practical to implement, in consultation with municipal staff. J

• Distribute the Guidelines widely. ' '1 • Provide training on the Guidelines to municipal staff and developers. j

3.12. Regional Planning Many feel that the achievement of aquatic and riparian stewardship depends on a collective l vision of the Lower Mainland that will provide direction to municipalities. Senior government .J agencies like Environment Canada would work with municipalities to ensure that a common vision is achieved. The vision could take the form of, for example, a 30 year plan for the livable region including the watershed from Vancouver to Hope, starting from the Green Zone strategy. I .J A strong argument has been presented that a regional strategy, generated through a multi­ stakeholder process and agreed to by all levels of government, is key to: ecologically-based planning, the balancing of development trade-offs, the consideration of cumulative impacts, and growth management (discussed further below). A regional plan would provide a framework for setting priorities-an umbrella under which all local planning processes could fit. Regional scales that could be addressed, other than Vancouver to Hope, range from the Georgia Basin to the Sunshine Coast. The role and influence of regional planning and an accountable regional body would depend on new policy, legislation, and programs.

Even without these far-reaching changes towards regional planning, communities could be ,] encouraged to adopt a watershed catchment or even broader regional perspective in their community plans and in their consideration of specific developments. At the same time, some municipalities might already have their own vision which may not be wholly compatible with a regional vision. J J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 17 J Some hope that a regional perspective will help in the balancing of environmenta:l, economic and social concerns. Environmental agency staff, a this time, appear to be more likely than municipal staff to view environmental protection as the top priority within this balance. Those holding an environmental perspective call for attention to the issue of carrying capacity, for planning based on an understanding of ecosystem functions, and for a long run ecological vision.

Regional Planning: Options for Action • Undertake a cooperative process, with stakeholder involvement, to develop a shared vision of planning, environmental protection and growth management for the Lower Mainland/ Fraser Valley. • Develop regional plans. • Seek support for regional planning in new legislation.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 18 l J

l 4. OVERARCHING THEMES J

Five overarching themes emerged during the four workshops in Stage 1 of the PPARR initiative: consistency, staffing and resources, partnerships and legislative changes. This section draws together recurring themes from topics in Section 3.

4.1. Consistency Municipalities and senior government agencies share a concern with the lack of consistency in l planning and management of habitat protection in the Lower Mainland Region. .J

The lack of consistency in senior agency review of referrals is a widely recognised problem. The uncertainty that results from inconsistency is particularly frustrating both for developers and for municipalities. Municipalities are often "caught in the middle" between agencies and project proponents. The Land Development Guidelines are expected to improve this situation by providing a clear set of standards and basis for screening referrals. In some cases, the details of local bylaws will need to be reconciled with the standards established in the Land Development Guidelines.

Another approach to ensuring consistency is standardizing the communication links between developers and municipalities, between municipalities and senior agencies, and between and within the agencies themselves. Environmental Officers, appointed in some municipalities, can ·1 develop familiarity with agency guidelines, solidify working relationships with agency _j representatives, and serve as a valuable link between developers and agency field staff. Senior government personnel taking on a liaison role have the opportunity to develop familiarity with the particular conditions of each municipality and the details of local planning legislation.

Efforts are also underway to standardize the information base on which habitat planning and ") management efforts rely. There are widespread concerns that different GIS systems are mutually I incompatible leading to uncertainties about the coordination of data between different levels of ) government or between agencies. Agreement on a standard approach for data collection (scale, use of indicators, terminology), data management and data presentation is urgently required to avoid duplication or wastage of effort.

Local governments acknowledge the need to resolve apparently competing priorities for community planning and development (e.g., conflicting priorities for water treatment). 'Where competing interests have not been reconciled, uncertainties remain over the priority given to J habitat protection. Similarly, senior government agencies need to address inconsistencies between regulations and legislation and between various scales of local and regional plans. The development of a regional, joint strategic plan for senior government agencies with clearly I identified priorities is widely supported by local government. J

Considerable support has been expressed for the development of a model bylaw for habitat protection in the Lower Mainland Region, which could be fine-tuned by local governments to l reflect variations in local conditions. ·1 Overall, municipalities and senior government agencies share a vision of a "seamless border ,JI approach" to habitat protection in the Lower Mainland Region with consistent standards and . procedures throughout all stages from pre-planning to enforcement and between all municipalities and regional districts.

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 19 l J Consistency: Options for Action • Harmonize objectives and standards of local environmental protection bylaws with the Land Development Guidelines. • Ensure that consistent, individual contacts are provided for each local government and agency. • Develop consistent standards and scales to guide data acquisition, management and presentation. · • Review options for compatibility of GIS systems before further databases are built. • Reconcile apparently conflicting priorities at all levels through the articulation of a strategic plan or vision. • Initiate a collaborative process to draft a model bylaw for the Lower Mainland Region.

4.2. Staffing and Resources Both municipal and senior governments are facing serious shortages of staff resources which affect their ability to implement aquatic and riparian resource stewardship. Municipalities maintain that they have many more fires te> fight than senior governments and cannot take on more responsibilities. Many municipalities also lack the expertise to review project proposals; for example, they do not have Registered Professional Biologists on staff. Some argue that, if responsibilities are downloaded to municipalities, then staff need to be brought in from provincial and federal levels to help on the ground.

