How should we implement Riparian Area Regulations?

One very important topic for discussion (and hopefully decision) at Thursday's Lasqueti Trust Committee meeting (at the Arts Centre, starting at 11am) is how we will, as required by the province, implement the required Riparian Area Regulation.

Trust planner Jason Youmans, along with other staff, is working on this subject. His staff report outlines two options: using Development Permit Areas or using Riparian Setback and Screening Regulations. His report gives details and outlines the advantages and disadvantages of both options.

The whole agenda package is available on the Trust web site at

http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/uploads/meetings/2013/10/195/agenda/Lasque...

Jason's full report is pages begins on page 78, and includes (in addition to the text below) a time-line for achieving compliance with RAR, four staff recommendations, and 7 attachments (ending on page 115).

I apologize for short  notice of this. All opinions on how to proceed, and which option to implement, are welcomed. If you can, please come the the meeting on Thursday.

 

The text of most of Jason's staff report is:

STAFF REPORT

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 1 of 12

Date: September 30, 2013 File No.: 6500-20 (Riparian

Areas Regulation)

To: Lasqueti Island Local Trust Committee

For meeting of October 17, 2013

From: Jason Youmans, Planner 1

Re: Lasqueti Island Riparian Aresa Regulation (RAR) Compliance

OVERVIEW

This report provides a review and discussion of implementation options available to the Lasqueti

Island Local Trust Committee to meet its obligations under the British Columbia Riparian Areas

Regulation (RAR).

It provides a more robust consideration of the following implementation options which were

briefly explored in past reports:

1) Development Permit Areas

• RAR watershed-specific DPA

2) Riparian Setback and Screening Regulations

• RAR watershed-specific setback and screening regulations

This report concludes with a recommendation that Lasqueti Island Local Trust Committee begin

moving forward with amendments to the general regulations of its land use bylaw that will

require all freshwater features within the Island’s RAR-applicable watersheds to be screened

from development, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation, through the retention of existing

vegetation and the setback of buildings and structures. The report recommends that the first

step in this process be a community information meeting to discuss the proposed changes and

the process that would be required to seek a variance to the proposed screening requirements.

This report also recommends that Lasqueti Island LTC recommend staff contract Madrone

Environmental to complete its riparian watershed assessment for Lasqueti Island.

BACKGROUND

Bringing Lasqueti Island into compliance with its obligations under the provincial Riparian Areas

Regulation is work plan priority number one for the Lasqueti Island Local Trust Committee

(LTC).

At its August 29, 2013 meeting, the Lasqueti Island Local Trust Committee was given a verbal

update on RAR compliance options. Staff were asked to report back at the October 17 meeting

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 2

with further information on options, particularly around setbacks and screening, to bring

Lasqueti Island into RAR compliance.

At its May 2, 2013, the Lasqueti Local Trust Committee received a report from Madrone

Environmental Services Ltd. regarding Lasqueti Island Watershed Assessment for Presence of

Fish Habitat. This report identified four RAR-applicable watersheds with perennial fish habitat,

eight RAR-applicable watersheds with potential barriers to fish, and four watersheds requiring

further investigation.

Extensive background information on the Riparian Areas Regulation and Lasqueti Island LTC’s

obligations to meet the regulation’s provisions are contained in attachments 1 and 2 to the

Lasqueti Island Riparian Regulations Implementation staff report which is part of the agenda

package for the February 28, 2013 LTC meeting.

Research Summary

Based on Lasqueti LTC’s feedback following its August 29 meeting, staff undertook to consider

the available options according to a number of criteria. These criteria included:

• their ability to achieve the objectives of the Riparian Areas Regulation;

• the number of property owners potentially affected, the depth of impact on affected

property owners (time and money) and;

• the depth of impact on the Islands Trust (time and money).

Lasqueti LTC has previously expressed an aversion to the implementation of a development

permit area for riparian protection on the Island, so extra consideration was given to the

implications of pursuing routes alternative to a development permit area. Following its research,

staff remain of the opinion that a development permit area is the optimum means to achieve

RAR compliance and least onerous on Lasqueti residents and Islands Trust. However, in light of

LTC’s aversion to implementing a development permit area, and the fact that many of the same

objectives can be achieved through the use of setback and screening regulations, staff are

comfortable with a recommendation to screen water features in RAR-applicable watersheds to

achieve compliance with the RAR. Instances when development permit areas surpass

screening regulations are noted for the trustees’ consideration.

