June, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Saanich Inlet Study is being led by the Water Quality Branch of the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks with assistance and guidance from a Public Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Saanich Inlet Study is to determine the sensitivities of the inlet to contaminants and marine habitat disturbances. The results will provide baseline information that will be helpful in reviewing development proposals in the area surrounding the inlet. For example, findings and recommendations of the Saanich Inlet Study, along with those from a Growth Management Study being considered by the Cowichan Valley Regional District, will provide information necessary for the provincial government's environmental assessment of the South Island Development Corporation's proposal to construct a new community at Bamberton.
A key component of the Saanich Inlet Study is involvement of the public. Public input will assist in determining current use of the inlet, concerns or issues regarding the inlet, valued attributes of the inlet and expectations for the future of Saanich Inlet. Two open houses were held in January, 1995 to introduce the Saanich Inlet Study, exchange information about the inlet, and gather input on public uses, values and expectations of Saanich Inlet. The Open Houses were held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Institute of Ocean Sciences, North Saanich on January 21 and at Brentwood College, Mill Bay on January 28. The open houses attracted a total of 1038 people, with 617 in North Saanich and 421 in Mill Bay. This report summarizes the Open House process, methods used to collect public input and the results of the input.
The open house process was designed by a team comprising BC Environment staff, members of the Technical and Public Advisory Committees and Woodward Environmental Management. The open house included a series of display panels and maps, a slide show and video program, two questionnaires and extensive opportunity for one-on-one discussions with Ministry staff, Public and Technical Advisory Committee Members, and consultants.
The display panels included a wide range of information regarding the Study and the inlet:
Members of the Public and Technical Advisory Committee, BC Environment staff, and Institute of Ocean Sciences staff stood at points throughout the display area to answer questions about the display material, the inlet, and the Study process. They also spoke with people to get a sense of how they used the inlet, what they valued most about the inlet, what they would like to see in the future, and what concerns they have about the inlet. Twenty to thirty people were on hand through the open houses to talk with participants.
The slide show and video ran continuously throughout the open houses. The video ran every hour on the hour and the slide show on the half hour. The 25 minute slide show was a compilation of photos from members of the Public Advisory Committee BC Environment staff and professional photographers:
The slides showed several aspects of Saanich Inlet, including underwater and intertidal marine life and bottom material, many types of shoreline around the inlet, recreational and commercial uses of the inlet, and scenic photos of the inlet and surrounding uplands.
The 28 minute video was filmed and produced by Darrell Bainbridge, Aquavideo Productions Limited, with generous assistance and technical support from Shaw Cable. The video showed a range of marine life in the inlet, uses of the inlet and shorelines. It also contained interviews with Ben Kangasniemi, Saanich Inlet Study Director; Chief Vern Jacks, Tseycum Band; Jim Gilbert, recreational fishing consultants; Dr. Verena Tunnicliffe, University of Victoria; and Frank Whitney, Institute of Ocean Sciences. The interviews provided information on the Study; the biological importance of the inlet; the physical and chemical characteristics of the inlet; historical changes in the inlet and concerns about degradation of the inlet.
2.4 Sign-In and Questionnaires
As participants arrived at the open houses they were invited to sign-in and they were given two questionnaires with a mini pencil. The sign-in sheet allowed participants to fill in their full address if they wished to be added to the newsletter mailing list for the Study and it provided a means of calculating participation rates. The two questionnaires included a small and quick "Snap Shot" and a more lengthy written comment form (See Appendix B for questionnaires).
The "Snap Shot" was designed to get a very high response rate: it was simple, short, and focused on individuals' uses, values and expectations of Saanich Inlet. It took three to five minutes to fill out and had to be returned during the open house. The first three questions provided options to be checked off - the forth (last) required written response. The written comment form was designed to gather a greater level of detail on uses, values, changes over time, concerns regarding sensitive aspects of the inlet, possible means of protection the sensitive aspects, and the open house process. All questions on the written comment form were "open-ended", allowing for a broad range of responses.
The open houses were advertised in the following newspapers: Peninsula News-Review, Saanich News, Oak Bay News, Victoria Shopper, Esquimalt News, Goldstream Gazette, Sooke News-Mirror, Victoria Times-Colonist, Monday Magazine, The Citizen (Duncan), Cowichan News Leader, Ladysmith-Chemainus chronicle, and The Lake News (Lake Cowichan). A press release and information bulletin outlining the open houses were issued on December 16, 1994 and January 16, 1995 respectively (See Appendix C for advertisement, press release and information bulletin). Members of the Saanich Inlet Protection Society and Friends of South Cowichan circulated numerous leaflets (door-to-door and through shopping centres) inviting community members to the attend the open houses.