Many municipalities have appointed an environmental officer. These individuals develop a sense of what agencies require and can serve as a valuable link between local government and agencies. Other municipalities are seeking assistance from environmental consultants. At the same time as municipalities are seeking more assistance from senior agencies, staffing for these agencies is decreasing. For example, B.C. Environment has just 5 field staff to cover fish and wildlife issues for the entire Lower Mainland Region which contains 60% of the province's population. Senior government field staff are over-committed. DFO has been accused of · "turning off the public" due to staffing limitations.

The key question that arises is, how can the different levels of government make things easier for each other by coordinating their activities? To begin, coordination among branches within senior agencies could prevent the circumstances in which a municipality ends up having to send two sets of drawings to the same office.

Joint project review processes are frequently proposed as coordinating mechanisms to save staff time (see Section 4.3). For senior agencies which have to provide staff to attend review meetings in several municipalities, however, demands on staff are increased. If municipalities were grouped for such meetings, such demands would be decreased. Other aspects of inter­ governmental partnerships are explored in Section 4.3, below.

Staffing and Resources: Options for Action • Have environmental technicians or officers in all municipalities, or call on the assistance of environmental consultants at the municipal level. • Coordinate requirements made of municipalities among senior government agencies and branches. • Undertake a collaborative review to establish the range of costs incurred by all levels of government and other stakeholders for habitat protection ..

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 20 J 4.3. Partnerships The need for partnerships in protecting aquatic and riparian resources largely stems from the staffing constraints described above. Several factors in making partnerships between govermnents work have been suggested, including: l • a need for dear vision as opposed to a reactive focus on site-specific issues; • an orientation to service rather than to standard departmental viewpoints; • a clear understanding of the powers, priorities, and expertise to be brought to the _/l partnership by all those involved; • a well-defined statement of objectives;· • momentum maintained by building on successes; J • memorandums of understanding to ensure a clear understanding of roles; • mechanisms for conflict resolution; and • established means for prioritizing actions. ]

Two examples of effective partnerships that have been established are: 11 l (i) Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership: This partnership, one of the Fraser Basin Management Program's "Demonstration Projects," seeks to provide one stop shopping for development proposals. It is a test case and could be improved with more grass roots involvement. (ii) Langley Environmental Partnership Society (LEPS): This partnership is supported by DFO, Kwantlen College, the Township of Langley, the school district, naturalists, farmers and others. It is an "on-the-ground" initiative with grassroots control of money aimed at habitat protection. It has already resulted in some 9 km of a 10 m~tre-wide strip being planted with trees. l J See section 3.8 on public involvement for other examples of partnerships at the grass roots level. Institutional arrangements that provide conununications support for partnerships include the integrated community watershed planning process and the Fraser River Estuary Management J Program (FREMP). FREMP itself is a based in an inter-governmental partnership. While some hold it out as a model partnership arrangement, others caution that the work involved in maintaining the effectiveness of the program is significant.

In the future, First Nations will be essential members of stewardship partnerships, but the process of working out new relationships is complex. For example, the resolution of outstanding land claims through the treaty process will have an impact on resource management and all development stages. The Sechelt Band is already heavily involved-Band members are being trained and are ready to work cooperatively with all levels of government, for example in enforcement tasks. They are willing to share their power base and tools with the local community. Municipal, provincial and federal agencies need to encourage FirstNations to put forward goal statements to assist the partnership process and not wait for land claims settlements or self-government to begin to be resolved before including them.

Partnerships: Options for Action • Make partnerships work by encouraging dear vision and purpose, rules of conduct including mechanisms for conflict resolution and a means of prioritizing actions, an orientation to service, and building on successes. l • Support ongoing partnerships with institutional arrangements like the Fraser River Estuary '- j Management Program. • Include First Nations in partnership processes. l J PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 21 l 4.4 Growth Management A key aspect of the "balancing act" which local governments face, described in Section 3.12 above, is growth management. Generally, growth is assumed and few question whether it can be stopped. Some people, however, challenge the assumption that growth is inevitable and argue that it cannot be directed to selected areas without inevitably leading to more sprawl. Growth scenarios such as those presented by the GVRD raise challenges for environmental protection in those municipalities targeted for greatest population growth like Surrey.

As yet there are few clear incentives for municipalities to make habitat protection and growth management a priority. Nevertheless, Maple Ridge has taken the initiative to commission a study for the Albion area addressi.ng urban growth. A Growth Management Act , similar to that introduced in recent years in Washington State, could provide greater incentives for other municipalities to act.

Growth Managrement: Options for Action • Implement growth management measures. • Consider the possibility of limiting growth. • Build incentives for habitat protection and growth management at the municipal level into a Growth Mana>(ement Act.

4.5. Legislative and Policy Changes The legislative basis for local habitat protection is found in the Fisheries Act, Water Act, Canada Wildlife Act, Municipal Act, Land Titles Act and various policy and guidelines including the Land Development Guidelines and the Community Watershed Guidelines. However, lack of precise knowledge of many of these pieces of legislation, the powers they confer, and the changes and amendments currently underway leads to confusion and uncertainty. For example, Section 945 of the Municipal Act includes provisions that allow municipalities to provide in the OCP for the "protection of the environment" which are only recently being used to full their full extent. In many cases the adoption of new habitat protection strategies discussed elsewhere in this report is supported by existing legislation, although it is not always clear where the appropriate authority and enabling powers lie.

In other cases, new approaches for habitat protection and improved stewardship will require amendments or changes to legislation. For example, the Municipal Act gives local government considerable powers, particularly on private land, but was never intended to be resource management legislation. Although the act contains considerable flexibility for land management · (under Section 29) and environmental protection (under Section 945), changes would be required to enable: • the adoption of user fees for habitat protection; • increased enforcement powers for local governments; and, • the entrenchment of guidelines.

