New Provincial Law to Protect Fish To prevent a repeat of the calamitous collapse of cod stocks on the East Coast of Canada, the provincial government is working on a new law to protect salmon and other West Coast fisheries. The BC Fish Protection Act is BC’s proposal to better protect fish habitat. As fisheries comes under federal jurisdiction, the provincial role is limited although negotiations on a Memorandum of Understanding on Fisheries Issues signed between Canada and British Columbia on July 15, 1996, which recognizes that BC “should assume an enhanced role in the management of fisheries issues.” What will the proposed new Fish Protection Act do? It will address degradation and destruction of fish habitat through urban, industrial and agricultural development, one cause of fish decline that the province can regulate. The new law will amend a number of existing statutes: the Water Act, the Wildlife Act, the provincial Fisheries Act, and the Municipal Act, and will include: Protection of instream flows for fish and fish habitat through amendments to the existing Water Act. This is a crucial element for healthy fish. Fish currently have no “right” to water, and the needs of domestic, agricultural and industrial water users are given priority over fish. In WCELA’s opinion, it is essential to address the issue of instream licences by reviewing the province’s existing 40,000 water licences. We also recommend that nongovernmental organizations have the right to hold these licences. The proposal in the Fish Protection Act currently allows only Crown agencies and property owners to hold instream flow licences. Amendments to the Wildlife Act to enable designation of fish, plants and invertebrates that form part of fish habitat as threatened or endangered. This is also a welcome proposal, though it is limited to elements of fish habitat. WCELA continues to advocate passage of a new Fish, Wildlife and Endangered Species Act, which has long been promised by this government and is sorely needed to protect all endangered, threatened and vulnerable species in the province. Amendments to the provincial Fisheries Act to prohibit new major dams on the Fraser River and its major tributaries. This action will be beneficial for the protection of fish and fish habitat, as experience elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest demonstrates that dams have had, and continue to have, a major negative impact on fish populations. Amendments to the Municipal Act to enhance local governments’ ability to protect salmon habitat and other parts of the environment. These amendments are also critical, in order to allow the local level of government, which controls land use, to give higher priority to environmental protection. The proposals enable the inclusion of environmental policies in Official Community Plans; enable the requirement of development impact assessments; and require consultation with MELP on environmental issues at key times. All are welcome changes and should proceed without delay. A series of workshops on the proposed Fish Protection Act is being scheduled by the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, working together with WCELA, the Georgia Strait Alliance, and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. Four workshops are planned. The workshops will take place in Vancouver, the Fraser Valley, Nanaimo, and Tofino. The dates will be approximately mid- to late November. For more information, call Frank Cox at the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation at 604 255-8819. — Linda Nowlan

Update on Delegation of fish habitat powers On October 3, the federal government introduced Bill C-62, a rewrite of the federal Fisheries Act. While most of the changes relate to allocation issues, there are two significant changes regarding protection of fish habitat. To understand the proposed changes some background is required. Currently, the Fisheries Act prohibits damage to fish habitat except with an authorization from the Minister of Fisheries under section 35(2). Authorizations under 35(2) take the form of a “comfort letter” from regional DFO offices to a project proponent. The comfort letter says, in effect, that the proposed project will not be unlawful if it proceeds as described by the proponent and subject to additional conditions added by DFO. There are lots of these authorizations: more than 12,000 in 1990-91, the most recent year for which statistics are available. Here’s the rub: the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, proclaimed in force in January 1995, requires an environmental assessment before an authorization can be issued under s. 35(2). (The way it works is that the Act requires an EA of a project that is given a regulatory approval under any one or more of a number of provisions listed in a regulation called the Law List. Section 35(2) is on the Law List.) That translates into lots of EAs; more than government wants to do. So, on