PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, September 20, 2012 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda

INTRODUCTIONS 2. Introduction of new staff members

DELEGATIONS 3. Kirk Carwithen and Mark Rodgers re: Bylaw 310.144 (AJB Investments) (ANNEX A) 4. Ruth Simons, Future of Howe Sound Society, regarding the proposed gravel mine at McNab Creek (ANNEX B)

BYLAWS 5. Bylaw 310.144 (AJB Investments) ANNEX A Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) pp 1 - 6

COMMUNICATIONS 6. Ruth Simons, Future of Howe Sound Society, Fact Sheet on Howe Sound ANNEX B and McNab Creek pp 7 - 13 7. Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding glass sponge ANNEX C reefs, dated July 18, 2012 pp 14 - 16 8. Ian Anderson, President, Kinder Morgan Canada regarding Proposed ANNEX D Trans Mountain Expansion Project - Update, dated July 11, 2012 pp 17 - 20 9. Sunshine Coast Tourism 2012 Mid Year Update dated July 23, 2012 ANNEX E pp 21 - 28 10. Bruce A. Clark, Artificial Reef Society regarding proposed sinking of former ANNEX F HMCS Annapolis, dated July 17, 2012 pp 29 - 30 11. Jeannine R. Ritchot, Health Canada regarding Marihuana Medical Access ANNEX G Program dated July 16, 2012 pp 31 - 32 12. Sue Harvey, Administrator, Town of Port McNeill regarding Burnco’s ANNEX H Aggregate Shipping Operation, dated July 18, 2012 pp 33 - 34

Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 3

REPORTS 13. Liquid Waste Management in more densely settled rural areas ANNEX I pp 35 - 38 14. Approved Old Growth Management Areas in the Howe Landscape Units ANNEX J (Regional Planning Services) pp 39 - 69 15. Invasive Plants Update ANNEX K (Regional Planning Services) pp 70 - 84 16. Agricultural Land Commission Changes ANNEX L (Regional Planning Services) pp 85 - 101 17. Re-Consideration of Risk Assessment and Liability Policy ANNEX M (Rural Planning Services) pp 102 - 104 18. Highway Frontage Waiver – Subdivision 2012-01002 (Singleton) ANNEX N Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) pp 105 - 106 19. Highway Frontage Waiver – MOTI #2011-05530 (Macaulay) ANNEX O Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) pp 107 - 108 20. Licence of Occupation Application File 2410732 by Pender Harbour ANNEX P Landing Ltd. for a Group Moorage Facility fronting DL 1543 in Pender pp 109 - 127 Harbour Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 21. Narrows Inlet Hydro Project ANNEX Q Electoral Areas A & B (Rural Planning Services) pp 128 - 138 22. District of Sechelt referral regarding OCP amendment to the bonus ANNEX R Density Policies for Affordable Housing pp 139 - 160 (Rural Planning Services) 23. Referral from Town of Gibsons, 842 Chaster Road in Gospel Rock area ANNEX S (SD#2011-05) pp 161 - 164 (Rural Planning Services) 24. Islands Trust referral Gambier Associated Islands Bylaw ANNEX T (Rural Planning Services) pp 165 - 172 25. Bylaw Enforcement in Halfmoon Bay ANNEX U Electoral Area B (Bylaw Enforcement) pp 173 - 193 26. Building Department Revenues to end of August, 2012 ANNEX V (Building Inspection) pp 194 - 200 27. Planning and Development Monthly Report for July & August, 2012 ANNEX W (Regional/Rural Planning Services) pp 201 - 208 28. Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes of July 25, 2012 ANNEX X (Regional Planning Services) pp 209 - 212 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, September 20, 2012 Page 3 of 3

29. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of July 25, 2012 ANNEX Y Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) pp 213 - 215 30. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of July 24, 2012 ANNEX Z Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) pp 216 - 218 31. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of August 27, 2012 ANNEX AA Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) pp 219 - 220 32. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of July 25, 2012 ANNEX BB Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) pp 221 - 223 33. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of August 21, 2012 ANNEX CC Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) pp 224 - 226

BYLAWS 34. Consideration of 3rd Reading OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaw Nos. ANNEX DD 325.19, 310.134 (Jorgens) pp 227 - 233 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

REPORTS 35. Climate Action Policy Research ANNEX EE pp 234 - 237 36. Referral from Sunshine Coast Regional Hospital District - Consultation ANNEX FF Discussion Guide for “A Public Health Plan for BC” pp 238 - 252

BYLAWS 37. Roberts Creek OCP Bylaw 641 Amended 2nd Reading ANNEX GG Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) pp 253 - 408

IN CAMERA The public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with the Community Charter, Section 90 (1) (k) “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public;” are to be discussed.

ADJOURNMENT

ANNEX A

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 6, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (September 20, 2012) FROM: Andrew Allen, Planner RE: Bylaw Amendment 310.144 (AJB Properties, Area D)

Recommendation

THAT Bylaw Amendment 310.144 be not proceeded with for the following reasons:

A. The proposal fundamentally conflicts with several of the key principles of the We Envision plan, especially those relating to focusing growth in existing neighbourhoods and concentrating development in easily serviceable areas.

B. The proposal is inconsistent with the Resource and Watershed Protection Designation within the new Roberts Creek Official Community Plan;

Background

AJB Investments Ltd. has recently submitted an application to rezone their land holdings in vicinity of the Chapman Creek watershed area and described below:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: District Lots 2461, 2462, 2463, 3373 & 3374 ELECTORAL AREA: D – Roberts Creek LOCATION: In proximity to Chapman Creek EXISTING ZONING: RU4A & RU5 - Z PROPOSED ZONING: RU2 – I PARCEL AREA: +/- 911 hectares

The property owners propose to change the zoning of their properties from RU4A & RU5-Z to RU2-I to facilitate potential rural residential subdivision of parcels 4-8 acres hectares with three dwellings per parcel. The request does not provide any detail of future lot configuration and a straight zoning change could result in upward of 200 parcels, many of which being located with the Chapman Creek watershed area.

The properties are accessible from the forest service road network above Field Road but do not have formal road access. The properties on the road to Dakota Ridge start approximately 4-5 kilometers above the top of Field Road and the properties on the road adjacent to Chapman

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.144\Bylaw 310.144 2012-Sep-20 PDC Report AJB Properties.doc 1 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee July 19, 2012 Re: Bylaw Amendment 310.144 Page 2 of 3

Creek start approximately 3.5 kilometers from the top of Field Road. There is active forest harvesting in this area. A location and zoning map is attached to the report for reference.