Such changes to legislation may not always be desirable, however. For example, guidelines are living documents which can be readily updated as "best practices" improve. Entrenching guidelines into legislation improves their statutory authority and provides the basis for more active enforcement and penalties, but reduces flexibility. Concerns have also been raised that . people respond better to pro-active planning than restrictive regulations. Simi~arly, some argue that including increased powers of enforcement for local government into the Municipal Act is burdening local government legislation with added responsibilities that should remain with

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 22 J senior government agencies. Liability issues associated with increased enforcement powers have also yet to be adequately addressed. J Other changes are already underway which will affect habitat protection: • Further changes to the Water Act are expected to be passed by July 1994 which will establish J new protection measures for groundwater and for managing activities in and about a stream (under Section 7). . • Regional planning legislation has been under preparation by the Ministry of Municipal ] Affairs for some time and is expected to be introduced within a year. • There is also growing interest in some form of growth management legislation, particularly in the Georgia Basin where development pressures are high. ~i • With the passing of Bill 26 (contaminated sites), 29 and 77 (environmental assessment), the J role of local government in local environmental planning and management is strong and increasing. J A detailed legal review may be required to identify remaining gaps in current legislation. l Legislative and Policy Changes: Options for Action j • Undertake a joint law review to establish the range of legal instruments currently being used for habitat protection in the Lower Mainland Region. • Introduce new legislation to support expanded use of full cost accounting and user fees for habitat protection. J • Introduce growth management legislation to provide the regional context for local habitat protection. 'j J l ,J l ·. J J l

J

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 23 1 J 5. NEXT STEPS FOR THE PPARR INITIATIVE

Looking ahead to Stage II, the participants in PPARR need to foresee the end of the PPARR initiative and the establishment of lasting arrangements for partnerships and supporting mechanisms for the protection of riparian resources. Before considering the prospects for Stage II and beyond, a quick stock-taking of the results of Stage I is outlined.

5.1. Where are we at the conclusion of Stage I? The workshops were effective in bringing together the players from the three levels of government who need to communicate in order to accomplish the protection of riparian resources. Participants seized the opportunity to learn from one another and exchange ideas and concerns. The workshop objective of exploring "improvements to the way the three levels of government coordinate their activities to protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems, especially in the form of more pro-active approaches," was achieved. Some progress was made towards the parallel objective of seeking agreement around these improvements, but more work lies ahead in this respect. ·

The results of the workshop discussions easily sorted into the 12 categories of Section 3 of this report, suggesting some convergence in thinking. The overarching themes of Section 4 likewise pervaded all four workshops. Within these categories the challenges of accomplishing environmental stewardship were investigated, and the problems confronting stewardship efforts were detailed. Many encouraging examples of working stewardship measures wer~:. described.

Workshop discussions did not focus sharply on specific actions to be taken and responsibilities for meeting the stewardship challenge, although the "success stories" exchanged implicitly provide such direction. Work remains to be done on the evaluation of the actions that were proposed with respect to their feasibility, priority and urgency. The level of agreement around some of them would also require testing before any actions were taken towards implementation. Considerably more work remains ahead to develop the proposed actions into specific, achievable strategies, particularly with respect to the level at which changes are required (e.g., senior level legislation, MOUs, policy initiatives with agencies). At the same time, some proposals are clear enough and simple enough that they could be acted on in the near future.

5.2. Suggested Next Steps 1. Participants from the four workshops provide feedback on this report, especially on the "options for action." Participants also comment on the recommendations of the Workshop Development Committee, appended to this report. 2. Circulate the Stage I report, with a summary of participant feedback to: organizations representing First Nations peoples, environmental non-government organizations, and organizations representing developers. Request feedback via a written form .. 3. Begin to implement recommendations agreed upon as immediate priorities by the Workshop Development Committee. 4. Hold area meetings with groups of municipalities, DFO and B.C. Environment representatives to: report on feedback received from the stakeholders named in 2, above; ii. establish the level of support for the recommendations developed by the Workshop Development Committee;

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 24 J iii. identify preferred actions stemming from the results of PPARR Stage I for that cluster of municipalities; and ) iv. establish an agreed framework for regular (bi-monthly) "combined joint project review meetings." _/l 5. Hold a regional conference following, or in conjunction with the fall UBCM Annual Convention to investigate more substantial initiatives and discuss other projects and proposals for riparian stewardship with the participation of the full range of stakeholders.

J l j J

J. J l j

l .J J

·.· j

l J

lJ PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report Page 25 l J 6. APPENDIX: LIST OF ATTENDEES FOR PPARR STAGE 1 WORKSHOPS, MARCH 1994 Howe Sound I Sunshine Coast Workshop March 16, 1994 Gibsons, B.C.