a transitional basis the government adopted criteria for issuing authorizations under s.35(2) that meant that only a small number of projects — with large anticipated impacts on fish habitat — would receive an EA and a s.35(2) authorization. Now, Bill C-62 entrenches that approach. The s.35(2) authorization is replaced by a permit (under what is now numbered section 49(2)). But a project does not require a permit unless it is a type of project described in new regulations adopted under a new section, s.49(3). The s.35(2) authorization is taken off the Law List, and the s.49(2) permit is put on the Law List. The result is that only projects of a type described in the yet-to-be-drafted regulation will trigger EA under CEAA. While all this may sound confusing, it is only one component of a larger change to the management of fish habitat in Canada, namely the delegation of federal authority to the provinces. Again, some background: the Constitution assigns legislative authority for “seacoast and inland fisheries” to the federal government, and this is the constitutional basis for the federal Fisheries Act. Historically, though, the federal government has delegated authority for freshwater fisheries in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and eastern BC to the provinces. The federal government has remained heavily involved in the coastal fisheries in BC (including the salmon rivers and streams that extend a long way inland), the Atlantic fishery, and freshwater fisheries in the Atlantic region and the North. In 1992, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Oldman River dam case (involving a freshwater fishery in Alberta) clarified that the federal government was still responsible for fish habitat even though it had delegated other aspects of fisheries management to the province. Alberta resented this and led provincial governments in clamouring for more provincial control over fisheries habitat. Meanwhile, DFO was, and still is, coping with severe budget cutbacks and “program review,” along with other aspects of government. During the constitutional negotiations, the federal government and the provinces agreed to some form of shift of fisheries authority from the federal government to the provinces. The demise of the Charlottetown Accord killed any change to the constitution regarding fisheries, but it did not stop the federal and provincial governments from proceeding in the same general direction by other means, not involving an amendment of the constitution. In 1995, DFO proposed delegating fisheries habitat management to the provinces on a formal basis. At first, it seemed the proposal related to all fisheries habitat, but it is now clear that it does not include salmon fisheries (e.g., much of BC) The original proposal was for a complete transfer. But, environmentalists and others expressed strong concerns that habitat actually be protected, and that the Fisheries Act continue to function as a trigger for environmental assessment under CEAA. DFO’s response to the EA concern is the section 49(3) regulation discussed above. DFO’s response to the concern that habitat actually be protected is to suggest that DFO’s strong “no net loss” policy be attached as one of the conditions of delegation. Bill C-62 does authorize the federal cabinet to make regulations delegating habitat powers to provinces (section 58) subject to conditions (which could include the no net loss policy). However, as currently worded, the Bill does not require a province to adhere to the no net loss policy in exercising delegated powers. At the September meeting of the CEAA Regulatory Advisory Committee, a DFO representative argued that these initiatives are not as negative for the environment as it may appear. His view is that, on a practical basis, DFO has little or no resources in the prairie provinces, Ontario or Quebec, and that with the ongoing federal budget cutbacks this is not going to get better. He argued that the delegation will include a commitment to enforce the federal no net loss policy, which would be an improvement over the status quo. Also, he maintained that the delegation will include public accountability mechanisms that will make it clear if a province is not living up to its new fish habitat protection responsibilities. In early November, DFO is hosting a workshop with environmental groups and industry associations, as well as provincial, aboriginal and federal participants. The workshop will address the approach that should be taken to developing the regulation defining the types of projects that will require a permit under the Fisheries Act and, therefore, an EA under CEAA. The workshop will also address the terms and conditions that should be attached to delegation of fish habitat authority to provinces. This will be followed by a mid-November meeting of federal and provincial officials to set out officially what is proposed regarding delegation of fisheries habitat management powers.