The open house results draw from three data sources: the "Snap Shot" questionnaire, the written comment form and a response form given to all Committee Members and staff at the completion of each open house. The "Snap Shot" results provide some quantitative data, whereas, the written comment and response forms provide qualitative data.
Of the 1038 participants at the open houses, 820 handed in completed "Snap Shots" - resulting in a 79% response rate. This is an exceptionally high response rate - resulting from a combination of factors such as a very high level of interest, the simple and quick "Snap Shot" format, the requirement to hand the "Snap Shot" in during the open house and the relevance of the questions asked.
The number of completed "Snap Shots" and the response rates for the two open houses are as follows:
Saanich 546 (88% response rate) Mill Bay 274 (65% response rate) Total/Average 820 (79% response rate)
The lower response rate in Mill Bay results primarily from approximately 90 Brentwood College students who attended the open house but did not pick up or complete the questionnaires. If the 90 students are not factored in to the attendance figures, the response rate would have been 83% for Mill Bay (more in line with the Saanich rate) and 86% overall.
The "Snap Shot" results were entered into an Excel spreadsheet program by BC Environment staff. The results were then sorted and analyzed by Woodward Environmental Management. Questions one through three required participants to check off their preferences from a range of options and were therefore easily quantified. Question four asked for written comments on expectations for the future and therefore had to be sorted as qualitative data. Each written comment was read in entirety (not just key words), coded for meaning and then grouped together to get a sense of the most common comments or themes.
The written comment forms required participants to spend much more time providing details of their thoughts regarding Saanich Inlet. Although the response rate for the written forms was much lower than for the "Snap Shot", it was a very strong response rate for a detailed written form - particularly given that there was also a shorter form. Judging by the length of comments, it likely took anywhere from 10 to 45 minutes to fill out the four-page written comment forms. Participants were permitted to take the written comment forms home and send them in to the Study Office. All forms were numbered to ensure that multiple copies of completed forms were not submitted. The number of returned forms and response rates are as follows:
Saanich 161 (26% response rate) Mill Bay 85 (20% response rate) Total/Average 246 (24% response rate)
Again, if the Brentwood College students are not factored into the attendance figures, the response rate for Mill Bay would be 26% - the same rate as for Saanich.
Comments were entered into and sorted within an Excel spreadsheet program by Woodward Environmental Management. For each of the 13 questions, responses were read for meaning, coded and then sorted into categories of common themes or responses. This process required the analyst to interpret the meaning of a broad range of comments, allowing the flavour of the comments to point out common themes (rather than predetermining categories or themes and then sorting the responses accordingly). Where one person's answer contained many different points, each point was coded separately. Once the responses were sorted into major categories, the number of responses per category were tabulated. The number of responses per category then gives us a general indication of the frequency of various responses. A prioritized list of responses was then generated for each question. In categories that had a large number of responses, sub-categories were created.
The written comment form and "Snap Shot" provide a general picture of the open house participants. The "Snap Shot" asked participants to provide their home community and the written comment form asked participant show long they had taken an interest in Saanich Inlet. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the communities noted on the "Snap Shots". Participants came most frequently from North Saanich, Central Saanich, Mill Bay, Saanich and Victoria.
The written comment form asked participants how long they had taken an interest in Saanich Inlet. The numbers ranged from one year to 75 years, with an average of 22 years. Figure 2 shows the distribution of responses in 10 year intervals. The largest number of responses fell into the 1 to 10 year category (81 responses or 34% of the total). The chart shows a long history of interest in the inlet with a recent surge in the past 10 to 20 years. Nine participants indicated their interest as being "all my life" and one noted an interest of four generations.
Table 1: Home Communities
Saanich Inlet is used for a variety of activities. The snap shot asked participants to indicate what activities they have taken part in the their lifetime and in the past year. Table 2 and Figures 3 and 4 show the results. Looking at the activities carried out in the past year and in the lifetime, it is clear that hiking or walking; wildlife viewing; and beachcombing and picnicking are very popular activities. While some wildlife viewing is likely done beneath or one the water, the top three activities in Saanich Inlet take place on the shoreline or in the surrounding upland area. The remaining activities are primarily water-based uses such as swimming, boating and SCUBA diving.