The properties are split between the RU4A & RU5 land use zoning and are all located within the Z subdivision district. District Lot 3373 and half of District Lot 3374 are within the RU4A zone and the other half of District Lot 3374 and District Lots 2461, 2462 and 2463 are located within the RU5 zone.

The zoning was changed from RU2-I to the above noted zones in 2005 as a result of an SCRD sponsored zoning bylaw amendment designed to preserve the watershed and resource areas and limit residential development. This was after the Provincial Government eliminated the mandatory forest land reserve and introduced the voluntary Private Managed Forest Land Act (PMFLA). The PMFLA being voluntary allows for property owners to remove their properties from managed forest and utilize the underlying zoning for land use development.

At that time the property owner, AJB Investments Ltd. spoke in opposition to the bylaw amendments at the public hearing indicating that the proposed zones were in contravention of the PMFLA. The PMFLA states that private forest lands are exempt from local government bylaws that would have the effect of limiting forestry use on the properties. The SCRD’s position in 2005 was that the bylaws limited non-forestry use, such as residential, but did not in fact limit forestry and therefore were bylaws that were not inconsistent with the PMFLA.

The RU4A (Rural Forest A) zone permits forest management and auxiliary uses and the RU5 zone (Rural Watershed Protection) zone which would only permit the following uses: forest based outdoor recreation, outdoor natural science education or research, fish and wildlife habitat management and enhancement facilities, interpretative facilities, park, and restricted watershed areas.

There was some debate about whether or not the RU5 zone is too restrictive and not permissive enough for forestry uses; however it was determined that these properties are located in the watershed and are essential to be preserved and the former RU2 zone allowing up to four dwellings per parcel and a range of other uses including keeping of livestock and construction camps were not the appropriate uses within the watersheds.

The land use zones were changed under Bylaw Amendment 310.92 and the subdivision district zoning was changed under Bylaw Amendment 310.96. The bylaws were independent of each other to separate the land uses from the subdivision districts in the event of future challenges to the bylaw. The two bylaws did however receive readings and subsequent adoption at the same Board meetings.

Policy

We Envision

The “We Envision” document is a high level regional plan which establishes land use principles for the Sunshine Coast and individual bylaw amendments should measure up to the strategic direction and principles found within the plan. The “We Envision” document encourages a number of land use principles including:

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.144\Bylaw 310.144 2012-Sep-20 PDC Report AJB Properties.doc

2 1. Focusing growth in existing neighbourhoods; 2. Concentrating new development within easily serviced areas; 3. Providing a variety of transportation choices; 4. Creating diverse housing opportunities; 5. Celebrating the unique attributes of the different communities; 6. Preserving open spaces; 7. Protecting and enhancing agricultural lands; 8. Discouraging development and resource extraction within drinking-water sheds; & 9. Enhancing our aquatic resources for both drinking water and recreation.

The proposed rezoning of the subject properties for residential acreage subdivisions do not meet the intent of the principles and therefore does not meet the strategic directions of the “We Envision” sustainability plan. The following is a brief summary of each of the nine principles:

1. Focusing growth in This particular development is 3.5 to 7 kilometers from existing neighbourhoods the top of Field Road and cannot be described as being located within or in proximity to an existing neighbourhood.

2. Concentrating new There are forest service roads throughout the area; development within easily however they are not currently constructed to public road serviced areas standard and are currently being used for a variety of uses, including hauling of harvested logs and access up the mountain for recreational pursuits. There are no other services like sewer or water-mains in the vicinity.

3. Providing a variety of If the forest service road was constructed and converted transportation choices into a public road the method of transportation would be private vehicle, there would be no other alternate modes of transportation as this is not on a bus route.

4. Creating diverse housing The development does not create diverse housing opportunities opportunities other than produce additional rural acreages.

5. Celebrating the unique Celebrating the unique attributes of the different attributes of the different communities also does not apply as development is not communities consistent with the draft Roberts Creek OCP.

6. Preserving open spaces The proposal is not detailed enough at this stage to determine the preservation of important open space features such as the Chapman Creek watershed.

7. Protecting and There are some Crown owned properties in the ALR enhancing agricultural abutting D.L. 2461 near Chapman creek. It is unclear at lands this time if development of the subject properties would have an impact on these lands.

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.144\Bylaw 310.144 2012-Sep-20 PDC Report AJB Properties.doc 3 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee July 19, 2012 Re: Bylaw Amendment 310.144 Page 4 of 5

8. Discouraging The proposed rezoning could lead to development in the development and resource watershed unless there was an agreement to protect all extraction within drinking- of the watershed area in exchange for development water sheds potential on the adjacent lands.

9. Enhancing our aquatic The proposal does not enhance our aquatic resources for resources for both both drinking water and recreation unless there is some drinking water and discussion for permanent protection of the watershed. recreation

Draft Roberts Creek OCP

The subject properties are not located within the existing OCP boundary; however the draft OCP for Roberts Creek includes an expanded area, which will encompass the subject parcels. The draft OCP is at first reading stage and likely to proceed to consideration for adoption at a later date this year. While the policies in the draft OCP are not yet formally in place, they should be considered in the context of decision making for rezoning applications.

There are two proposed land use designations that apply these properties: Watershed Protection and Resource. The draft OCP speaks strongly to the desire to protect the Chapman Creek watershed and draft Policy 13.14 directly states that no development should take place in the watershed:

“Land that is presently designated and zoned for watershed protection should remain in such a zone and not have development potential. “

The watershed designation applies to the portions of the property adjacent to Chapman Creek, not identical to but based on the RU5/RU4A zoning boundary.

The Resource designation also discourages development and recognizes the value of forestry; both economic and environmental values. Policy 18.3 states the following:

“Residential uses are not compatible with such activity (resource) and will not be a permitted use. “

Neither of the draft OCP Land Use designations support a zoning amendment from RU4A and RU5 – Z to RU2-I and therefore we can conclude that the rezoning application is not consistent with the community planning for this area.

Source Assessment Response Plan

The recently developed Source Assessment Response Plan (SARP) was developed with an analysis of the variety of land uses that are currently in place. If the rezoning does proceed with residential uses within the watershed the SARP should then be reconsidered to determine the impact of residential uses within this particular area.

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.144\Bylaw 310.144 2012-Sep-20 PDC Report AJB Properties.doc

4 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee July 19, 2012 Re: Bylaw Amendment 310.144 Page 5 of 5

Options

The two options at this time are to not proceed with the bylaw amendment or conditionally support moving forward with drafting a bylaw and initial referral to the Roberts Creek APC.