LOCAL TRUST COMMITTEE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE RIPARIAN AREAS REGULATION

The British Columbia Riparian Areas Regulation applies to the “riparian assessment area”

adjacent to “streams.” The definition of “stream” in the RAR includes “a watercourse, whether it

usually contains water or not, a pond, lake, river, creek or brook; and a ditch, spring or wetland

that is connected by surface flow to a watercourse, pond, lake, river, creek or brook that

provides fish habitat” (italics added for emphasis). Important in this definition is that “fish habitat”

refers to waters that feed into fish-bearing streams, and that “fish-bearing streams,” as defined

in the RAR Assessment Methods manual, means “ones in which fish are present or potentially

present if introduced obstructions could be made passable.” Thus this regulation applies beyond

just water bodies that have fish in them, to water bodies that feed into streams that have fish in

them or that could reasonably be expected to have fish in them in the future.

“Development” is defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation as: “any of the following associated

with or resulting from the local government regulation or approval of residential, commercial or

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 3

industrial activities or ancillary activities to the extent that they are subject to local government

powers under Part 26 of the Local Government Act:

(a) removal, alteration, disruption or destruction of vegetation;

(b) disturbance of soils;

(c) construction or erection of buildings and structures;

(d) creation of non-structural impervious or semi-impervious surfaces;

(e) flood protection works;

(f) construction of roads, trails, docks, wharves and bridges;

(g) provision and maintenance of sewer and water services;

(h) development of drainage systems;

(i) development of utility corridors;

(j) subdivision as defined in section 872 of the Local Government Act;

The above list makes it clear that development, as defined under the Riparian Areas Regulation,

is a broad concept.

To come into compliance with this regulation, the Lasqueti Island Local Trust Committee must

amend its bylaws to provide the following:

• a definition of streams and riparian areas that are consistent with the Regulation;

• a means of triggering a regulatory action if a development activity is proposed to

occur in a riparian assessment area; and

• a means of requiring a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) Assessment

Report that complies with the Regulation and its assessment methods.

Compliance with the Riparian Areas Regulation means local governments must control

development with 30 metres of the streambank of any RAR-applicable waterway based on the

receipt, by the local government, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations (FLNRO), and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), of a report

from a Qualified Environmental Professional that supports the proposed development.

RAR IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS

Only two options are discussed below. Others, such as Island-wide regulations, were rejected

for being too onerous on Lasquetians whose properties might contain water features to which

the RAR would not be expected to apply. Of the two options discussed below, staff recommend

pursuing setback and screening regulations for riparian protection within RAR-applicable

watersheds, as these can achieve the objectives of the RAR while also respecting Lasqueti

LTC’s desire to avoid implementing development permit areas on the Island. Despite this

recommendation, however, trustees should be aware that staff believe a development permit

area for riparian protection to be a superior tool to setback and screening regulations.

Both options below were briefly discussed in the February 28 staff report on this subject. They

are presented here again, but with a greater emphasis on the implications of each approach for

Lasqueti Island residents and for the Lasqueti LTC.

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 4

In researching and assessing the options in this report, it was assumed that mapping that

actually charted the locations of all RAR-applicable water features on Lasqueti Island would

not—because of the cost—be available before adoption of bylaw amendments to comply with

the RAR. Trust Council approved a $71,000 budget for stream mapping in the Salt Spring and

Northern Local Trust Areas in the current fiscal year. For the Northern Local Trust Areas, this

was allocated to Hornby and Denman Island. Lasqueti LTC submitted a request for $6500 for

further stream assessment in the 2014/15 fiscal year. This is expected to be sufficient to

complete the watershed assessment , to determine if they contain streams that are applicable to

the RAR or not. In future years, however, stream-specific mapping should be considered if

Lasqueti LTC wishes to bring greater clarity to which properties contain RAR-applicable

streams. Stream-specific mapping makes it possible for a QEP to pre-determine the width of

Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas (SPEAs) on water features, so property owners

can be made certain of the absolute setback that will apply to development near the

watercourse on their property.