An Endangered Species Act for BC WCEL is currently working with the BC Endangered Species Coalition to obtain a provincial Endangered Species Act. The Coalition currently has 37 members, and is expanding rapidly. The goal of the Coalition is to obtain strong BC legislation which protects endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Specifically, the Coalition is calling for legislation that: Lists all vulnerable, threatened and endangered species; Identifies and protects the critical habitat of all listed species; Utilizes ecological and scientific principles for listing and habitat identification; Prohibits activities harmful to listed species like hunting and trade; and Requires the development and implementation of recovery plans for listed species. As you may have heard, endangered species legislation has been a hot topic recently. The BC government, the federal government and the other provincial governments have just signed a National Accord for the protection of endangered species. A key component of the Accord is the commitment to pass complementary federal and provincial legislation. The federal endangered species bill was released on October 31. However, the BC government has yet to provide any solid commitment to the passage of complementary provincial legislation. The BC Endangered Species Coalition wants to change this, and ensure that an Endangered Species Act becomes a top priority for the BC Government. You can show your support for endangered species legislation in several ways: Get your organization to join the Coalition. Contact Kate Smallwood, campaign coordinator, at the West Coast offices: phone 604 601-2507 or email ksmallwood@wcel.org. Give a donation to the BC Endangered Species Coalition, c/o WCEL. Write, phone or fax the office of the BC Environment Minister, Paul Ramsay, congratulate him on signing the National Accord, and tell him that you support a BC Endangered Species Act. You can reach Mr. Ramsay at: Room 337, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4, phone 250 387-1187, fax 250 387-1356. Show your support for strong federal endangered species legislation — attend the Parliamentary Committee hearings in Vancouver on November 25 (location to be confirmed). If you have any questions regarding the BC Endangered Species Coalition or the Parliamentary Committee hearings for the federal legislation, please call Kate Smallwood (ksmallwood@wcel.org), Coalition Campaign Coordinator at 604 601-2507.

Wetlands: Can they be Protected? East Kootenay Environmental Society: EDRF Update The ongoing saga of the East Kootenay Environmental Society’s (EKES) attempts to protect wetlands at the north end of Lake Windermere in the Columbia Valley continues, with the wetlands remaining unprotected. The most recent step taken by the group is a request that the Minister of Environment intervene to save this wetland and perhaps make a decision which could have an impact on the protection of all wetlands in British Columbia. The group’s lawyer has prepared a submission to the Minister of Environment outlining the history of this case and the extensive yet unsuccessful efforts made by the group to try and protect this wetland. In the submission, the difficulties faced by those attempting to protect wetlands are clearly illustrated. Deficiencies in the current Water Act have allowed this wetland to be filled, despite the fact that the Columbia Valley wetlands are said to be the most important wetlands in Western Canada, west of Manitoba. The wetlands were also identified in the Protected Areas Strategy as the second most important area deserving protection in the East Kootenays. In order to achieve protection for this area, the group is requesting the Lieutenant Governor in Council rescind or amend an order of the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB). The EAB order said that EKES did not have standing before it to appeal the Comptroller of Water Rights’ decision to allow the wetland to be filled. If the order is rescinded, EKES will be able to appeal the decision. It is fortunate that the group has not given up its fight to try to protect this area. EKES’ submissions point out that if the recent decision of the EAB is allowed to stand, Water Act administrators could have the discretion to allow the infilling of wetlands in British Columbia without the public having a chance to appeal those decisions. The only parties with the right to challenge would be those who had direct legal rights in relationship to the wetland being affected or who, for example, had property bordering the area which was to be developed. As wetlands are a resource which is valuable to the entire province, it seems ludicrous that the rights of appeal could be restricted to this extent. The EKES’ submission also points out that EAB’s interpretation of the Water Act is not in keeping with modern developments in environmental legislation. More recent environmental legislation gives broad rights of notice and appeal to the public. Other statutes recognize to a much greater extent the importance of public involvement and the right of the public to have input into decisions affecting the environment in which they live. The provincial government’s failure to amend the Water Act to address problems including the public standing issue, leaves British Columbia’s wetlands unprotected.