Planning staff recommend that the bylaw not proceed due to reasons noted in the report. However if the Board chooses to support moving the application forward, the applicant should be directed to prepare a detailed proposal including, at minimum: the approximate layout of proposed parcels, road access, watershed protection and proposed park dedication.

As it stands now the change of zoning could yield over 200 parcels all zoned for multiple dwellings, many of which located within the Chapman Creek watershed. If this application is to move forward further information is required as to the location and number of proposed parcels and servicing and access requirements.

Conclusion

In 2005 the SCRD Board made the decision to change the zoning on the properties in proximity to Chapman Creek owned by AJB Investment Ltd. The decision was made to protect the watershed and forest resource areas from adverse developments such as residential developments and other associated uses incompatible with the surrounding location.

Subsequent to the bylaw amendments in 2005 the SCRD has commenced work on an updated and expanded Roberts Creek Official Community Plan and adopted the “We Envision” regional sustainability plan, neither of which supports residential development in this area. It is therefore recommended that this bylaw amendment request not proceed and the zoning remain as is.

______Andrew Allen, Planner

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.144\Bylaw 310.144 2012-Sep-20 PDC Report AJB Properties.doc

5 AJB Investments Ltd Properties RU5 and RU4A Zoning :

STRU5

VURU4A

VURU4A

0500 1,000 2,000 Meters

Legend This information has been compiled by the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) using data derived from a number of sources AJB Properties RU4A Zoning with varying levels of accuracy. The SCRD disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this information. Parcel Boundaries RU5 Zoning Date: 26/06/2012 Watersheds 6 ANNEX B

From: Ruth Simons [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September-06-12 4:10 PM To: SCRD General Inquiries Subject: Delegation request sent

Dear Angie Legault,

On Thursday September 6th, I faxed to your office a delegation request form for the September 20th planning meeting of the SCRD.

I trust the form was received. Please find attached a Fact Sheet produced by the Future of Howe Sound Society and please refer to the petition on the website at www.futureofhowesound.org. I will bring a copy of the petition wording with me to the meeting.

The intention is to provide background on the Society and to speak about the petition, of which 1,000 will have been received by MP John Weston, MLA Joan McIntyre and MLA Nicholas Simons. It was on the recommendation of SCRD Director Lorne Lewis that the planning meeting would be the appropriate venue for me to inform the SCRD board members and staff.

I will also be speaking about plans for a forum on the Future of Howe Sound being planned for the new year.

I look forward to hearing back regarding my request.

Thank you,

Ruth Simons, on behalf of the Future of Howe Sound Society 604 921-6564

7

July 18, 2012

Fact Sheet on Howe Sound and McNab Creek

Howe Sound

 Spectacular Howe Sound is North America's southernmost fjord. It is located between Metro Vancouver and the Sunshine Coast and extends for 42 km from West Vancouver northwards to Squamish.  The larger communities in Howe Sound include Gibsons and Langdale on the Sechelt Peninsula, Bowen Island, Horseshoe Bay and Lions Bay on the eastern shoreline and Squamish located at the head of the Sound. Several smaller communities are dotted throughout the area including Britannia, Furry Creek, Brunswick Beach, McNab Creek, Douglas Bay, Brigade Bay, West Bay, Sea Ranch and New Brighton.  Many islands and clusters of islands are found within Howe Sound. The largest are Bowen Island and Gambier Island while smaller islands include Keats, Bowyer, Anvil and Passage islands.  Howe Sound is Vancouver's backyard playground for sailing, diving, camping, hiking, fishing and a myriad of other recreational activities. These recreational pursuits support significant economic activity in Howe Sound and surrounding urban areas.  Tourists from all over the world are attracted to the Vancouver region and the Sea to Sky corridor, in part as a result of the spectacular scenery of Howe Sound.  Home to an active commercial prawn fishery that serves the local market.  Film and TV production crews regularly use Howe Sound for filming because of the availability of a “wild” location in such close proximity to Vancouver.

Howe Sound Industrial History and Recent Recovery

 Howe Sound has a history of industrial mismanagement and abuse.  The decommissioned copper mine at Britannia Beach, once the largest in the British Empire, discharged considerable toxic effluent including copper, cadmium, iron and zinc into Howe Sound between 1905 and 2001. The area around the mine was described as the "worst point source of mineral contamination in North America" and had a devastating effect on local fish populations. The environment is only now showing signs of recovery. The cost of the Britannia Beach cleanup has already reached $46 million and may well reach $200m, paid for largely by BC taxpayers.  Other industrial users such as pulp mills spent millions of dollars over the last 20 years upgrading their environmental standards.  The return on these extensive and costly remediation efforts has only recently become evident with the returning marine life.

Media contact: 604-985-5562 │ [email protected] Page 1

8

McNab Creek

 The McNab Creek Valley is located on the west side of Howe Sound between Gibsons and Squamish. It is directly across from the north end of Gambier Island and faces directly onto Thornborough Channel.  McNab Creek is one of only three estuaries in Howe Sound. The creek flows through a forested, glacial valley. The alluvial deposits left by the glacial melt water provide a rich habitat for plants, animals and fish.  The watershed supports populations of coho, chinook, pink and chum salmon as well as rainbow trout, steelhead trout and other species.  Approximately 15 recreational properties are located on the east side of McNab Creek and it is less than 2 kms directly across the channel from 55 properties at Douglas Bay on Gambier Island.  Popular recreational activities at McNab include kayaking, canoeing, sailing and paddle boarding as well as camping, fishing, crabbing, prawning, hiking, mountain biking, wildlife watching and relaxing on the white sand beach.  The area is frequented by boaters from the two yacht club outstations on Gambier, as well as from over a dozen marinas in the area. Children and other campers from the multiple summer camps in the area enjoy recreational activities on the peaceful waters of the north side of Gambier. Camp Potlach, a children’s camp adjacent to McNab hosts over 1000 children a year.  Wildlife commonly seen in the valley and on the foreshore and beach include bears, deer, eagles, heron, river otters, salmon and an increasing number of sightings of marine mammals including pacific white sided dolphins and orcas have occurred in the adjoining marine area.  Roosevelt Elk, a species at risk, were transplanted to McNab Creek by the BC Ministry of Environment in 2001 in an effort to re-introduce the species to the area.