Staff research has concluded that there are only two categories of ways by which the Lasqueti

Island LTC can achieve compliance with the provincial Riparian Areas Regulation. The first is to

implement a development permit area for riparian protection. The second is the use of setback

and screening powers granted under Section 26 of the Local Government Act to protect

streamside areas. Other jurisdictions have used a combination of their building permit, tree

cutting, soil removal and rainwater management bylaws to achieve RAR compliance. But, as

local trust committees are not vested with the legislative power to enact these types of bylaws,

this approach will not work for Lasqueti Island.

The following is an overview of the implementation options available to Lasqueti Island LTC with

a brief comment on their viability.

1. Development Permit Areas (DPAs)

Authority to establish development permit areas is granted under section 919.1 of the Local

Government Act. Development Permit Areas can be established to achieve a number of

objectives listed in the LGA. However, the most relevant to implementing the Riparian Areas

Regulation on Lasqueti Island is:

“(a) protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity;”

Development Permit Areas define a geographic area within which certain types of activities (in

this case, “development” as defined by the province’s Riparian Areas Regulation) can only be

undertaken subject to the proponent’s receipt of a permit from the local government. Receipt of

this permit is generally based on satisfying criteria that will help achieve the objective for which

the development permit area has been established. In the case of the Riparian Areas

Regulation, the most important guideline is that development meets the recommended

conditions as assessed by a QEP to ensure that impacts will not be deleterious to fish habitat.

Example streamside protection DPA bylaws from the District of Saanich and Galiano Island are

attached for trustees’ reference.

A distinct benefit of development permit areas is that they make explicit the geographic scope of

the permit area, the rationale for it, and the types of land uses that require a permit, the

guidelines that must be met when undertaking those land uses to receive a permit and finally,

the land uses that are exempt from requiring a permit. They provide an opportunity to tailor

development to meet the objectives that local government has established based on the wishes

of the community, or, in this case, senior government. They also provide certainty to the

applicant insofar as if the applicant agrees to meet the guidelines laid out in the development

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 5

permit area bylaw, permitting is a procedural matter, rather than a political decision.

Development permits are not discretionary, nor do they require the defined public process that

development variance permits do (i.e. seeking comments from potentially-affected neighbours,

etc).

Additionally, local governments have discretion to delegate authority to grant development

permits to staff. This can reduce permit processing time when approval need not wait until a

meeting of the Local Trust Committee.

Establishing a development permit area for riparian protection would require amending Lasqueti

Island’s Official Community Plan to establish the location to which the DPA would apply, as well

as the justification for it, and the objectives of it. The Lasqueti Island land use bylaw would also

be amended to include the guidelines to which applicants would be expected to adhere.

Under the umbrella of development permit areas—and assuming that stream-specific mapping

will not be undertaken—the Lasqueti Island Local Trust Committee could implement a RAR

watershed DPA.

A. RAR Watershed DPA

Where watersheds are known to contain streams that meet the definition of the Riparian Areas

Regulation, local governments can designate those watersheds as development permit areas.

Within these watersheds, all water features are assumed to be RAR-applicable at the time of

proposed development until proven otherwise (i.e. an obviously isolated pond with no surface

connections, or a water feature that a QEP deems non-applicable. Development near what are

proved to be non-RAR-applicable water features would not require a development permit, but

would still be expected to adhere to any existing land use regulations. For waterways that are

RAR-applicable, development, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation, taking place within

30 metres of the high water mark, will require a development permit issued subject to the

development meeting the conditions detailed in a QEP’s assessment of the project. Properties

that are within the watershed-specific development permit area, but whose property contains no

waterway, would not be expected to obtain a development permit prior to undertaking

development. Properties within the development permit area that do contain a waterway, but

where development is proposed beyond 30 metres from the water, would also not be expected

to obtain a development permit.

Mapping required to establish a watershed-specific DPA necessitates the completion of the

watershed assessment and map started by Madrone Environmental. Twelve watersheds on the

Island have been definitively identified as RAR-applicable (two by the B.C. Ministry of

Environment and 10 by Madrone Environmental). Of these, however, eight with “potential

barriers to fish” may need further analysis to assure their RAR-applicability. Four watersheds,

meanwhile, definitively require further investigation to determine their RAR applicability. Five

watersheds have been proven not to be RAR-applicable.