Panel Procedures Get Go-ahead Proposed procedures for environmental assessment panels under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were endorsed by the Regulatory Advisory Committee (RAC) at a meeting in Ottawa on September 25 and 26. On the key question of whether the procedures should be adopted as (nonbinding) guidelines or (binding) regulations, the RAC recommended that the procedures be adopted as guidelines immediately and that they be sent for legal drafting with a view to moving ahead with a regulation. The committee also recommended that the regulation include all of the procedures, not just the sections dealing with time limits and notice periods. The RAC also recommended that the Minister of Environment delegate authority to make procedural decisions to the president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. This would allow decisions to be made much more quickly, in order to meet the extremely tight timeframes in the new procedures. It also moves the Agency in a small but significant way toward the kind of independent EA authority that the Liberal “Red Book” promised. Following the suggestion of the procedures subcommittee, the RAC also formed a multisector subcommittee to develop rules to govern participant funding under the new Act. The Agency is currently using rules developed for the former Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP). Environmental groups will be represented on the new subcommittee by Toronto lawyer Rod Northey (phone: 416 599-0992, email: ya156182@alumnet.yorku.ca), of the environmental assessment caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network, as well as one other person, yet to be named. Other highlights of the RAC meeting: The Agency is working with Mexico and the US on the development of an agreement on environmental assessment in a transboundary context, under the North American Agreement for Environmental Cooperation. They hope to have a document by the end of November. The US does not want the agreement to bind its state governments (many of which do not have EA legislation). Canada and Mexico do want a binding agreement. The Agency’s “cost recovery” discussion paper was roundly criticized. The subcommittee on Crown corporations, which includes representatives of the corporations and Treasury Board as well as environmental representatives, was urged to accelerate its work on methods of requiring federal Crown corporations to conduct EA. Currently, federal Crown corporations, such as the Vancouver Port Corporation and the CMHC, are not required to conduct an EA of projects for which they are the proponent or a provider of land or money (unless the project requires some regulatory approval which itself triggers an EA). However, the Act allows the government to require the ‘Crowns’ to do EA by designating them as federal authorities or by adopting special regulations. The EA harmonization agreement between BC and the federal government is being revised following comments from the public (including comments from WCEL) and will be released publicly prior to being adopted. For more information, please contact Bill Andrews at 604 601-2510 or at bandrews@wcel.org.

How Much Discretion is Too Much? WCEL critiques far-reaching discretion in Household Hazardous Waste Reg How much power should bureaucrats have to say which laws do and do not apply to certain individuals or corporations? WCEL has had to grapple with that question once again in commenting on BC Environment’s draft household hazardous waste regulation. This draft regulation requires distributors of solvents, pesticides and other household hazardous waste to set up collection facilities where consumers can return leftover hazardous products and their containers. The collection facilities have to be reasonably convenient to consumers and distributors are responsible for informing consumers of the requirements. The distributors are then responsible for ensuring that the products and containers are safely reused, recycled or disposed. So far, so good. The draft regulation also gives BC Environment’s director of waste management the power to approve alternate plans submitted by distributors. There are virtually no minimum requirements for approving alternative plans and the director can approve plans for virtually any reason he or she thinks is relevant. There is no process for appealing the director’s carte blanche discretion. Essentially, the director replaces cabinet as the real rule maker. Flexibility and discretion in regulation is not a bad thing. It allows innovation, and it’s essential where it is impossible to specify a “one size fits all” solution. The Waste Management Act reliance on permitting reflects this need for flexibility. But the Waste Management Act also establishes a process for appealing permits to ensure consistent protection of the environment and even application of the law. No such process applies to the draft hazardous household waste regulation (or the Post Consumer Stewardship Program Regulation, as it is officially known). The problem is unlimited discretion with little or no accountability. When BC passed its paint stewardship regulation, it required paint distributors to set up waste paint collection depots. The depots had to be within at least ten kilometres of paint stores and open during normal business hours, but the regulation gave the director power to vary these requirements. The result: normal business hours and ten kilometres were replaced with a plan whereby collection depots only had to be open a few days a month in a few cities in BC. Although requirements have since been tightened, that experience shows how too much discretion can lead to the evisceration of regulatory intent when regulatory requirements can be waived without accountability and without regard to overriding criteria. BC Environment’s draft household hazardous waste regulation has the potential to be a model for other jurisdictions. BC Environment should ensure that it adheres to basic principles such as equal application of the law to everyone and accountability in discretion. — Chris Rolfe