Organization

Local and Regional

Roland Sequin Municipal Building Inspector Town of Gibsons Don Turner Powell River Regional District Calvin Craigan Councillor Sechelt Indian Band Sid Quinn Salmon Enhancement Manager Sechelt Indian Band Bob Miles Clerk Administrator District of Squamish Margaret-Ann Thornton Community Planner & Approving Officer District of Squamish Bob Patrick Assistant Planner Sunshine Coast Regional District Sheane Reid Planner Sunshine Coast Regional District

Provincial

Glen Carlson Fish and Wildlife Management B. C. Ministry of Environment Wilf Dreher Water Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Marion Jamieson Water Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Brian Clark Planning and Assessment B.C. Ministry of Environment Vic Swiatkiewicz Fisheries Management B.C. Ministry of Environment

Federal

Grant McBain Community Advisor DFO, Madeira Park Debra Hughes Habitat Planning DFO, Squamish Bruce Reid Habitat Planning DFO, New Westminster Brian Martin Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Otto Langer Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Berni Claus Environmental Assessment Environment Canada

Other

Stephen Connolly Federation of B.C. Naturalists - Land for Nature Initiative

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report APPENDIX - Page 26 \ j North Fraser Workshop March 17, 1994 Burnaby, B.C. .. '\ Organization J Local and Regional

Guy Brown Project Engineer District of Abbotsford Peter Bloxham Planner City of Burnaby Don Braun Civil Engineer City of Burnaby Sarah Groves Environmental Planner City of Burnaby J Candy Matheson Supervisor, Subdivision Approval City of Burnaby Anna Caltagirone Engineering Technician City of Coquitlam Tom Hawkins Planning Department City of Coquitlam Rob Innes Planner II City of Coquitlam Mike Iviney Engineering Technologist II City of Coquitlam Neil Maxwell Planning Department City of Coquitlam Nancy Knight Planner J Envfronment & Land Use Greater Vancouver Regional District David Bryans Risk Management Coordinator District of North Vancouver Mel Kotyk Environmental Protection Officer District of North Vancouver John Paul Development Engineer City of Port Moody T.A. Rathonyi-Reusz Parks Director City of Port Moody Don Brynildsen Assistant City Engineer City of Vancouver Tom Phipps Planner City of Vancouver Erik Lees Park Manager District of West Vancouver

Provincial

Ron Henry Floodplain Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Herb Tepper Fish and Wildlife Management B.C. Ministry of Environment J Wilf Dreher Water Management B. C. Ministry of Environment Brian Clark Planning and Assessment B.C. Ministry of Environment Erik Karlsen Director, Planning Branch B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Federal l j Bruce Reid Habitat Planning DFO, New Westminster Brian Martin Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Otto Langer Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Rick McKelvey Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada, Delta Kathleen Moore Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada

Other

Stephen Connolly Federation of B.C. Naturalists - Land for Nature Initiative Dianna Colnett Water and Land Use Coordinator, Fraser River Estuary Management Program

l 'J

PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report APPENDIX , Page 27 l J South Fraser Workshop March 28, 1994 Surrey, B. C.

Organization

Local and Regional

Dipak Basu Development Engineer District of Chilliwack Otto Voute Director of Engineering Corporation of Delta Rick McDermid Planning Technician Regional District of Fraser-Cheam Tim Jervis Supervisor - Water Capital Works & Construction Greater Vancouver Regional District Brian Doyle Subdivision Co-ordinator Township of Langley Peter Scales Environmental Manager Township of Langley Lee Tan Manager Policy & Long Range Planning City of Surrey Richard Zerr Manager North Surrey Planning & Development City of Surrey

Provincial

Marion Jamieson Water Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Glen Carlson Fish and Wildlife Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Vic Swiatkiewicz Fish and Wildlife Management B.C. Ministry of Envirotiment Robert Edwards Fish and Wildlife Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Lee Ringham Water Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Brian Clark Planning and Assessement B.C. Ministry of Environment Colin Stewart Water Management B.C. Ministry of Environment

Federal

Karen Calla Habitat Planning DFO, New Westminster Bruce Reid Habitat Planning DFO, New Westminster Otto Langer Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Brian Martin Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Joe Kambeitz Community Advisor DFO, New Westminster Rick McKelvey Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada, Delta Adrian Duncan Environmental Assessment Environment Canada

Other

Stephen Connolly Federation of B.C. Naturalists - Land for Nature Initiative Marian Adair Fraser River Estuai:y Management Program

PPARR Stage 1: Summai:y Report APPENDIX - Page 28 J Fraser Valley Workshop March 31, 1994 J Matsqui Organization J Local and Regional

Jake Nickel Municipal Design Engineer District of Abbotsford J Wayne Moseanko Sr. Development Technician District of Chilliwack Len Stein Manager, Technical Services District of Chilliwack Jim Vickerson Planning Technician District of Chilliwack Jim LeMaistre Deputy Planning Director Municipality of Delta Slade Dyer Director, Administrative Services Dewdney-Alouette-Regional­ District Barbara Snyder Development Services Dewdney-Alouette-Regional J District Wendy Cooper Planning Technician District of Hope Terry Fryer Director of Current Planning District of Maple Ridge Peter Andzans Environmental Manager District of Matsqui Geri Boyle Manager, Current Development District of Matsqui Ed Regts Director of Public Works District of Matsqui Doug Riecken Deputy Director of Engineering District of Mission

Provincial

Marion Jamieson Water Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Glen Carlson Fish and Wildlife Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Herb Tepper Fish and Wildlife Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Lee Ringham Water Management B.C. Ministry of Environment Sylvia Letay Fish and Wildlife Management B. C. Ministry of Environment Robert Edwards Water Management Ministry of Environment Joe Macinnes Water Management Ministry of Environment Mike Bristol Water Management Ministry of Environment Brian Clark Planning and Assessment Ministry of Environment Mitch Fumalle Planning Branch B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs Howard Hunter Provincial Approving Officer B.C. Ministry of Transportation & Highways

Federal

Marissa Byrne Habitat Planning DFO, Mission Bruce Reid Habitat Planning DFO, New Westminster Otto Langer Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Brian Martin Fraser River Action Plan DFO, Vancouver Trish Hayes Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada l