Quick Facts on Proposed McNab Mine

 BURNCO Rock Products Limited of Calgary is proposing a large scale gravel mining and crushing facility at McNab Creek in Howe Sound.  The mine is expected to produce 1 to 4 million tonnes per annum of sand and gravel for export over a mine life of 20 years.  Initially the processing plant may be active 12 hours per day, 260 days per year, but if demand is there Burnco would like to run 24/7, 365 days a year.  Burnco will build a marine loading facility, designed to accommodate 5,000 to 6,000 deadweight tonnage barges. It will consist of a series of pilings that support a fixed, above-ground electric conveyor with a capacity to move 1,000 tonnes of gravel per hour.  Burnco plan to use an extraction method, based upon an electrically powered floating clamshell dredge equipped with a primary crusher and a floating conveyor system.

Media contact: 604-985-5562 │ [email protected] Page 2

9

 In the project’s first phase, a 77 hectare industrial pit will be dug out of the McNab Creek estuary to depths of 55 metres below surface grade and more than 15 metres below the water table.  Water will be recycled from settling ponds at an estimated capacity of 15,100 litres per hour.  A crushing and processing plant will be constructed in the McNab Valley and the sand and gravel will be processed on site. Processed sand and gravel will be stockpiled prior to loading onto barges by conveyor and transported by barge to plants in Burnaby and Port Kells, BC. Burnco estimates each barge will take 6-7 hrs to fill.  Filled barges will be towed through the Howe Sound and the Ramilles Channel to the Fraser River.  Burnco proposes to remediate the site at closure with a 77 hectare lake, in place of the existing estuary.  For an overview of the project see: Synopsis  For the latest project description see: Project

Aggregate Mine Impact on Sustainability for the Region

Environmental Impacts

 The Burnco open pit mine will impact the environment in obvious ways through the loss of and disturbance to the immediate habitat for mammals, fish, plants and birds.  The gravel pit will completely remove an estuary and extend from one side of the valley to the other completely altering the course of the creek and its tributaries across the valley floor. This will have a negative impact on the freshwater habitat and the animal and plant life that depends on it.  In June of 2010, DFO determined that the project would result in harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (“HADD”) of fish habitat and advised Burnco that DFO was not prepared to issue a HADD authorization. In response, Burnco filed a judicial review application against DFO in Supreme Court. Subsequently, DFO agreed to participate in a full environmental review. However, in June, 2011, DFO issued a letter in which they stated that they “continue to have serious concerns about the extent of the impacts to fish and fish habitat that may result from this project” and that “The project presents a high risk to Salmon and Salmon habitat.”  There are major concerns about the crushing and loading facilities and associated noise, glare from industrial lighting, vibrations, dust, emissions and destruction or damage to wildlife habitat both terrestrial and aquatic.  Noise and vibrations have been found to negatively impact the ability of large marine mammals to communicate, navigate and find food and are increasingly believed to impact their fertility.  Nesting eagles and their young are particularly sensitive to noise. The project area is known to have active eagle nests.  The area of the McNab foreshore where construction of the barge loading facility is proposed is considered prime aquatic habitat.

Media contact: 604-985-5562 │ [email protected] Page 3

10

 There are 21 species inhabiting the project area (fish, mammals, amphibians, birds and plants) that have been identified by Burnco's own consultants as being on the Species at Risk list. See here for more detail on their published known Species at Risk within their proposed project. o Of these 21 species at risk, 11 are listed as being of "Special Concern", o 3 are listed as "Threatened" and 1 is considered "Endangered".

 In the last two years, for the first time in decades, Grey Whales, Orcas and Pacific White Sided Dolphins have all been observed in Thornborough Channel, next to the McNab foreshore. This is an extremely encouraging sign of the returning health of the region's ecosystem.

Economic Impacts

Burnco Benefits

 Economically, this proposed mine project will benefit only the Calgary based company, Burnco, through enhancements to their bottom line and is expected to create only 12 jobs. While the economic return will accrue to Burnco and a small number of local businesses, significant socio-economic costs and the damage to the bio-diversity of Howe Sound will be borne by the communities and inhabitants of the area and the taxpayers of British Columbia who will derive little benefit from the project.

Film Industry Suffers

 A key source of employment and revenue in the Howe Sound corridor is the BC Film industry. Crews for shows and feature films alike regularly use the area to represent many of the world’s locales. Critical to the film industry, is access to remote locations that are actually within an hour of a major urban centre. Howe Sound is a prime destination for filming, providing the key ingredients of scenery, access and silence. The introduction of a gravel barge operation (not to mention a crusher) will remove Howe Sound’s appeal.

Tourism Suffers

 The awe inspiring beauty of Howe Sound was showcased around the world during the 2010 Winter Games. It put Vancouver and BC on the map as a “must see” destination for millions of people globally. Would any of our potential visitors expect that we might contemplate an open pit mine in the middle of such a beautiful landscape?

Media contact: 604-985-5562 │ [email protected] Page 4

11

 Tourism is a significant revenue, tax and job generator in the BC economy contributing $13.8 billion in revenue. It directly employs 132,000 people with many more working in roles that support the industry. The economic effect of the tourism multiplier provides exponential benefit to the BC economy. It is a sustainable industry that offers considerable growth potential for BC. Howe Sound is home to many tourism operators and its proximity to Vancouver offers visitors easy access to “wild” Canada. A gravel mine will not be attractive to international or domestic tourists and endangers the economic benefits expected to flow from the millions of dollars that have been invested in promoting the area around the world.

Taxpayers Suffer

 The costly environmental remediation efforts recently undertaken at taxpayers’ expense will be adversely impacted just at the time when the effect of these expenditures is beginning to take hold. The benefits now accruing to the area from the massive expenditure of public funds will be jeopardized by the harmful impacts of the project.

Recreation Industry Impacted as well as Commercial Fishery

 The McNab Creek estuary and surrounding waters are extensively used by recreational and commercial fishers, boaters, recreational property owners, numerous children’s camps and divers, hikers, and kayakers. All will be impacted by the development of this mine and processing plant. There will be a negative impact on businesses that provide services to this group.  The destruction of fish habitat will negatively impact recreational and commercial fishing in the McNab area.  Directly across from the proposed mine, less than 2 kms away, are outstations for the Vancouver based Burrard and West Vancouver based Thunderbird Yacht Clubs. These outstations have been at this location for more than 40 years. The 600 members of these yacht clubs will be negatively impacted by the loss of enjoyment and land value.  Recreational properties are only accessible by boat. Small businesses that support transportation to these areas such as water taxi, marinas and boating will suffer from the loss of use of the enjoyment at these properties. Any gain to such business from the industrial business will be offset by losses from the recreation industry.

Real Estate and Tax Revenue impacted

 The recreational property owners in the McNab Creek area will see the value of their land and homes plummet as a result of the development of the Burnco gravel pit.  Municipal governments, in particular the SCRD, will have their existing (and future) property taxes in the area eroded.  Potential recreational expansion in the area will be dramatically impacted resulting in a long term economic loss to the small businesses which provide transportation and support services for the area.

