Council for the District of Squamish listened to the last of a series of debates on fish-bearing stream protection during a Committee of the Whole meeting Tuesday (June 4).
Council listened to a delegation of provincial and federal government representatives who explained in detail the newly introduced Riparian Area Regulation (RAR), which imposes minimum protection measures on all municipalities located on the east side of Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland and the Southern Interior.
Local environmentalists were also in council chambers to say the RAR is inadequate and a step backward from the already established Streamside Protection Regulation (SPR).
Council heard from local environmentalist Doug Morrison who said the SPR is stronger than the RAR, which, he added, was introduced just to appease developers.
"Going with the SPR-based [regulations] in Squamish makes sense in every way," said Morrison. "There's no need to cheapen ourselves or the environment with anything else."
The RAR replaced the SPR partly due to lobbying from the Urban Development Institute (UDI) who stated the SPR was too rigid."Lobbying by UDI and others was eventually successful in causing the SPR being put in abeyance," said UDI Environmental Committee chair Dr. Jim Malick in a May 2004 UDI annual report.
The Ministry of Environment website describes the RAR as "an alternate model for urban riparian management that satisfies the statutory obligations of the federal Fisheries Act, provides certainty and flexibility to urban land owners and developers, and is not dependent on local, provincial and federal government resources."
The new regulation states a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) must assess a development site and impose the required setback of the development from the high water mark of fish bearing freshwater. Under the SPR, the imposed set back was a minimum of 30 metres. The set back is still 30 metres under the RAR, but a QEP can allow for more flexibility.
Morrison said any reduction to the set back is hazardous to fish habitat and, if anything, some areas should require a wider setback.
"You just can't get adequate large woody debris from a narrow band of brush growing beside a stream," he said. "That's likely why stream standards for Washington State, for instance, tend to use allowances of up to 100, 115 and 165 feet, which are even beyond SPR standards of 30 metres (98.4 feet), and of course more than RAR."
Coun. Patricia Heintzman asked BC Ministry of Environment RAR project manager Andy Witt why BC doesn't impose regulations consistent with Washington State.
"Thirty metres is considered reasonable by scientists," said Witt. "In all cases it's enough to have functional fish habitat, shade and large woody debris."
Squamish environmental coordinator Chessy Knight said technically, Washington's broad setbacks could be defended, but "politically it would never happen."
Peter Gordon of the Sea to Sky Landowners' Association said the issue is a technical debate, not a political one.
"It's about raising the bar of environmental standards regarding setbacks," said Gordon. "Similar to the building code, when Ottawa or Victoria changes regulations, local governments abide by them."
Gordon said landowners would like to have more input in the regulations and is concerned with the shift in responsibility for riparian areas.
"I don't feel a consulting biologist can do the best for protecting riparian setbacks," he said.
Gordon said he'd rather see a government regulator make the ultimate decision with professional biologists' input in the same way a building inspector makes decisions with a structural engineer's input.
Morrison said he also has a problem with the shift in responsibility. The amended regulation removes the requirement of local governments to review or enforce recommendations made in QEP assessment reports, or even to verify the credentials of QEPs.
"The benefit of all this lack of control is laughingly touted as 'significantly reducing local government liability exposure,'" said Morrison. "This completely ignores the reason that we have such standards for a quality and safety of life in our municipalities."
Witt confirmed to Heintzman that, under the RAR, if municipal governments do not review the QEP reports - and instead pass it to the province unread- they are not responsible for or liable for damage to riparian systems.
"So ignorance is bliss?" asked Heintzman.
Witt added that liability of riparian damage would rest on the negligent party.
Coun. Corinne Lonsdale said the municipality could follow several other BC regions in adopting a hybrid version of the RAR that would impose further restrictions on a case-by-case basis.
Mayor Ian Sutherland agreed. "We could use RAR as a minimum," he said. "Adding other things would make sense in our community."
A vote on whether to adopt a newly introduced RAR is scheduled for Tuesday (July 11).