Comment: Completion of Madrone Environmental’s watershed assessment and map will enable

establishing a watershed-specific development permit area for streamside protection. 162

privately owned lots would fall into a watershed-specific DPA if all potentially-applicable

watersheds prove to be so. This number could be reduced if the four watersheds requiring

further investigation are shown to not be RAR-applicable, or if those containing “potential

barriers to fish” are shown to be non-applicable. Also, just because a property is within a RARapplicable

watershed does not mean that that property contains a water feature. For many lots,

this is probably the case. Properties within RAR-applicable watersheds but without water

features would not be subject to requiring a development permit. Therefore, just because 162

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 6

properties are contained within a potential development permit area, does not mean 162

properties will require development permits. Meanwhile, a watershed specific DPA presents a

risk that property owners on non-RAR-applicable water features could incur costs proving that

said water features should not trigger the RAR.

See Attachment 3 for a map of properties potentially affected by a RAR watershed DPA. It

shows shading on all lots partially or fully within a RAR-applicable watershed. Attachment 4

shows what a RAR-watershed DPA map would look like if all potentially RAR-applicable

watersheds were included. This map has removed Crown lands from the DPA, assuming those

lots unlikely to be affected by the Riparian Areas Regulation.

2. Riparian Setback and Screening Regulations

Local governments can combine the building and structure setback provisions, as well as the

environmental screening powers allowed under Sections 903 and 909 respectively of the Local

Government Act to establish both a 30 metre setback and a 30 metre landscape leave strip that

requires protection of existing vegetation for all ditches, streams and wetlands within RARidentified

watersheds.

Local Government Act Section 903 says:

(1) A local government may, by bylaw, do one or more of the following:

(c) regulate within a zone

(iii) the siting, size and dimensions of

(A) buildings and other structures, and

(B) uses that are permitted on the land, and

And Local Government Act Section 909 says:

(1) A local government may, by bylaw, require, set standards for and regulate the provision of

screening or landscaping for one or more of the following purposes:

(b) preserving, protecting, restoring and enhancing the natural environment;

Applying this approach, any RAR-defined development proposed within the 30-metre setback

and screening area would require a development variance permit, to be granted by Lasqueti

LTC upon receipt of a QEP report that supports the development and details the measures that

must be undertaken to ensure streamside health. Because of the discretionary nature of

development variance permits, conditions could be attached to the permit and might include the

re-vegetation of the setback area if it had been previously stripped or other measures as the

Lasqueti LTC deems appropriate.

Lasqueti Island Land Use Bylaw regulation 3.5(2) already requires a 30 metre setback from

watercourses for buildings and structures. This setback bylaw can be retained, but amended in

how it applies to Lasqueti’s RAR-applicable watersheds to ensure consistency with the RAR. In

particular, this will mean removing the current allowance for fences and access stairways in the

RAR-applicable watersheds.

Lasqueti Island Land Use Bylaw No. 78 already provides an example of the use of the LTC’s

screening powers in the form of a 30 metre screening setback from raptor nesting trees. This

regulation requires that “A protective screen of natural vegetation must be retained within a 30

metres (98.4 feet) radius of the trunk of a tree bearing nests of herons, eagles, ospreys,

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 7

vultures, falcons, hawks and owls.” Thus, use of screening powers to achieve environmental

ends is not unprecedented on Lasqueti Island.

Using setback and screening regulations, Lasqueti LTC can reach RAR compliance by

amending its land use bylaw to apply these regulations to water features in the RAR applicable

watersheds.

A. Watershed-Specific Setback and Screening

The completion of Madrone Environmental’s watershed assessment would enable Lasqueti LTC

to establish 30-metre setback and screening regulations exclusively for water features within

RAR-applicable watersheds. Permission to remove vegetation or construct buildings in the

screening area would be subject to a development variance permit granted based on a

satisfactory report from a QEP.

Please see Attachment 6 for an example of how an amendment to the Lasqueti Island land use

bylaw using this approach might look. Also, please see Attachment 7 as a possible reference

map that would serve as a schedule to the bylaw. Trustees will notice that the reference map is

identical to the map that would accompany a RAR watershed DPA.

Lasqueti LTC should consider that there is some nuance to how setback and screening

regulations might be phrased. The choice in wording makes may influence the number of

property owners that would require a variance for RAR-defined development. Lasqueti LTC

could say:

(I) For all freshwater features in the area shown on Schedule A:

All existing natural vegetation must be retained to create a protective screen

between the water feature and any proposed development.