There are a few differences between activities in the past year and in the lifetime. While swimming is the fourth-ranked activity in both, the percentage of people swimming drops from 64% in their lifetime to 38% in the past year. Fishing also drops from 57% to 31% and from the fifth to seventh position. Power boating moves up from seventh place in the lifetime to fifth place in the past year. These differences could indicate a trend of decreasing activity in swimming and fishing and an increase in power boating.
Table 2: Uses of Saanich Inlet
Those participants who take part in recreational fishing were asked to indicate the number of days per year they fish or harvest a variety of marine species. Table 3 shows the number of people who fish, the number of days/year the fish and the average number of fishing days per person per year. Salmon is the most commonly sought-after species, followed by bottom fish. Crab, prawns and clams are harvested less frequently than fin fish. Figure 5 illustrates the number of fishing days per year for each of the species.
Table 3: Recreational Fishing
The written comment form asked participants to indicate the areas where they most commonly carry out their activities. Table 4 shows the full range of responses and Figure 6 illustrates the commonly used areas noted by more than 15 people. These data show that Brentwood Bay, Mill Bay and Goldstream are the three most popular areas. A number of people also indicated that they use the entire inlet. Tod Inlet, Pat Bay, Coles Bay and the Bamberton area were also identified as popular areas.
Table 4: Areas Where Activities Take Place
Area No. of Responses
All parts of the inlet 38
Goldstream 45
Partridge Hills 2
Anchorage Marina 1
Gowllands 15
Patricia Bay 29
Arbutus Island 1
Hagan Creek 2
Sansum Narrows 2
Arbutus Ridge area 2
Hatch Point 1
Satellite Channel 7
Ardmore shore 9
Henderson Point 2
Senanus Island 6
Bamberton area 23
Horticulture Centre 1
Southern areas of the inlet 2
Beaches along the inlet 8
Jocelyn Ridge 2
Spectacle Creek 2
Bold Bluff 2
John's Creek area 1
Squally Reach 5
Brentwood Bay 53
Madrona area 3
Stone House area 1
Central Saanich 3
Malahat 8
Thompson Cove 3
Cherry Point 4
McKenzie Bight 22
Tod Inlet 36
Coal Point 1
Mill Bay 46
Towner Bay 1
Cobble Hill 1
Moses Point 4
Verdier Point 1
Coles Bay 28
Mount Finlayson 5
Wace Creek 1
Commonwealth Park 2
Mount Newton area 1
Wain Rock 1
Cowichan Bay 5
Mount Work 4
West side of the inlet 3
Cowichan Valley 1
Native House 1
Whiskey Point 4
Deep Cove 21
Niagara Creek 1
Willis Point 4
East side of inlet 5
North end of the inlet 3
Finlayson Arm 17
North Saanich 7
Total 50
4.3 Valued Characteristics of Saanich Inlet
Two sources of information provided a picture of the most highly valued characteristics of Saanich Inlet. The "Snap Shot" provided a range of options from which to choose each persons' top three characteristics and the written comment provided an open-ended opportunity to indicate values. The results of the "Snap Shot" are shown in Table 5 and Figure 7. The written comment results are shown in Figure 8 with selected quotes shown in Box 1 . The top three characteristics in both sets of data are the natural beauty of the inlet, plant and animal life and recreation. Natural beauty includes all comments regarding views, scenery and aesthetic appeal.
An interesting difference between the two forms of input is that peace and solitude, and cultural/spiritual qualities are reversed in their ranking. The most probable reasons for this are that the "Snap Shot" did not include peace and solitude as a category so it would have a much reduced response on the snap shot (only 3 added it in the "other" category), and some may have interpreted cultural and spiritual qualities to include peace and solitude.
Another difference is the ranking of water quality as a valued characteristic. It is sixth on the written comment form and eleventh on the "Snap Shot". This is very likely due to the absence of water quality as an option on the "Snap Shot". Together these two data sources provide a clear indication of the most highly valued characteristics of Saanich Inlet: natural beauty and scenery; plant and animal life; recreational opportunities; cultural/ spiritual qualities; peace and solitude; fishing opportunities; water quality and accessibility. Accessibility includes both access to the inlet from the shoreline and proximity to populated areas.
Table 5: Valued Characteristics
What elements of Saanich Inlet do you value most highly?
Participants were asked on the written comment form to indicate any changes they have seen in Saanich Inlet over time (See Figure 9 and Box 2) The most common response was the increase in development, followed by loss of fishing opportunities, and loss of plants and wildlife. Other changes noted were the decrease in water quality, changes in recreational opportunities and increases in noise and traffic.