EDRF Update Air Quality: Peace Country Environmental Protection Association In the last Newsletter, we mentioned the Williams Lake Environmental Society’s success in its appeal of the Williams Lake Medium Density Fibreboard plant air emissions permit. The Nechako Environmental Coalition’s success before the Environmental Appeal Board regarding the amendments which were made to the Canfor air emissions permit was also reported. At the end of October, the Peace Country Environmental Protection Association (PCEPA) appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board was heard. PCEPA appealed Louisiana Pacific’s permit authorizing air emissions from the strandboard plant in Dawson Creek. PCEPA has hired a lawyer with EDRF assistance. At the appeal, the lawyer argued that the current permit conditions don’t protect the environment or human health and that the permit must be cancelled or amended to address these issues. The group wants Louisiana Pacific to use the best available control technology to reduce the volume of contaminants being discharged. PCEPA is also seeking to have the emissions reduced to ensure that the Ministry’s objectives for particulate matter release and other compounds are not exceeded. The group has also requested that Louisiana Pacific carry out additional testing on its emissions. Louisiana Pacific opened its plant in Dawson Creek in 1987. Since that time, the discharges from the plant have frequently exceeded the limits which the Ministry of Environment placed on the company’s emissions. Unfortunately, despite intensive efforts by a local resident, Shane Hartnell, and over time by a large group which formed around this issue, the Ministry of Environment was slow to take action on this problem. As the group grew in size with a greater proportion of the community (including members of the medical profession) supporting the issue, the pressure on the Ministry of Environment and the company to address the issue increased. At the previous level of appeal, before the Deputy Director of Waste Management, PCEPA was successful in that the Deputy Director found that many of the chemicals being emitted were not monitored; that there were emissions from the plant that had the potential to impact on human health; that the permit allowed for the release of harmful levels of pollution which resulted in the Ministry of Environment objectives being exceeded; and, that the monitoring information available was inadequate to resolve some of the issues raised. Prior to opening its plant in British Columbia, Louisiana Pacific experienced some legal difficulty with a plant it was operating in the United States. Louisiana Pacific received one of the largest fines the Environmental Protection Agency had issued in relation to air emissions which it produced in excess of the permitted levels. Unfortunately, the British Columbia government then provided Louisiana Pacific with large sums of money to allow it to start an operation in this province. Ministry of Environment officials have indicated that Louisiana Pacific has been difficult to work with and there have been ongoing compliance problems. It is hoped that the efforts of PCEPA will result in Louisiana Pacific being required to do everything possible to ensure that the health of the local residents is protected. Wildlife Protection: Brackendale Citizens Opposed to Airport Development A group of Brackendale residents hired a lawyer and an expert on bird strikes to obtain an opinion on legal options to protect a large eagle population from a proposed airport development in Brackendale. Unfortunately, a recent court challenge to the District of Squamish’s Official Community Plan was unsuccessful. The group and its lawyer and the EDRF Liaison Lawyer are considering the most appropriate next step in protecting the eagles.

Environmental Assessment Approves Lafarge Plans to Boost Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 80% WCEL calls for greenhouse gas policy in EA On September 22nd, the BC Government approved Lafarge Canada’s plans for expansion of their Richmond cement plant. Greenhouse gas pollution from the new plant will increase by 80% to 819 million kilograms of carbon dioxide per year, making Lafarge one of the province’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters. Much of the increase is caused by the plant’s switch from natural gas to coal. Coal emits almost twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas does to produce the same amount of energy. Act falls short One of the conditions of the Environmental Assessment Act approval is that Lafarge prepare a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Plan in consultation with the provincial government and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The plan is to include details of proposed projects to offset the Lafarge plant’s increased greenhouse gas emissions. Offset projects are projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions at other locations. Unfortunately, the Environmental Assessment Act approval gives no details as to what portion of the increased emissions will need to be offset. Nor does the Environmental Assessment Act approval give any guidance as to what the government will accept as a valid offset project. Better policy needed The Lafarge environmental assessment shows the need for BC to adopt a clear and consistent policy with regard to projects which will have major impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Although the BC government is committed to stabilizing BC’s emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000, 1995 emissions levels are expected to be around 15% higher than 1990 emissions. If BC does not take strong action soon, emissions in the year 2000 will likely be at least 20 to 25% over 1990 levels. Faced with these trends, the BC government needs to develop a consistent and effective policy on greenhouse gas emissions from projects that are subject to environmental assessment. West Coast Environmental Law Association has called on the