Media contact: 604-985-5562 │ [email protected] Page 5

12

Liveability & Social Impacts

 Howe Sound communities have grave concerns about the impact that this facility will have, not only on the immediate estuary and habitat, but also on the whole of Howe Sound. This impact will be felt not only by the communities but also by the myriad of recreational boaters, sailors, kayakers and scuba divers who use the Sound extensively.  The easy accessibility of Howe Sound from the Greater Vancouver area allows thousands of boaters, fishers and children from summer camps to enjoy the wilderness on their doorstep. The development of a mine with its consequent negative noise, light and visual impacts and loss of animal and plant habitat will reduce the attractiveness of Howe Sound for all who enjoy it today as well as for future generations and will reduce our much discussed “liveability”.  The noise, light and visual impacts will not be confined to the McNab Creek area but will be readily apparent at communities such as Lions Bay and from the Sea to Sky highway.

It is time for a long term plan for Howe Sound.

 The communities' concerns about this inappropriate project highlight the fact that there is no long term land and water use plan in place for the Sound. This situation exists despite the fact that there is a Principles of Co-operation document signed by twelve First Nations and local governments which states that there has to be a co-ordinated approach to development. In that document, the First Nations and local communities in the area identify the need to protect the unique bio-physical qualities of the region. Clearly the local communities have stated that we shouldn't be considering these types of projects without first developing a long term plan for the region that takes into account the diverse social and economic interests that will be affected by industrial development of the nature proposed.  The fact that the provincial and federal governments are considering approval of a major industrial project without having first developed a long term land and water use plan in consultation with local First Nations and local governments shows a blatant disregard for the wishes of the local communities and the voters who live throughout the region.

Media contact: 604-985-5562 │ [email protected] Page 6

13 Thank Ms. Dear Planner conservation Sunshine Again, framework Columbia.

Regional Oceans communication The Group Since I your Strait Fishing Yours Coidwater reefs Results

Keith /

appreciate /

/

JUL .

Teresa

working

support. .

Ms.

in

Ashfleld of

my

sncerely.,

you .— 1

has

1

on

the

of

Canada’s appreciate Georgia

District -..

Fortin:

Maràh Coast

the

Corals for

Sensitive created

under

,,

Fortin

Strait

the

group

and

your

risk

,_// >c._-

Fishenes

with

continued

Regional

9,

Board’s glass

the

of protection

arid

analysis (DFO’s)

.1

will 2012 a correspondence

your

/1

Georgia;

stakeholders.

Benthic

work

Government

Sponge

sponge

apply and . .‘

Miruster

contribution.

ç

correspondence

resolution

District

efforts

plan

Oceans

Pacific

will

of

L.-

Areas.

the

implementation

the

Dominated

/

reefs.

help

Ottawa,

to

/ Canad’. of

draft

of

conduct

f

Region of

glass

on

the

4’

DFO of

Canada’s Canada

Thank Ecological ‘. 14

June

glass

Sunshine

sponge

identify

with

Coidwater

Communities

an

K1A

14,

sponge

you

will

ecological

0E6

Ministre

Pêches

Mr.

Policy

2012,

reefs

Risk

for

measures include

Coast

Heath

taking

reefs.

Coral

et

des

to

Analysis

along

regarding

des

as

Manage Regional

risk

Slee,

consultation,

Oceans

and

a the

to

the

assessment

decision-making

protect

Fisheries

time

Framework

Sponge

PLAN:

coast

the

the

District

to

Sunshine

JUL

Impacts

and

glass

of

write

iVEJ ANNEX C

i. Working

and

British

for

in

18

for

the

with

sponge

the ..-

of

2012

Coast SunshineCoastRegionalDistrict 1975FieldRoad P 604.885.6800 Sechelt,BritishColumbia F 604.885.7909 [email protected] Canada VON3A1 Tollfree 1.800.687.5753 www.scrd.ca

June 14, 2012

The Honourable Keith Ashfield, MP email: [email protected] House of Commons Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Parliament Buildings, Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1AOA6

Dear Honourable Keith Ashfield, MP

Re: Glass Sponge Reefs and DFO’sEcological Risk Analysis Framework.

In a letter dated March 9, 2012 addressed to Mr. SIee, President of the Union of BC Municipalities (see attached), you addressed the subject of glass sponge reefs along the coast of British Columbia and the possibility of using these reefs as a pilot application for the Ecological RiskAssessment Framework (ERAF).

As you know there are glass sponge reefs systems in the waters fronting the Sunshine Coast Regional District specifically in the Strait of Georgia near the McCall and Halibut Banks. The Regional District is in the process of erecting signs in our waterfront parks to help inform our community of the existence of these reefs.

At a recent meeting, the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board discussed glass sponge reefs and adopted the following resolution:

219/1 2 Recommendation No.4 Glass Sponge Reefs

THATstaff write a letter to Fisheries and Oceans Canada thanking them for looking into the glass sponge reefs topic and requesting the SCRDbe kept up- to-date on this matter and for additional information about the Ecological Risk Analysis Framework working group and terms of reference;

ANDTHATthe letter and this correspondence be copied to Sechelt Indian Band and the Squamish Nation.

Our Board is supportive of action taken to protect these reefs and wanted to thank the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for their work on sponge reefs.

Also the Regional District is interested to know more about the plans your department for conducting a pilot ERAFon the Strait of Georgia glass sponge reefs.

ELECTORALAREAS:A - Egmont,Pender Harbour B. HalfmoonBay D - Roberts CreekE - ElphinstoneF - WestHoweSound MUNICIPALITIES:DistrictofSechelt/ Sechelt15IndianGovernmentDistrict/ TownofGibsons minister

N:\lnfrastructure

Attachment:

Teresa

cc

Planner

Regards, information.

Please

Regarding Letter

glass

Vancouver,

Sechelt

Chiefs

Chief

to

contact

Fortin the

sponges.docx

Glass Garry

&

and

1 Honourable

Public

BC,

me

Sponge

Council,

VON

Feschuck, BC

Works\5285

at

(604)

V7L4J5

3A0

Reefs

Squamish

Keith 885-6804

Marine

Sechelt

and Ashfield -

Environmental\5285-20

ERAF

Indian

Indian

(ext

5)

Band,

Band, if

16

you

P.O.