Other

Stephen Connolly Federation of B.C. Naturalists -.Land for Nature Initiative Jim Malick Urban Development Institute l PPARR Stage 1: Summary Report APPENDIX , Page 29 J PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION

September, 1994

PPARR Steering Committee

Co-Chairs: Otto Langer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fraser River Action Plan Office Marion Jamieson, 8.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Water Management Division TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary ...... 2

1. Introduction ...... 3

1.1. Focus and Objectives ...... 3 1.2. General Priorities ...... 4

2. The Recommendations for Action ...... 4

2.1. Gathering Information ...... 4 2.1.1. Environmental Information ...... 4 2.1.2. Institutional Information ...... 5 2. 1. 3. Information Collection Standards ...... 6

2.2. Improving Information Exchange Between all Levels of Government ...... 6 2.2.1. Delivery of Stream Stewardship Guide and Land Development Guidelines ...... 7 2.2.2. Other Communication Priorities ...... 7

2.3. Improving the Referrals System ...... 7 2.3 .1. A Coordinated Project Review Process ...... 7 2.3 .2. A Referral Screening Procedure ...... 8

2.4. Improving Monitoring, Compliance and Enforcement...... 9

2.5. Recommendations for Other Short Term Actions for Provincial and Federal Agencies ...... 9

2.6. Recommendations for Actions for Municipalities ...... 10

2. 7. Recommendations for Longer Term and/or Policy Actions ...... 11

Appendix:"Options for Action" from the Stage 1 Summary Report ...... 12

PPARR Recommendations for Action 1 l

J PARTNERS IN PROTECTING AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION J SUMMARY

Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources (PP ARR) is an initiative bringing provincial and federal environmental agencies together with municipalities (initially in the l Lower Mainland) to identify ways to improve the protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems at the local level. The Recommendations for Action arise from ideas generated j at four workshops involving the municipalities of the Lower Mainland and from the deliberations of the Steering Committee for PP ARR. l In order for the Recommendations for Action to be implemented, initiatives have to be J taken by government bodies of their own volition, often acting in cooperation with other bodies. The PP ARR Steering Committee recognizes that there must be potential benefits and incentives for all levels of government in implementing the recommendations. J Four priority action areas have emerged, as summarized below. Actions are already underway in some of these areas and additional actions are recommended. The report also J includes various other initiatives that can be undertaken in the long or short term, by federal, provincial or municipal governments. 1) Gathering Information: Recommendations for Action on information relate to both J environmental and institutional information. More data needs to be assembled for the information of all government agencies involved, and this data needs to be mapped in a J standard format. Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping (TRIM digital mapping) is recommended. Once mapped, sensitivity coding of habitat and associated management prescriptions could be applied. 2) Improving Information Exchange Between all Levels of Government: Recommendations for Action regarding the delivery of information to people at the j municipal level focus on the Land Development Guidelines and the Stream Stewardship Guide. Other communication priorities include the dissemination of information on senior agency priorities and public and landowner education. ] 3) Improving the Referrals System: Two approaches are proposed. A coordinated project review process would bring DFO, DOE, MELP and local government staff together on a scheduled basis to discuss various referrals topics, planning processes, J proposed bylaws, and senior agency initiatives and policies. The process would improve the efficiency and reduce the bureaucracy of the referral process, while also improving the protection of the environment. A referral screening procedure would allow municipalities J to apply guidelines in advance of the review process so that they could make independent decisions on project proposals and send fewer projects to senior agencies for review. j 4) Improving Monitoring, Compliance and Enforcement: Suggestions for improving monitoring encourage community involvement, particularly in the area of private land stewardship. Possible actions to improve compliance and enforcement include ,] empowering municipal staff and enhancing coordination between governments. J PPARR Recommendations for Action 2 l 1. INTRODUCTION

Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources (PP ARR) is an inter-governmental initiative. Its aim has been to bring provincial and federal environmental agencies together with municipalities to reach agreement on ways to improve the protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems at the local level. A key objective has been to streamline the referrals process and otherwise to promote more proactive environmental protection measures that reduce bureaucracy and its costs. Unlike the Fraser River Estuary Management Program and the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan, PP ARR is not a formal program or body and it has no budget I. or official mandate. It is instead an informal coordinating or networking process, emphasizing communication. In order for the Recommendations for Action from the PP ARR process to be implemented, initiatives have to be taken by existing government bodies of their own volition, often acting in cooperation with other bodies. The Recommendations for Action arise from ideas generated at four workshops involving the municipalities of the Lower Mainland and from the deliberations of the Steering Committee for PP ARR. Over 60 individuals from municipal governments; regional governments; the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP); and the Fraser Estuary Management

Program (FREMP) participated in the discussion~ leading to this set of recommendation,s. ;.;ti·',_, Representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Service (in the federal Department of the ·

Environment - DOE), the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Urban -,'.: Development Institute, and the Federation ofB.C. Naturalists were also involved. While the discussions at the four day-long workshops were extensive, many topics were raised that could not be discussed in detail and agreement was not sought. The Recommendations for Action are therefore not the product of a purposeful consensus, but they do have significant support from a wide range of players.

1.1. Focus and Objectives

The region of PPARR's focus is the east side of the Georgia Basin, from Sechelt Inlet to Hope. Areas covered by the Fraser River Estuary Management Program and the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan are not emphasized because of the existence of these programs. Based on participation in PP ARR to date, the Lower Mainland urban growth area may be the focus of initial activities. In the longer term the whole province is the area of interest. While the Recommendations for Action aim for consistency in their applicability, the PP ARR Steering Committee recognizes the need to tailor some of them to specific circumstances for implementation (see priorities below). I The emphasis of the Recommendations for Action is the short term, middle management and ground level as opposed to the long term or policy level.