The most common specific changes noted regarding the increase in development over time were the development of Port Royale in Brentwood Bay and Arbutus Ridge. A smaller number of participants also pointed out the increase in development in Mill Bay. Other changes related to development included the negative impact on scenery and water quality in the inlet
Specific changes noted regarding the loss of fishing opportunities were the decrease in fish, particularly salmon, the decrease in shellfish, the increase in commercial prawn fishing and the decrease in crab and prawn.
Some of the changes noted regarding the loss of plant and animal life were the loss of marine life, wildlife, trees and vegetation, and changes to the balance of the ecosystem.
Comments on the decrease in water quality referred to an increase in seepage from septic systems, an increase in shellfish closures and an increase in red tides. Changes in recreational opportunities included a decrease in swimming, and an increase in power boating and use of trails in new park areas. The increase in traffic was a changed noted primarily by residents of Mill Bay.
What changes have you experienced in Saanich Inlet?
4.5 Effects of Changes In the Past
After participants identified the changes they had noticed over time, they were asked to indicate how these changes had affected their activities (See Figure 10 and Box 3). The most common response was that the changes had resulted in reduced enjoyment or reduced frequency of activities in the inlet. The activities most commonly referred to here were enjoyment of the scenic beauty of the inlet, fishing, swimming, other recreation and their sense of peace and quiet.
The second most frequent response was that participants had completely stopped certain activities such as fishing, swimming, water-skiing, boating, picnicking and beachcombing.
The remainder stated that the changes had little or no effect, that the changes pointed to the need for more protection or that they had been affected in a positive way. Those noting a positive effect spoke of the new park areas and their resulting increase in activities such as walking, hiking, bird and wildlife watching.
How have these changes affected your activities in the inlet?
4.6 Current Conditions of Saanich Inlet
When asked about the current condition of Saanich Inlet, most participants believe that the inlet has deteriorated and is threatened by further development (See Figure 11 and Box 4). Many who expressed concern over the deterioration of the inlet stated that the inlet requires protection through controls on development. Some participants believe the inlet is fine as it and should be kept the same. The main problem identified in the inlet was water quality resulting from sewage. Some said the inlet is degraded, but has the potential to be improved and pointed to the success of salmon enhancement in Goldstream as a hopeful sign. Others said they needed more information before they could make a statement on the current condition.
What are your thoughts about the current condition of Saanich Inlet?
The written comment form asked participants to express any potential changes or trends in Saanich Inlet that cause them concern (See Figure 12 and Box 6). The most common responses were the increase in residential development and specifically, the Bamberton proposal. Other high priority changes of concern were impacts on plants and wildlife, the degradation of water quality. Impacts from boats and marinas, proposals for industrial and commercial development, impacts on fishing and increases in noise were also changes of concern.
The most common specific concerns related to residential development were the potential environmental impacts, the impacts of increasing the population density and the visual impacts of development on the scenic beauty of the area. Two developments, Port Royale and Arbutus Ridge were singled out as developments that generated concern.
The Bamberton proposal also generated a high level of concern. The aspects of Bamberton most commonly noted as being of concern were the potential environmental impacts, potential visual impacts and the proposed size and scale of the development.
Participants' concerns regarding plant and animal life impacts were primarily related to the loss of marine life and wildlife, loss of vegetation (particularly trees and forest), and the overall disruption to the ecosystem.
Concerns regarding water quality focused mainly on the impacts of sewage and septic systems from both residential areas and boats. Comments regarding boats and marinas were mostly concerns regarding noise, increased traffic and pollution. Industrial and commercial development concerns included an increasing number of proposals for large-scale developments, and a bridge across the inlet. Concerns regarding fishing referred to impacts of the commercial prawn fishery and the decline in recreational fishing.
What potential changes or trends in Saanich Inlet cause you concern?
Two closely related aspects of Saanich Inlet stood out as those considered to be most sensitive to change: the water quality and marine life (See Figure 13 and Box 7). Other aspects thought to be very sensitive to change were plant and animal life, the visual appeal or beauty of the area, the ecological balance of the inlet, recreation and tourism opportunities, the peace and quiet or serenity of the inlet, the shorelines and beaches, the cultural and spiritual values and air quality.