Box have

Marine

740,

Box any

Species\Glass

86131-320

5555

questions, Sunshine

Sponges\2012

Seymour

or

Coast require

jun

Blvd.,

Highway, further 13

letter

North Page to

dfo

2

of 2 ANNEX D

17 18 19 20 ANNEX E

Sunshine Coast Tourism

2012 Mid Year Update

July 23, 2012

To: Nicholas Simons, City of Powell River, District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, Powell River Regional District, Sunshine Coast Regional District, Sechelt Indian Government District

We met formally earlier this year and laid out priorities for Sunshine Coast Tourism for the coming year. This report is meant to update you on the significant progress that has been made and share examples of success.

In our presentation, Sunshine Coast Tourism listed 4 top priorities for 2012-2013: 1) Organizational restructuring and funding 2) Position the destination based on our Unique Selling Propositions 3) Promote and develop product and experiences 4) Provide leadership to the industry

Organizational restructuring and funding The key element of charting SCT’s future structure and sustainable funding has been to implement the 2% Municipal & Regional District Tax (MRDT). I am very happy to announce that our application was submitted to the BC Ministry of Finance in July. In addition to letters of support from each of our 6 local governments, we also had signatures of approval representing 56% of eligible accommodation properties representing 64% of the eligible rooms. This support was very much a combined effort of all communities within the region. Not only was it 64% of the eligible rooms, it was 64% of the eligible rooms in our northern region and 63% of the rooms in our southern region.

The MRDT application requests an implementation date of January 1, 2013. As a reminder, the MRDT is a 2% tax that eligible lodgings charge on the purchase price of accommodation. The resulting funds for our region are estimated at $250,000 per year, and our goal is to increase overall room revenues in the region by 4% each year. A very important reminder is that the MRDT legislation requires that these funds be incremental to the existing tourism organization’s marketing budget. Our tourism industry will continue to contribute to the organization through membership fees and cooperative marketing programs. We will also need your local government contributions to continue to maintain a strong organization and our eligibility for the MRDT.

21

Much work has been completed this year in preparation for implementation of the 2% MRDT. The current board completed Tourism BC’s Governing for Success - Enhancing Board Performance workshop sponsored by the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism & Innovation. This allowed the board to reach consensus on moving away from the current active working board structure to a policy board structure where staff carry out the day to day activities of the organization. Following the workshop, new bylaws and standing committee terms of reference have been drafted and will be submitted to the membership for approval at the upcoming AGM. Key elements are to reduce the size of the board from 14 to 11 members. Four seats will be reserved for the MRDT collecting accommodation sector while retaining seats for arts, culture & heritage, recreation, and members at large.

An important aspect of the MRDT funds is that it is to be spent on tourism marketing initiatives and subject to audit each year by the province. Our business plan submitted with the application creates a 75/25 model, with 75% of funds being used for regional marketing and 25% of funds focused on local projects that improve the visitor experience. A standing local projects committee will be created representing all communities and industry sectors to establish a process for awarding these funds annually. Watch for details from this committee in early 2013, but we foresee a process for local organizations and interested parties to apply for funding to support festivals & events, trail & community maps, mobile applications, signage, etc. Projects that will improve the visitor experience.

In late June, we were notified by the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, and Innovation that we had received $23,000 from the Community Tourism Opportunities program which is a 50/50 matching grant. This is the same funding we received last year and is noted in the Ministry’s press release as the maximum funding available where clusters of communities have collaborated on a proposal. Our regional focus is able to bring more resources to the table than if our communities acted individually. It is also a strong statement on our ability to carry out projects as proposed and to report evaluation metrics at their completion over the past 3 years. SCT applies much of its local government funding as the matching dollars necessary to this grant.

Position the destination based on our Unique Selling Propositions Unique Selling Propositions – qualities and products that set the Sunshine Coast region apart from other regions such as Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, or Whistler

MEDIA RELATIONS Our most successful strategy to date has been through our media relations efforts. Newspaper and magazine articles, blog posts, and other forms of journalism are more meaningful and believable to the general public than straight advertisements. Our goal is to allow journalists to have a rich Sunshine Coast experience and to then share with their readers. SCT members contribute accommodation, dining and recreational experiences as examples of what the region has to offer. If you want to follow future articles as they appear, follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

In 2012, SCT has hosted 17 journalists to date either on our own or in partnership with Tourism BC or Vancouver Coast & Mountains. In May, we hosted a 5 day press trip for 4 lower mainland writers representing BC Living, the Weekender, Vancouver is Awesome and 604Pulse. The theme of the trip was ‘Happy Trails’ and we showcased major trails including Skookumchuck Narrows and Sunshine Coast Trail. The trip has already resulted in 8 articles as well as a live twitter feed to an audience of thousands during the trip.

22  BC Living – Exploring the North End of the Sunshine Coast  Vancouver Is Awesome – Happy Trails on the Sunshine Coast (5 post series)  604Pulse – Happy Trails on the Sunshine Coast  604Pulse – Short Nature Walks

Another key focus for media visits this year has been to engage the BC Chinese resident market. We have hosted journalists from 3 major Vancouver based Chinese language publications to share their Sunshine Coast experience in their own words and pictures. I realize most of you cannot read these articles, but the aim is to speak directly to this large Lower Mainland audience who have most likely not visited the region before. The pictures speak for themselves if you can’t read the words.  Epoch Times – Sunshine Coast (30 page spread)  Gourmet Vancouver – Sunshine Coast 1: Gibsons SC2: Sechelt SC3: Pender Harbour SC4: Powell River SC5: Lund SC6: Okeover Arm  Stories without online links also appeared in Ming Pao and Sing Tao

Special events like BC Bike Race bring media exposure and attention from specific interest groups. SCT was very active on facebook and twitter leading up to, during and following the event. This event enhances our region’s reputation for high quality mountain biking.  The Province – BC Bike Race Blog Stage 3 Powell River Stage 4 Earls Cove to Sechelt Stage 5 Sechelt to Langdale  BC Bike Race – Day 3 Powell River Loam Day 4 Powell River to Sechelt Day 5 Sechelt to Langdale  Pinkbike – Day 3 Recap Day 4 Recap Day 5 Recap

Newspaper Coverage  Globe and Mail – How We Ended Up Retiring In Rural British Columbia  Vancouver Sun – A Guide to BC’s Best Camping Parks  National Post – Fest for Success: Dispatches from Canada’s Finest Summer Gatherings  Georgia Straight – Ten Places to Go in BC for Summer Vacation  Delta Optimist – Photos: BC’s Bounteous Backyards  Cowichan Valley Citizen - Powell River’s ‘Breakwater Fleet’ a Historical Sight to Behold