PPARR Recommendations for Action 3 J

1, J 1.2. General Priorities

The PP ARR Steering Committee presents the Recommendations for Action with the following priorities in view: • There must be clear benefits and incentives for all levels of government in impl~menting the Recommendations. New measures must not simply be imposed on municipalities by senior agencies. • Most of the Recommendations promote common approaches and strive for even coverage across the area of PP ARR's focus; nevertheless, the selected approach must recognize the need for flexibility to relate to the individual situation of each municipality. J • The Recommendations build on successes as well as deal with problems. • Informal approaches are recognized as effective and worthwhile. • Recognizing that there are many environmental protection initiatives underway, J senior government agencies must avoid overloading municipalities with new initiatives. 2. THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION J The first three themes described below are the first priority Recommendations for Action. Senior government agencies hold the primary responsibility for getting these initiatives started. In each case, some activities have already begun and these are listed in italics as J "Actions Underway." Actions not yet started are listed as "Recommendations for Action." Sections 2.4 to 2.6 describe clusters of Recommendations at a more general level. These sections include some specific measures that could be taken relatively easily in the short J term, some longer term possibilities and several measures that will depend on individual municipalities' priorities and circumstances as to their implementation. J 2.1. Gathering Information ~J Information on both the environment and the governance system (institutional arrangements) must be assembled as building blocks for various other Recommendations for Action. J Extensive inventories to gather institutional and environmental information have already been initiated. Efforts to improve standards and consistency of information collection and recording are also underway. l 2.1.1. Environmental Information l Communities often know the environments associated with their local waterways well, but there are gaps in the information base on aquatic and riparian ecosystems, and much l existing information is not easily accessible. 'j J PPARR Recommendations for Action 4 l Actions Underway • Map fisheries information at a 1: 20, 000 scale so as to make information on aquatic habitat more accessible. (ongoing work by DFO) Recommendations for Action a) Produce consistent maps of important habitat areas representing the interests and mandates of senior government agencies, for use by municipal governments. b) Once information is available, undertake standardized classification of habitat according to sensitivity, starting with the Fraser River mainstem (upstream of the FREMP area) and then reaching into tributary watersheds. Develop management prescriptions within these zones. c) Provide assistance to local governments to hire students or other groups to consolidate data and conduct inventories of streams and aquatic systems, using standardized data collection methods. d) Distribute digital and hard copy fisheries information on Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping (TRIM) to all local governments for BSA (Environmentally Sensitive Area) mapping and planning purposes.

2.1.2. Institutional Information Before plans to improve the protection of aquatic and riparian environments can be fully developed and implemented, agencies need to know what measures are already in place and their effectiveness. Foundations for communication also need to be established. As well, senior governments need to improve their knowledge of local planning approaches. Actions in this section address this type of information need. Actions Underway • Municipalities such as Surrey, Mission and Squamish have initiated reviews of their Official Community Plans which expect to take greater consideration of environmental concerns. Some Official Community Plans (OCPs) have already provided for more environmental protection than specified in previous OCPs. A contract is underway from DFO and DOE encompassing the following initiatives: • Identify contact persons in the municipalities with respect to environmental protection measures, ESA planning, monitoring and enforcement, etc. • Inventory the various means by which municipalities currently protect aquatic habitats. • Inventory major parks. (GVRD has digital map information on regional parks, dedicated park sites and forestry/recreation sites.) • Identify the extent to which municipalities use stewardship tools such as dedications, covenants, reserves, innovative zoning, etc. to protect aquatic habitats.

PPARR Recommendations for Action 5 • Survey the general effectiveness of the above municipal stewardship tools in meeting J environmental objectives and summarize recommendations from municipal staff to improve compliance (where necessary). J • Establish a data base to reference all OCPs and other plans by municipality and regional district for lriformation on aquatic habitat protection measures, dates of 'j plans, and schedules for their revision. Recommendations for Action a) Digitize the above reference system/data base so that protection measures can be J illustrated in map overlay form and distribute this to all interested government agencies and municipalities. (Most municipal boundaries have already been digitized.) b) Senior government agencies including DOE, MELP and DFO provide a short J summary/list of programs or initiatives that affect habitat at the municipal level (e.g. Fraser River Action Plan initiatives), including contact information and emergency J telephone numbers. c) Undertake a study of the referrals process in terms of resources required and results (costs and benefits) in order to determine how effective it is in protecting habitat. J

2.1.3. Information Collection Standards Information gathering led by senior agencies needs to be undertaken through one on one contact with muniqipal staff, to ensure that their knowledge and priorities are taken into account. In certain cases the reverse must also apply where the local governments are the initiators. Actions Underway 'J • Survey MELP, Municipal Affairs and local governments for mapping standards and digital mapping capabilities, including digital format, map scales, aquatic features ·1 represented, date of last revision and contact information for mapping staff. (contract J underway from DFO/DOE) • Standardize data collection parameters and mapping programs among senior agencies and local governments; e.g. review options for and encourage use of compatible GIS systems. (ongoing work involving a number ofagencies) Recommendations for Action l a) Expedite the standardization process referred to above. b) Use TRIM maps, standards and data consistently in order to develop a more detailed l digital map base for the entire area.