GVRD, the Ministry of Environment, and Ministry of Employment and Investment to only accept a greenhouse gas mitigation plan which will completely offset Lafarge’s increased emissions. To be effective, the offset projects Lafarge undertakes must be improvements over “business as usual.” Many companies in the United States and Canada have claimed credit for “offset projects” that would have occurred without any corporate commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If Lafarge’s Mitigation Plan simply includes measures that would have occurred anyway, there is no point in requiring a plan. All is not lost: potential positive spin-offs Although the Lafarge expansion is a major step backwards in terms of achieving greenhouse gas stabilization, it does have some positive environmental impacts. In particular emissions of local pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen and fine particulate will be lower. Also, some of the offset projects that may be considered by Lafarge could have positive environmental spin-offs. For instance if Lafarge uses methane from the Burns Bog landfill to power its plant, this will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also help reduce local pollution. Lafarge, along with BC Hydro’s Burrard Thermal Plant, West Coast Energy, Alcan Aluminium and Tillbury Cement are among the largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters in the province. Cars and trucks remain the largest emission category. — Chris Rolfe

From the lawyers' desktops Here's a summary of what we've been up to since the last newsletter. Harmonization Bill Andrews is continuing his work with National Advisory Group on Harmonization. The Group recently met with the CCME deputy ministers to discuss the draft Harmonization Accord, which is being revised for consideration by the CCME ministers at the upcoming November meeting. Industry and environmental groups joined in asking the deputies to allow them to play a more active role in the development of the Accord and its accompanying schedules. Bill has been appointed as a member of the newly formed National Advisory Committee on the Environment; he recently attended a briefing session and committee meeting. Only Alberta has signed the NAFTA environmental side agreement, and Quebec will sign within weeks. Canadians from other provinces have no access to the legal remedies under the agreement until more provinces sign on. Finally, Bill attended the last briefing on draft BC contaminated sites regulations (draft 4) before the regulations are (finally) adopted and the contaminated sites amendments to the Waste Management Act are proclaimed in force. The Ministry maintains that it will be approved shortly. Biodiversity Linda Nowlan recently attended a meeting of the National Biodiversity Forum in Ottawa in preparation for the upcoming Conference of the Parties to the Biodiversity Convention in Buenos Aires from November 1 - 14, 1996. Linda has been chosen to be the environmental representative on the official Canadian delegation. Linda has also been involved in organizing workshops on the proposed BC Fish Protection Act with other environmental groups. Linda recently reviewed a new report from CIELAP on “Access to Genetic Resources”. We have received the comprehensive cross country study on Biodiversity Law and Policy in Canada. Linda wrote the chapter on British Columbia. To order a copy of the full report, please contact the Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy at 416 923-3529 in Toronto. If you are interested in a copy of the BC chapter, please contact the West Coast offices. Endangered species Linda continues to assist Kate Smallwood, the new Endangered Species Coordinator with the endangered species law reform campaign. See Kate’s article elsewhere in this Newsletter about the Endangered Species Campaign. WCEL is pleased to be offering infrastructure support to this important campaign. Kate is working out of our offices and you can reach her at 604 601-2507 or via email at ksmallwood@wcel.org. Greenhouse gas emissions Chris Rolfe has completed several draft chapters of West Coast’s report on strategic options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The chapters completed introduce the concept of emission trading, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of “offsets trading” (where greenhouse gas polluters offset their emissions by reducing emissions elsewhere), inter gas trading, joint implementation (where greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in other countries are undertaken by Canadian companies); and offsetting emissions of carbon dioxide by increasing carbon stored in plants and soils. Anyone interested in reviewing draft copies should contact Chris Rolfe. Other highlights of Chris’ activities include discussing AirCare and Ontario’s planned vehicle inspection and maintenance on CBC’s National Midday TV program; critiquing the BC draft Post Consumer Residual Stewardship Program Regulation (see accompanying article), and encouraging meaningful government action on greenhouse gas emissions and transportation demand management. EDRF Patricia Houlihan has been collecting information from Revenue Canada on the issue of charitable status for environmental groups. Patricia will be reviewing that information in preparation to advise several environmental groups that have asked West Coast for help with their charitable status. Pat has also been working with community organizations on the potential environmental protection issues associated with the application of pulp mill sludge and other mill residuals to land. Pat has also received several calls from citizens concerned with the lack of groundwater protection in this province, and its impact on the environment. And of course, Pat continues her other work with the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund; see the EDRF updates on the East Kootenay Environmental Society, Peace Country Environmental Protection Association, and the Brackendale Citizens Opposed to Airport Expansion elsewhere in this Newsletter.