Stories with Legs  Joe Wiebe’s article “Powell River: Where History Comes to Life” appeared The Province, Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun, The StarPhoenix, and TopNewsToday.org in a 2 week period in May. A related story appeared in Vancouver View as “Sunshine Coast Getaway”.  Dene Moore’s article “Travel: Kayaking on BC’s Desolation Sound appeared in the Guelph Mercury and The Waterloo Record in May. This same article ran in 2011 in The Calgary Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, The Guardian, Cape Breton Post, Toronto Metro, Edmonton Metro, and MySask.com  Mike Robinson’s article “The World Needs More Powell River BC” first appeared in the online Calgary Beacon and then ran in the Vancouver Sun later in the week

Magazine Coverage  New Zealand Herald – Canada: British Columbia’s Natural Beauty  BC Business – Navigating BC’s Ale Trail  RV West – Cultural Flavour Meets Recreational Allure Top Things to See & Do on the Sunshine Coast

23  Reader’s Digest – BC’s Sunshine Coast and More Canada’s Most Beautiful Cottage Retreats  Flare Magazine  Our Canada – Vancouver BC – Exploring the Nooks and Crannies of the Sunshine Coast

Boating Coverage  SunCruiser – Exploring the Sunshine Coast  Pacific Yachting – Sol Searching on the Sunshine Coast  Sail Magazine – Making Friends on Desolation Sound  Yachting Magazine – Dinner at Paul’s  Waggoner Cruising Guide – Desolation to Port Harvey  CathieLank.com – Sailing Desolation Sound and the Discovery Islands BC

Member Event Coverage  The Province – New Breweries, New Beer for 2012  Urban Diner – Townsite Brewing Set to Open in Powell River  Where.ca – 14 Romantic Winter Escapes  Sunset – 9 Off-the-grid Getaways  SeventeenSounds – Rockwater Secret Cove Resort Sunshine Coast BC  Miss604 – Townsite Brewing in Powell River Save the Patricia Theatre in Powell River  GrantLawrence.ca – ZUNGA! Townsite Brewery Launches in Powell River  The Tyee – Go Digital or Go Dark

Online Coverage  604Pulse – 34 posts covering our region to date in 2012. 604Pulse is a project of Vancouver Coast & Mountains targeting BC Resident travel & exploration. SCT regularly partners to provide regional content.  BC Living – Take a Fitness Vacation at Sechelt’s Painted Boat Resort BC Adventures – Our To Do Picks for Feb 25-Mar 2 Watch the Running of the Skookumchuck Rapids on BC’s Sunshine Coast BC’s Best Microbreweries Powell River: A Coastal Getaway Gem for Arts, History & Outdoor Lovers  In the Pacific Northwest – Kayaking the Sunshine Coast  For Lack of a Better Term – The Upper Sunshine Coast can also have me anytime  Active Mama – Rockwater Secret Cove Resort Dining Rockwater Secret Cove Resort Tenthouses  Violette’s Creative Juice – A Little Bit of Paradise-The Sunshine Coast  Relish Interiors – Powell River – Top Reasons for Awesomeness!  Niftynotcool – Sunshine Coast Adventures: Nifty at the Painted Boat  NSMB.com – Sprockids Fun Day  Crossing Time Zones – Sakinaw Lake Lodge

Tourism BC Fresh Stories (story ideas sent to journalists)  Kick up Your Heels: BC Offers Top Tracks for Cross-Country Skiing  BC’s Cold Water Settings Make for Cool Climate Adventure

SCT media relations activities are coordinated by Andrea Wickham-Foxwell, Communications Director.

24 ONLINE PRESENCE and SOCIAL MEDIA

In May, SCT launched a new and improved platform for www.sunshinecoastcanada.com. The new site makes use of the high quality imagery that we have acquired over the past 2 years. The site was designed by Powell River based Massive Graphic. A key component of the new look and design is to feature our social media channels (Facebook, Twitter, Blog) prominently on the home page, showcasing the “Live” aspect of the Sunshine Coast.

Website statistics have been great following the launch reflecting the much improved search engine optimization (SEO) element of the site. We are now receiving over 7,000 visits per month with the most visits coming from Vancouver & the Lower Mainland, Calgary, Edmonton, Victoria, and Toronto. Content continues to change, improve and evolve. One item we want to showcase is the festival and events section: http://sunshinecoastcanada.com/events/summer where visitors can easily browse major events in the region.

SCT has built a strong social media presence utilizing primarily facebook and twitter. We strive to engage our audience and participate in conversations daily. Many people contact us this way for travel tips and recommendations. Over the past year, our following has doubled to over 2,600 on twitter and 1,080 on facebook . It is the best way to hear from us about what is happening in the region, so please join our community at http://www.facebook.com/SunshineCoastTourismBC and @sunshinecoastca.

25

MARKETING TACTICS Spring and summer marketing themes this year focus on outdoor adventure. (Fall is when we have focused on arts and culture.) Key elements of hiking, mountain biking, paddling, water activities and health and wellness have been part of our “Go Coastal” campaign.

Spring is truly a shoulder season on the Sunshine Coast and a time for a strong media presence. Benefits include increasing spring visitations, but also encouraging early bookings for summer accommodations and activities. The campaign kicked off by attending the Vancouver Outdoor Adventure & Travel Show March 3-4 where we were able to talk directly to outdoor enthusiasts and hand out brochures and information. This event also launched our spring consumer contest at www.ilovesunshinecoastcanada.com where we have now gathered almost 1,000 subscribers to our quarterly consumer newsletters. Print ads focused on the ‘Get out of Town’ section of the Times Colonist and in the Chinese language Epoch Times travel feature. Online components covered BC Living, British Columbia Magazine, Vitamin Daily, Scout Magazine, Impact Magazine, Get Out There Magazine, and NSMB.com (North Shore Mountain Biking).

The Sunshine Coast is hitting the airwaves this summer partnering with CBC Radio One for “The Wild Side with Grant Lawrence” contest. One lucky person will win a 3 night trip to the Sunshine Coast to experience their own “Wild Side” and Grant mentions Desolation Sound and the Sunshine Coast in every show. The show airs nationwide at 11:30am Tuesdays and repeats 7:30pm Fridays this summer.

Marketing and online activities are coordinated by Paul Kamon and Lisa Croteau.

26 Promote and develop product and experiences SUNSHINE COAST TRAIL The Sunshine Coast Trail is a leading example of a great product that needs more exposure and publicity. Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society and other volunteers have turned blood, sweat and tears over the past 20 years into a world- class trail system. SCT has actively been bring journalists to hike parts of the trail to spread the word. You’ll find it as a Hidden Gem and mentioned regularly on SCT’s website as well as in various ads. A new brochure will be available on BC Ferries and Visitor Information Centres later this summer. SCT will encourage continued dialogue to eventually create a collective ferry to ferry to ferry trail system stretching the length of the entire Sunshine Coast...Desolation Sound to Howe Sound. This concept has amazing marketing potential....not to mention huge value to area residents.