Or:

(II) For all RAR-applicable water features on Schedule A:

All existing natural vegetation must be retained to create a protective screen

between the water feature and any proposed development.

Option I assumes from the outset that all water features in the RAR-identified watersheds are

RAR-applicable and would require a QEP-supported variance prior to development. Waterways

that are not RAR-applicable will be revealed as such at the outset of the QEP assessment,

which would not need to proceed further if that was proven to be the case. However, since this

regulation would apply to all freshwater features in the subject area, a variance permit would still

be required regardless of the water feature’s applicability under the RAR.

Option II assumes that not all water features in the subject watersheds are RAR-applicable, and

therefore that not all should be subject to the screening regulation. Property owners

contemplating development would be expected to ascertain their water feature’s RAR

applicability, and apply for a variance if required. The drawback to this approach is that, in the

absence of a map that defines precisely which water features are RAR-applicable, many

property owners may, incorrectly, assume that the regulation does not apply to the water feature

on their property and proceed with development without a QEP’s guidance. Please note that

wording the bylaw in this particular way may not satisfy the province’s environment ministry.

 

Islands TrustStaff Report Page 8

Comment: Application of setback and screening regulations only to water features in RARapplicable

watersheds would, for clarity’s sake, require the inclusion of a map to denote the

watershed areas in which the regulations apply. By including a reference map, however, one

has almost created a development permit area that lacks the benefits a development permit

area can deliver, such as the potential for faster staff application processing and a non-political

process.

DISCUSSION

Importance of Riparian Protections

First, a word about streamside protection regulations generally: Staff recognizes that the

Riparian Areas Regulation might better serve more urbanized areas. However, this does not

absolve Lasqueti LTC of its responsibility to come into compliance with it. Moreover, Lasqueti

LTC might consider that implementing strong streamside protection measures is not only about

the pattern of development that the Island has experienced to date. Lasqueti is fortunate to

maintain its large rural lots and unique character at the same time that the southern Gulf Islands

have experienced significant change. This does not mean, however, that it is immune to greater

development pressures and the arrival of property owners who do not share the strong

environmental values that have enabled Lasqueti to retain its present charms. In 2008 it was

known that subdivision under the current land use bylaw would, at that time, have allowed for an

additional 860 lots, bringing the total from 376 to 1236. In the absence of updated data it is

assumed that the build-out potential on the Island remains the same. Streamside protection

measures required under the Riparian Areas Regulation are meant to guard against the fish

habitat damage that comes with intensified development. Lasqueti Island is privileged to be

starting from a far better place of riparian health than most other jurisdictions in the southern

part of the province where the RAR applies. To that end, what may seem overly restrictive and

unnecessary today will, it is hoped, pay off tomorrow in the form of fish-supporting waterways

for generations to come even as development pressures grow.

Local Knowledge

Staff acknowledge that Lasquetians pride themselves on developing their own solutions to

important issues that arise on the Island. Staff also recognize that many citizens, including the

local stream keepers group, have been involved in efforts to ensure the ongoing health of the

Island’s known fish-supporting streams. However, the Riparian Areas Regulation leaves little

room for tapping in to local knowledge beyond initial assistance helping identify waterways that

might host fish or fish habitat. The reason that a made-on-Lasqueti approach isn’t possible

stems from the fact that the Riparian Areas Regulation is about requiring local governments to

do the three bulleted tasks listed on page 3, and the legislative and regulatory tools Lasqueti

Island has at its disposal to achieve these three tasks are fairly narrow. Furthermore, since the

Province sets the definition of what types of waterways must be captured in any implementing

legislation, and defines what is expected to qualify as applicable “development” under the

regulation, not to mention prescribing the required assessment methodology, there isn’t much

room for the participation of the average concerned citizen.

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 9

Developing Outside the Riparian Assessment Area

It is important to note that development that does not occur within 30 metres of the high water

mark of a RAR-applicable stream does not require a QEP report. Thus, the impact of any

riparian regulation is negligible on property owners whose planned activities don’t trigger the

regulation. Lasqueti Island has the benefit, not available to some of its southern neighbours, of

generally large lot sizes that allow for greater alternative siting opportunities.