Protecting British Columbia's Wetlands: A Citizen's Guide New handbook available soon Wetlands have been historically undervalued in our society. They have been drained, filled, farmed, polluted and paved over. The ecological benefits that wetlands provide have been lost. The wetlands that remain provide vitally important habitat for our fish, birds, amphibians, insects, and the billions of invertebrates and microorganisms that form the basis of the global food chain. In addition, our wetlands provide naturalists, boaters, hunters and weekend walkers with a connection to nature. Over the past twenty years British Columbians have become aware of the environmental crises occurring in our forests and to our fish populations. Meanwhile, wetlands have been pushed to the background, not only in the media, but in terms of legislative protection. But policy makers and government decision-makers have started to listen to advice from ecologists, scientists and conservationists. They are beginning to protect wetlands in a variety of ways: by directly acquiring them for habitat for fish and waterfowl; by restricting development in or around wetlands; and, by using various other legal tools to ensure that wetlands are protected. The right legal tools are not yet available. British Columbia does not have a clear and complete set of wetland laws. The province has no written wetlands policy. The legislation that does exist is inadequate, and often not enforced. To overcome the lack of protection for wetlands we need to educate ourselves and our elected officials, advocate protection for wetlands in law, participate in land use planning, monitor land use in our local areas, organize community groups to restore damaged or destroyed wetlands, and insist on wetlands education in our schools. Protecting British Columbia’s Wetlands: A Citizens Guide is a first step in overcoming that lack of protection. This pocket guide is a collaboration of West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and BC Wetlands Network. The Guide, jointly written by staff counsel Linda Nowlan of West Coast, and Bill Jeffries of BC Wetnet, introduces wetlands science, and describes the current legislative framework to protect wetlands. It also proposes changes to that framework, and discusses the legal tools we wish we had to protect wetlands. The Guide includes case studies of legal challenges to protect wetlands in BC and excerpts from the North Vancouver Environmental Protection and Preservation Bylaw. Copies of this Guide may be ordered from West Coast Environmental Law for $10 for the first copy, and $5 for each additional copy ordered at the same time (including shipping and handling). The Guide is currently at the printers, and will be available mid-November. Please send your request, with your cheque, to our offices. For more information about legal tools to protect wetlands, contact Linda Nowlan at 604 601-2509 or by email at lnowlan@wcel.org.

WCELRF, 1001 ­ 207 West Hastings, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canada. Phone (604) 684­7378; fax (604) 684­1312; 1-800-330-WCEL; email: admin@wcel.org; home page: http://vcn.bc.ca/wcel/ NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law (ISSN #1204-4326), copyright 1996. Printed on 100% recycled paper (not secondarily bleached or de-inked). Published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and represents the work of the non-profit West Coast Environmental Law Groups: West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation (WCELRF) does research and education and maintains an environmental law library. West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA) provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The West Coast Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund Society (WCEDRFS) provides assistance and funding to citizens to help solve environmental problems in their communities. The mission of the West Coast Environmental Law groups is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for core funding of West Coast Environmental Law. West Coast staff are: Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Chris Heald, Patricia Houlihan, Catherine Ludgate, Alexandra Melnyk, Linda Nowlan, Chris Rolfe, and Kate Smallwood. ___ Yes! I want to be a member and receive NEWS from West Coast Environmental Law. Here's $20. ___ Yes! I want to make a tax-creditable donation. Here's my cheque for: ___ $50 ___ $75 ___ $100 Name: ______________________________ Address: ____________________________ City, Prov: ___________________________ Postal Code: _________________________ [ Volume 20 Newsletter Index ]