The answers to this question regarding uses or valued characteristics that participants believe are most sensitive to change are interesting when put together with the answers above regarding changes or trends of concern. From these two sources of information it is possible to get a sense of the activities that are generating concern (i.e. residential development, the Bamberton Proposal, increased boat traffic, increased proposals for industrial or commercial development and commercial fishing) and the impacts these activities are seen to be causing (i.e. loss of marine life, degradation of water quality, loss of wildlife and trees, increased noise and traffic from boats and marinas, decline in recreational fishing and loss of aesthetic appeal).
What uses or valued characteristics of Saanich Inlet do you believe are most sensitive to change?
4.9 Expectations for The Future
Open House participants were also asked a series of very constructive question about their expectations for the future. On the written comment form they were asked what changes they would like to see in the future and to identify how the sensitive uses and values and characteristics could be protected in the future. On the "Snap Shot", participants were asked to image their own ideal Saanich Inlet in the 21st Century and note in what ways it was the same as the inlet of today and in what way it was different. The results of each are shown below and then an overall sense of future directions is provided.
When asked to suggest changes they would like to see in the future, participants favoured the ideas of designating the inlet as a park, restricting development, and improving water quality (See Figure 14 and Box 8). Other ideas were to restrict uses of the inlet, restore and enhance the inlet, make institutional changes in how the inlet is managed, increase access to the inlet and increase recreational opportunities. Some participants simply replied "change nothing".
Participants came up with three different forms of park designation: parkland, ecological reserve and marine park. These designation covered both the inlet waters and the surrounding uplands - many saw the need to protect the two together. Others stated that they want some form of protected status (such as restrictive covenants or zoning) to maintain forests and greenspace.
Suggested changes regarding how development could be managed included adding more controls to development, completely restricting all further development, reducing the pace or extent of development and restricting all shoreline development.
As in other questions, it was suggested that water quality be improved by addressing sewage from residential areas and boats. The restrictions to uses of the inlet were primarily related to the use of power boats. Some suggested that there be restricted hours or areas where power (other than electric motors) could not be used. The recreational seadoos or jet skis were of particular concern - some suggested they be banned completely.
Thoughts on restoring the inlet related to supporting the Goldstream Salmon Enhancement Program specifically, and "cleaning the inlet" generally. Institutional changes focused on the need to step up enforcement of over fishing, seepage from septic systems, and effluent from freighters. Other suggested changes were to improve access to the inlet and to improve recreational opportunities by building more trails and boat ramps around the inlet.
What changes would you like to see in Saanich Inlet in the Future?
The suggestions to protect sensitive uses and values of the inlet included many of the same ideas as above (See Figure 15 and Box 9). In fact, the top four suggestions are the same. This time, though, the desire to restrict development became the top priority. There were more suggestions this time about how government can step in to protect the uses and values of the inlet: through education and public awareness, public consultation, increased enforcement, comprehensive planning, and research activities.
How could sensitive uses and values be protected in the future?
The "Snap Shot" asked participants to reflect on their uses and values of the inlet and then create their own person image of the ideal Saanich Inlet in the 21st Century. They were asked in what ways this would be the same as today and different from today. Their answers give us a vision of what participants would like to see in the future (See Figure 16 and Box 10). In their vision, development is restricted and the inlet remains very much like it is today. Many of the respondents who indicated they wanted the inlet to stay the same also mentioned how they thought it could stay the same - through restricted development and park designation. Common changes participants want to see in the future are efforts to restore the inlet to previous conditions (primarily the abundance of fish and shellfish), improve water quality, increase access to the inlet, increase recreational opportunities (particularly walking paths), and restrict uses of the inlet (use of power boats and seadoos).
Putting all three sources of data together, a number of consistent themes emerge. Respondents clearly want to see restrictions placed on development. Some go as far as to say no further development, while others want less development, controls on the impacts of development or no shoreline development. Many want to see Saanich Inlet and surroundings protected through status as a park, marine park or ecological reserve. These first two ideas can be seen as ways to maintain Saanich Inlet in its current state - a clearly stated desire of many participants.
Imagine your own ideal picture of Saanich Inlet in the 21st Century.
When it comes to improving Saanich Inlet in the future, people want to see water quality addressed through attention to municipal sewage, septic system, urban and rural runoff and boat effluent. Other suggested improvements are restrictions on uses of the inlet (e.g., power boating, commercial prawn fishing, marina expansion), public education to increase appreciation and stewardship of the inlet, public input to decisions which affect the inlet, increased government enforcement, comprehensive planning for the inlet, restoration and enhancement projects, increased access to the waterfront, and more walking paths around the inlet.
