Stream integrity and fish habitat protection, growth management, economic opportunity, and recreational values are among the issues requiring attention for sustainability planning and design. The Stream Protection Regulations (SPR) of the Fish Protection Act introduced recently are intended to help guide decision-making regarding streamside-related issues. Nonetheless, questions and concerns have been raised regarding the SPR's role, effectiveness and/or impact on sustainability planning, especially in the urban context.

To explore questions and related issues, EDRS hosted a focused workshop on November 22, 2001 involving members of the following constituencies:

• The developer/development community
  
• The design community (architects, engineers, landscape architects, planners)
  
• Municipal government (and other levels of government as may be interested)
  
• ENGOs
  
• Academic and general public

Knowledgeable, open-minded, sustainability-oriented participants interested in cooperatively exploring the SPR met together with a view to identify:

• Strengths of the SPR and supported elements;
  
• Issues and questions of concern regarding implementation particularly in the urban context;
  
• Suggestions for solutions (design, decision-making) and next steps.

Workshop stages are described and highlights of full group discussion are provided in "Whole Group Report Outs." Scribe reports from each of the small working groups are also provided.

• Whole Group Report Outs

   

• Individual Group Notes
  • 'East'
    
  • 'South'
    
  • 'West'
    
  • 'North'

• Participant Knowledge Key

• For your reference:
  Orientation & Background Documents

• Acknowledgements

Whole Group Report Outs

Positive Aspects of the SPR

The need for attention to stream/fish habitat protection was taken (and declared) as a given and the starting point for identifying 'common ground.' Participants were asked to explore the SPR for those elements they collectively considered to be strengths or enablers. Some short-hand highlights of the group report-outs are presented below.

NB: Although there appeared to be general agreement with elements during the report out, some comments, along with later explorations, suggest that uncertainty and a number of questions still remain almost all of these points. Due to time constraints, it was not possible to 'unpack' each element or issue in detail. For the most part, therefore, the positive aspects identified here should be considered loosely and as possibilities or potentials rather than as a reflection of consensus or absolutes.

• it’s short
  
• first legislation of this kind in BC
  
• design response required
  
• options exist to go above and below the standards - flexibility/variety of approaches
  
• setbacks - precautions are ‘on’ (exactness of the science?)
  
• high comfort in defensibility of science, especially re: riparian role
  
• may result in increasing greenspace (social value)
  
• an opportunity to decrease long-term risks around streams
  
• potential to stimulate increased enhancement - potential riparian areas
  
• potential to promote sustainability in a number of ways
  
• potential to promote consistency in protection
  
• may protect streams from drainage storm water - water quality
  
• includes definitions for increased clarity
  
• potential to enhance property values
  
• may enable streamlining in a number of cases - attention/energy might be devoted to challenging ones
  
• potential for increased funding for streams (compensation, improvements)
  
• potential for long-term economic benefits

Part 1 Small Groups Details: East || South || West || North

Interests, Issues and Concerns

MWLAP prepared an "interests" paper based on discussions at their October 10, 2001 multistakeholder meeting. Participants used this one pager as a starting point to explore interests and issues. Their task was to clarify and/or expand interests and identify additional issues or questions of concern. Once again, time did not permit as full an identification or exploration of issues as may be desired. The following provides highlights of the issues/concerns identified during the second whole group report out.

• need for risk management by local and provincial government for issues such as flood erosion and property damage
  
• the offset in the scientific literature doesn’t match the setback in the regulation (confusion of high water & top of bank?)
  
• need government staffing support; at local, provincial and federal levels
  
• interest in watershed perspective/approach, to focus on ecosystem health, including wildlife protection
  
• public education and education re: ecosystem & services
  
• clarification of local government responsibility and authority
  
• need for harmonization with other programs, e.g., GVRD stormwater program
  
• need to put upfront in land use planning & OCP
  
• need to recognize that urban setting is only one part; should include all environments - fish and wildlife habitat
  
• need a clearer process to reduce uncertainties & ambiguities, e.g., ephemeral streams; potential vegetation
  
• need local government & private property guidance & appeal mechanisms re: approvals
  
• issue of cross-boundary decision-making; e.g., watershed management perspective could cross several municipalities

Part 2 Small Groups Details: East || South || West || North

Improvements/Solutions

Participants were provided with four different sites/maps to initiate discussion and consideration of the ways in which the prescriptive and flexible approaches in the SPR might translate on a specific site. A number of participants were familiar with one or more of the sites offered for consideration and this enabled deeper understanding of context and issues.

The primary task for the next stage of the workshop was to consider possible design principles or implementation guidelines that may help more adequately or effectively address various interests and issues. (Scribes were directed to capture any new issues and questions raised during discussion generally and as a result of specific site explorations.) The following suggestions/issues were reported out to the whole group.

• watershed planning - long term strategic planning; full resource data sets and interest representation
  
• fairness for property value (explicit)
  
• local government clarity re. variances
  
• make sure variances can work - opportunities for tradeoff
  
• allow for creativity (variances)
  
• onsite visits (context) - as a requirement prior to decision-making + use of multiple data sources
  
• integrated programs (not just setbacks) e.g. link to stormwater management
  
• stream classifications - not all streams are equal (fish focus vs existing land use)
  
• consistent and applicable inventory
  
• in-stream (habitat) enhancement - possible exchange re. setbacks
  
• appeal and dispute resolution procedures
  
• add to environmental conservation interests: quality of life services
  
• speak about property value vs. property values
  
• accounting for & accommodating changes in the long term (e.g., impacts of future regulations or regulatory change on long term development plans in process; changes in understanding of ecosystem functioning, fish habitat needs, etc.)
  
• caveat: fish and other system functions (re. classifications) - problem of relative values

Part 3 Small Groups Details: East || South || West || North

'East' Group

Group Members:

	Andrew Appleton
	Catherine Berris
	Fin Donelly
	Wilma Leung
	Jim Mattson
	Ian Theaker
	Susan Wilkins
	Scribe: Raenelle Wood, Student

PART 1 - Good Points of SPR & Common Ground East

1. Legislated
   
2. Has generous setbacks
   
3. Protects all watercourses into creek
   
4. Has some flexibility
   
5. Looks at potentials for areas to become riparian (restoration) - will stimulate more enhancement projects
   
6. Increase green spaces and vegetation
   
7. Will enhance property values nearby