2.2. Improving Information Exchange Between all Levels of Government

While immediate communication priorities relate to the delivery of the Stream Stewardship Guide and the Land Development Guidelines, other communication priorities J

PPARR Recommendations for Action 6 l J have been identified through the PP ARR process which could be acted upon in the short term.

2.2.1. Delivery of Stream Stewardship Guide and Land Development Guidelines The Land Development Guidelines (LDG) and Stream Stewardship Guide are powerful tools for the protection of aquatic and riparian resources which need to be distributed widely and made understandable to municipal councils and staff, developers, consultants and landowners. Workshops need to address the needs of the various sectors and governments. Actions Underway • Survey municipal needs for (and level of interest in) information sessions/workshops on Stream Stewardship planning and the Land Development Guidelines for protection of stream and riparian habitats. (contract underway from DFOIDOE) Recommendations for Action a) Make available workshops on LDG and/or Stream Stewardship to all municipalities in the Lower Mainland Region. Target, in a phased approach if necessary, municipal staff, developers, development consultants, elected officials, environmental monitors, equipment operators, senior government habitat protection staff and public groups.

2.2.2. Other Communication Priorities The PPARR workshops generated "options for action" regarding communications with municipal government officials and public education. Recommendations for Action a) Keep municipal staff and Councils informed about environmental issues, and about senior government agency initiatives, needs and stewardship priorities via presentations or other communications. b) Inform stream-side landowners and the public of government strategies and measures for local environmental protection. c) Encourage community-level environmental education and stewardship through use of the Streamkeepers program and the Water Stewardship Guide within the school system.

2.3. Improving the Referrals System

Two approaches to improving the referrals system are proposed here: a Coordinated Project Review Process and a Referral Screening Procedure.

2.3.1. A Coordinated Project Review Process Coordination of the review requirements made of municipalities among senior government agencies and branches has been identified as a high priority action to save effort for

PPARR Recommendations for Action 7 J municipalities and senior government staff alike. A coordinated or joint project review process is proposed below in response to this priority. Actions Underway • DFO andMELP already have regular, informal "environmental review committee" meetings or similar discussions with Coquitlam, the District ofNorth Vancouver, Surrey and Squamish. Recommendations for Action a) Initiate a coordinated/combined project review process which brings DFO, DOE, MELP and local government staff together on a scheduled basis to discuss: groups of referrals, J issues affecting referrals, screening processes (see section 2.3.2), planning processes, especially OCPs, J proposed bylaws, senior agency initiatives and pol~cies. J b) Use the coordinated project review process to: improve the efficiency and reduce the bureaucracy of the referral process, J improve enforcement and monitoring and generally improve the protection of the environment, help governments work towards consistency in standards, regulation and J enforcement, clarify the criteria that are used to review development applications, -J move towards a "one window" approach for referrals, incorporate conflict resolution mechanisms. c) Explore the possibility of bringing together in the joint referral process adjacent. municipalities that have common interests in environmental initiatives or specific trans­ boundary topics.

2.3.2. A Referral Screening Procedure Explicit guidelines applied in advance of the review process can help municipalities make l independent decisions on project proposals and send fewer projects to senior agencies for review. .J Actions Underway • The Land Development Guidelines and the Stream Stewardship Guide provide the foundation for screening criteria. (They also help clarify and standardize the .J information requirements where reviews are still necessary.)

• Senior governm~nts have set up with some municipalities a referral screening process which includes a list of identified environmentally sensitive industrial activities which J do require referral. As well, it describes those developments that do not need to be J

PPARR Recommendations for Action 8 referred, but which may require specified environmental conditions that the municipality may prescribe on its own. Recommendations for Action The following recommendations are subject to the establishment of a coordinated project review process. a) Senior agencies develop and distribute an exclusion list to identify those projects which do not require review, including exclusions related to Section 7 of the Water Act, "activities in and about a stream." b) Senior agencies produce and distribute project screening criteria.

2.4. Improving Monitoring, Compliance and Enforcement

Below are listed actions to improve monitoring, compliance and enforcement that include both senior and municipal government initiatives and both short and long time frames. a) Empower and train municipal staff to ensure environmental protection mechanisms are being implemented and complied with. b) Encourage the use of and compliance with protective mechanisms including covenants and other private land stewardship arrangements and encourage community based monitoring. c) Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the "environmental monitors" program and explore the possibility of extending this program to all municipalities. d) Coordinate the enforcement efforts of senior government agencies and municipalities to ensure the protection of aquatic and riparian resources. e) Introduce requirements for contractors to submit a statutory declaration to establish that they had met terms and conditions set out by government.

2.5. Recommendations for Other Short Term Actions for Provincial and Federal Agencies

The following action items should be undertalcen in the short term by senior government agencies alone or in cooperation with other parties. a) Continue the use of informal approaches in which the appropriate people get together and discuss things. b) Undertake a study of case law affecting environmental protection at the municipal level, including the application of the Fisheries Act. c) Assign specific, senior operational staff in senior government agencies the responsibility of acting as advisors in OCP reviews. They could encourage the use of common terminology and consistency between OCPs, especially in the Lower Mainland.

PPARR Recommendations for Action 9 J

J d) To build on successes, document key project initiatives as examples for other jurisdictions to follow. e) Review the extent and the effectiveness of the use of covenants. J f) Support the use of conservation covenants in municipalities, and assist in the distribution of information to landowners on covenants. g) At the September 1994 UBCM Conference introduce the Stream Stewardship Guide, Land Development Guidelines and the PP ARR initiative to a wide municipal audience. l h) Provide a set of phrases and components for environmental protection bylaws and J policies that can stand up legally. i) Establish the extent of legal liability associated with restrictive bylaws and develop J Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to clarify "due diligence" for cases where local bylaws are more restrictive than the Land Development Guidelines.