Participants were asked on the written comment form to express how the open houses met their expectations and how public consultation could be improved in the future. The responses to both questions were overwhelmingly positive and constructive.
In terms of what participants thought about the open house, many provided one- or two-word responses: interesting, informative, excellent, good (See Figure 17 and Box 11). What they appreciated most was the opportunity to receive information about the inlet and provide their own input (through discussions and the questionnaires). Many participants enjoyed the slides and video programs, the "informative" people to talk with and the display panels. Some said that the open house raised or reinforced their interest in the inlet and motivated them to take a more active interest in the future. Some mentioned that they were pleased with the turn out and to be in the company of others with similar interests. A number noted that they appreciated the information and involvement of First Nations.
The most common suggestions about how to improve consultation in the future were to have more open houses and provide more information (See Figure 18 and Box 12). People wanted more information on a range of subjects, including: the terrestrial surroundings of the inlet, possible future scenarios for the inlet, a clearer picture of water quality in the inlet, wildlife that inhabits the area, First Nations historical uses, suggestions on how individuals can help clean up the inlet, impacts of sewage outfall. Other suggested ways of distributing information presented at the open house to a wider audience.
Many suggested other public consultation formats that would be appropriate at future stages: panel discussions, facilitated workshop sessions, a referendum, seminars, computer bulletin boards, question/answer sessions and an open forum. A number of participants thought that the issue of Bamberton should have been addressed directly. They wanted to see the details of the proposal and the impacts it would have on the aspects of the inlet being considered during the open house.
Many comments encouraged the use of media coverage (TV, radio and newspaper) to communicate the information at the open house to a broader audience. Others added that the questionnaires could be distributed more widely. Some thought that next time open houses should be located in Victoria and over a range of times of day so they would be accessible to more people. It was also suggested that more advertising be done, that information and the video and slide shows be made available to schools, that politicians be involved and informed, and that specific groups with an active interest in the inlet be consulted directly. A number of people thought the video and slide presentations would have been more educational if they included a commentary on the marine life.
In what ways did this open house meet your expectations, interests and needs?
In addition to public comments on the open house process, all staff and Committee Members attending the open houses were asked to comment on the process. Their comments were very consistent with those noted by open house participants on the written comment forms. All comments from the first open house helped to refine the second.
Staff and Committee Members found the mood or tone of the open houses to be very positive, enthusiastic and constructive. Participants seemed eager to learn about the inlet and were comfortable expressing their concerns. A very small number of participants expressed skepticism regarding the open houses, wonder whether any positive change would result from public input. Staff and Committee Members were also asked whether the open houses met the stated objectives of introducing the Study, exchanging information about the inlet and gathering input on public uses, values and expectations. In all cases, the objectives were attained.
In what ways could we improve our public consultation in the future?
The Saanich Inlet Study open houses succeeded in gathering together over one thousand community members to introduce the study, exchange information about Saanich Inlet and collect information regarding public uses, values, concerns and expectations of the inlet. People who attended the open houses found the displays and presentations very interesting and educational and appreciated the opportunity to provide input to the study. Public and Technical Advisory Committee Members engaged in productive and informative dialogue with members of the public and found the open houses to be a positive and valuable experience.
The written comment form and "Snap Shots" provided volumes of detailed information about how the public views Saanich Inlet. Highlights of the input include the following:
Thank you to all who participated in the Saanich Inlet Study open houses!
Prepared for:
Water Quality Branch
Environmental Protection Department
B.C.
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
Prepared by:
Patricia Howie
Woodward Environmental Management
June 1995
Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided major support of the Saanich Inlet Study Open Houses in the form of their facilities at the Institiute of Ocean Sciences, display materials, and the time of numerous scientists.
Acknowledgments are also due to those agencies, organizations and individuals who supported the Saanich Inlet Study Open Houses with their valuable contributions and involvement. These include:
Cover Design:
Domo Communications Management
Coast Salish Design:
"Thunderbird and Salmon"
Roddy Albert Modeste Sr.
Malahat
First Nation
Document Information Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Howie, Patricia.
Saanich Inlet study. Open house report
ISBN 0-7726-2580-8
1. Water quality - British Columbia - Saanich Inlet. 2. Land use, Rural - British Columbia - Saanich Inlet Region - Planning. 3. Saanich Inlet (B.C.) I. BC Environment. Water Quality Branch. II. Title.
TD227.S3H68 1995
363.73'942'0971128
C95-960303-4
|
Last updated: August 8, 2001