Impacts on Property Owners

Ultimately, for property owners planning to undertake a development within 30 metres of a water

feature that meets the broad definition of “stream” under the Riparian Areas Regulation, it will

make little difference whether the local government uses a development permit area or setback

and screening regulations to achieve RAR compliance. Subject property owners will, under any

of the regulatory regimes outlined above—if they intend to comply with the regulation—be

expected to obtain a QEP report that says the proposed development is safe and details the

conditions under which it can proceed. Costs to these property owners to obtain a QEP

assessment—in the neighbourhood of $1,500 and up depending on the type of development

being contemplated—would be the same under either regime. QEP assessments may prove

more costly on Lasqueti given its more complicated transportation context. Costs of a QEP

report could be significantly reduced if some Lasquetians became certified to undertake

assessments according to the RAR methodology.

The cost of a permit using either development permit areas or setback and screening

regulations will depend how Lasqueti LTC amends its fees bylaw. Currently, a development

variance permit for residential development on the Island costs applicants $440. Lasqueti LTC

could consider a reduced permit fee for permits related to riparian area protection. Permit

processing times could be significantly reduced using a development permit area approach,

since signing authority can be delegated to staff. Development variance permits, on the other

hand, must be granted by a vote of the trustees. Meanwhile, if an applicant meets the guidelines

established by the development permit area bylaw, the permit cannot be denied. Development

variance permits, on the other hand, are entirely discretionary.

Property owners with isolated, non-RAR-applicable water features on their properties will

experience the greatest impact depending whether development permit areas or setbacks and

screening are used. Under a development permit area, these property owners would not require

a permit for development within 30 metres once it was established that the water feature was

not RAR-applicable. This could be made explicit in the text of the DPA bylaw. Under a screening

regulation approach, however, these same property owners would require a development

variance permit since the screening regulation establishes a setback from all water features, not

just those to which the Riparian Areas Regulation applies. This could perhaps be avoided if the

text of the screening regulation was such that water features, proven to be RAR-exempt by a

qualified environmental professional, are exempt from the screening requirement. This possible

wording was described in Option II above.

Map or No Map

A crucial component of a development permit area is a map that indicates the area to which the

DPA applies. A setback and screening regulation, on the other hand, need not be accompanied

by a map. In the absence of a map, however, the regulations would be assumed to apply across

the whole Island. But, since Islands Trust will have an assessment report and a map that

indicates where the RAR-applicable watersheds are located, it seems disingenuous to withhold

 

Islands Trust Staff Report Page 10

this mapping for the sake of creating the appearance that the regulation applies to “everyone

and no one” as it would seem if not accompanied by a map. Forgoing a map in the hope that

any new streamside protection regulations will pass unnoticed by constituents does not serve

the interests of environmental protection that the Riparian Areas Regulation is meant to achieve.

A map is certain to create greater awareness of the regulation. Greater awareness, of course,

does not necessarily mean greater compliance and could actually lead to more resistance from

the community.

Island-wide or Watershed-specific

Establishing either a DPA for streamside protection or a screening regulation that applies across

the whole Island is not recommended as a viable option. There are two primary problems with

both these approaches. First, Lasqueti LTC has already paid for an assessment report and a

map has been created that establishes the location of RAR-applicable watersheds on the

Island. While establishing RAR-level protection to all water features is certainly a laudable goal,

it calls into question why mapping has been undertaken. Second, applying any Island-wide

regulation casts an unnecessarily wide net over properties that need not be regulated for fish

habitat protection.

Compliance

Lasqueti trustees have suggested that compliance with streamside protection regulations may

be low, given both the nature of property owners on the Island as well as the low bar to what

constitutes “development” under the Riparian Areas Regulation. Evidence from both Lasqueti

Island and other Gulf Islands suggests that the trustees are likely correct in their estimations.

For example, Lasqueti LTC appears never to have received an application for a variance to any

of its existing land use regulations. On Galiano Island, which has had a development permit

area for riparian protection since November 2011, only one permit has been applied for, and

that was by the Capital Regional District (another government agency) for construction of a new

fire hall within a riparian assessment area. On North Pender Island, where a DPA for riparian

protection has been on the books since 2011, two applications have been received—one for the

construction of a new home and one for a subdivision. Predicted low compliance may make it

tempting to assume it does not matter which approach Lasqueti LTC adopts. However,

regulations are not adopted assuming low compliance. They are adopted with the intention of

achieving high compliance. And if high compliance is intended, then Lasqueti LTC should

choose the best tool for the job.