2.6. Recommendations for Actions for Municipalities

Listed below are actions that would have to be taken at the initiative of municipalities. Their appropriateness and detailed implementation would depend on the priorities and circumstances of individual municipalities. 'J a) Encourage the collection of detailed ecosystem information by developers by shifting responsibilities to them. b) Amend zoning and other bylaws to incorporate the provisions of the Land J Development Guidelines. c) Increase provisions for environmental controls in OCPs when they are revised. d) Maximize the innovative use of available municipal planning and zoning mechanisms to l p~otect ESAs. j e) Identify/inventory ESAs, with senior agency and public input, and advice from naturalists and other community-based environmental groups. f) Designate and zone BSA protection as Development Permit Areas and reflect development guidelines and conditions for protection of environmentally sensitive DP As in OCPs. l g) Identify a centre of responsibility for the protection of the natural environment within each municipality which includes an appropriately trained environmental coordinator. l J h) Make available all environmental and referral information in one central place within the municipality which is accessible to the public and government agencies. i) See "Options for Action" from the Stage 1 Summary Report in the Appendix.

l PPARR Recommendations for Action 10 l 2.7. Recommendations for Longer Term and/or Policy Actions

The following actions are would take more lead time than the actions listed in sections 2.1 to 2.4. Some· of these actions would be initiated by senior government agencies and some by municipalities; most would require cooperative approaches. a) Encourage the definition and protection ofESAs in all municipalities. b) Extend environmental information systems to include the uplands that affect aquatic and riparian habitats, paying attention to watershed level systems. c) Negotiate and implement agreements between senior governments and municipalities regarding protection of aquatic resources and aquatic habitats (e.g. establish MOUs with local government on monitoring and enforcement). (contract underway from DFO/DOE to inventory existing agreements) d) Establish linkages with environmental non-government organizations. e) Generate a policy paper on the impact of guidelines, etc. on property rights. (This issue is addressed to a small degree in the Stream Planning Guideline.) f) Pay increasing attention to the rural as opposed to just the urban side, e.g. via the farming community. (A stream stewardship guide for agricultural areas is under consideration.) (An agricultural landscape model depicting good and poor agricultural stream stewardship approaches has been developed and is available on loan from DFO.) g) Include recreational interests in discussions, especially on greenways. h) Provide overall support to the Greenways initiative. i) Undertake a cooperative process, with stakeholder involvement, to develop a shared vision of planning, environmental protection and growth management for the Lower Fraser Valley, from Hope to the Georgia Strait.

PPARR Recommendations for Action 11 J

J

APPENDIX: "OPTIONS FOR ACTION" FROM THE STAGE 1 SUMMARY REPORT l The following "Options for Action" are drawn directly from the Stage 1 Summary Report. Variations on some of the listed items are included in various sections of J Recommendations for Action. The full list is provided here as a source of ideas to supplement the Recommendations in section 2.5: "Recommendations for Actions for Municipalities." J

OCPs, Zoning and Bylaws - Options for Action (Summary Report, Section J 3.1) • Include amendments in OCPs to cover habitat stewardship or environmental J protection. • Take advantage of the planning grants program offered by the Ministry of Municipal ~ J Affairs to update OCPs and include environmental strategies. • Use Density Bonus Zones to create incentives for habitat protection . • Explore more fully the use of Development Permit Areas for achieving habitat protection. J • Establish ESAs and integrate them with an overall environmental planning strategy for the municipality. J • Stipulate payment in cash as an alternative to the 5% park land dedication on subdivision to direct additional funds towards habitat protection measures. • Explore the use of park designations and roadway planning for the protection of J riparian corridors. • Develop common terminology and consistency between OCPs in the Lower J Mainland Region. • Establish an inventory of environmental protection bylaws established to date in the Lower Mainland Region. J • Draft and implement a model environmental bylaw . • Encourage tree preservation and soil protection bylaws . l • Establish a schedule of OCP revisions for circulation to all agencies and involve senior government agency staff as advisors in the OCP review process. • Establish the extent oflegal liability and develop MOUs to clarify "due diligence" for l cases where local bylaws are more restrictive than the Land Development Guidelines.

PPARR Recommendations for Action 12 ' 1 Land Title, Land Value and Conservation Covenants· Options for Action (Summary Report, Section 3.2)

• Develop an educational program for landowners with property adjacent to streams on the importance of habitat protection measures and implications for land values on private land. • Provide a coherent approach to habitat protection measures to be used on private land through the development of an environmental strategy for the municipality. • Provide access for planners, field staff, developers and landowners to the information base on legal tools for the environmental protection of private land available through West Coast Environmental Law Association.

Council's Role and Municipal Priorities • Options for Action (Summary Report, Section 3.10)

• Encourage the public to communicate &upport for stewardship measures to Council. • Take into account the cost to municipalities of habitat protection initiatives. • Clarify the financial and legal responsibilities for land stewardship of different levels of government and government agencies. • Anticipate the costs of environmental protection in municipal budget planning. • Consider the application of user fees to address the costs of stewardship. • Keep councils informed of senior government agency needs and stewardship priorities via presentations or other communications. • Hold Council retreats or otherwise provide opportunities for Council to learn about environmental issues. • Seek the appointment of an environmental officer in every municipality.

PPARR Recommendations for Action 13