DAKOTA RIDGE The development of Dakota Ridge over the past 5 years into an accessible first rate Nordic ski area is our prime winter tourism product. Our social media channels feature daily snow reports and photos of winter fun as well as a focused facebook ad campaign for BC residents who like Nordic skiing and snowshoeing. During the ski season, our “specials” website page was filled with member created packages featuring accommodation, dining, and Dakota Ridge tours. SCT was very happy to write a letter of support for the recent successful grant application and looks forward to being able to promote and even more accessible winter wonderland.

TOWNSITE Powell River’s Townsite is the leading heritage product of the region. The opening of Townsite Brewing and the upgrade of the Patricia Theatre were major milestones this year, and SCT was happy to include these locations on the Happy Trails press trip as well as on itineraries of multiple journalists. Tourism Powell River’s heritage counsellor will assist to develop materials and photos that will take us to the next step of developing collateral and a marketing theme for the neighbourhood.

Provide leadership to the industry “TRAVELGREEN” This spring, SCT has begun to create a “TravelGreen” brand for the Sunshine Coast. One of the Coast’s unique selling propositions is its natural beauty, with clean air and water and variety of flora and fauna. Many of our members have a deep desire to be responsible stewards of these precious gifts. SCT seeks to create knowledge sharing opportunities among tourism stakeholders and event planners about ‘greening’ events, accommodation and hospitality businesses. With existing product that easily falls into the “TravelGreen” brand, including the Green Banner Guide, garden tours, and farmers’ markets in every Coast community, expanding these relationships into a “TravelGreen” campaign for consumers, meeting planners and SCT members is a natural fit.

27 SCT partnered with the SCRD and PRRD to hold 2 Event Planning for Zero Waste Workshops in March held in Sechelt and Powell River. One Coast and Let’s Talk Trash developed and delivered the workshops to 50 festivals and event planners. Participants shared local resources and experiences. We’ve already seen the workshop concepts put into practice at the April Fool’s Run, Sprockids Fun Day, Lund Shellfish Festival, Earth Day, Gibsons Landing Jazz Fest, and the Spot Prawn Festival with more to come this summer.

Work with accommodation owners started this spring partnering with One Coast to develop an accommodation survey to measure the range of actions already in place in delivering an environmental friendly guest experience. Resulting information will be included in an Accommodation Owner Sustainability Guide which will be delivered in a workshop this fall. The Let’s Talk Trash Team is developing guidelines for SCT members to implement and be considered a “TravelGreen” partner. Once the guidelines have been met by the business, it will be given permission to use the new “TravelGreen” logo.

SOCIAL MEDIA SCT participated in the federal Community Access Program whose goal is increasing internet access across Canada. We were able to deliver 4 workshops this spring to local businesses covering various topics of social media with the goal to improve individual marketing capabilities and to build partnerships and relationships between members. Topics of the workshops included: 1. How to Stand Out Online: Personality Marketing for Tourism Businesses 2. Mobile Marketing: Why Reaching Your Customers Wherever They Are Is Crucial 3. How to Create a Powerful Social Media Strategy Without Breaking the Bank or Going Crazy 4. Online Reputation Management Local entrepreneurs facilitated the first 3 workshops and the 4th was a Tourism BC program. The workshops covered various Social Media tools, including Facebook, twitter, mobile websites, mobile apps, TripAdvisor and Yelp.

Summary It has been a productive first half of 2012. We are very excited about the submission of the MRDT application and will continue preparations for its approval and implementation. Please mark your calendars for Wednesday, October 3, 2012 for SCT’s AGM to be held at West Coast Wilderness Lodge. We will be sharing progress, implementing a number of bylaw changes, and electing a new board of directors.

Thank you for supporting Sunshine Coast Tourism and the tourism sector. This report is our attempt to deliver information and results more frequently and outside of the budget process. If you would like to have a discussion at one of your committee meetings, we would welcome the opportunity for dialogue.

Respectfully Submitted,

Celia Robben President, Sunshine Coast Tourism

28

I

+1

ARSBC Assessment

For

Assessment

Canadt

The All

on

Canadian

In

2012. With

01-62112) Assent

The

CEAA

Re: Dear

Artificial

Atten 7 /

Vancouver, Canada

Delta,

V3M6A2

July Annacis Fisheries

1905

100

keeping

the

other

further

information

Canadian

Annacis

17,

the

Sirs

Ogden

Canadian

1992

B.C.

June

Annapolis-Halkett

Artificial 2012

Proposed

Halkett

Canadian

and

Island

coming

applicable

environmental

Reef

and

is

with

nomto concerning information

Act

Agency

for

B>/Z

29,

Oceans

Avenue

no

Parkway,

Mesdames:

Environmental

Howard

Society

the

(S.C.

CEAA 2012.

longer

environmental

related

into

Bay,

Reef

ARSBC Environmental

Sinking

legislative,

internet

1992,

effect

2012,

Gambler

required,

Robins ofifiColumbia

Unit

to

Society

assessment

the

Bay

c.

of

Annapolis-Halkett

of

3

site

the

37) Assessment

ARSBC

CEAA

Former

assessment

regulatory,

proposal,

Canada

Pêches

at

and

screening

of Island,

-

www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca.

CEAA

Assessment

“CEAA

British

archives

that

2012,

Annapolis-Halkett

etOcéafls

HMCS Howe

29

screening

please

Act,

2012,

level

registry

and

1992” Columbia

the

(http:llwww.ceaa.gc.ca1052/index-eng.cfi-n).

2012

Bay

previous

constitutional

Sound

Annapolis

Act,

and DFO

environmental refer

-

(“CEAR”)

has was

proposal

(“CEAA

how

2012

PATH

to

(“ARSBC”)

been

repealed.

the

Canadian

CEAA

Bay

Canadian

cancelled

File

(CEAR

2012”)

requirements

can

proposal

MSTR

CEAR

assessment

2012

No.

RECEIVED

be

Environmental

JUL

S.C.R.D.

was

reference

accessed

might

Ref.

Environmental

1

effective

that

1-HPAC-PA2-00320

AUG

RECEIVED

given

2

FILE

C

No.

initiated

remain

sc

was

apply H —

ANNEX F

number A

through

Royal

R

72012

11-01-62112

COPY

July

available

D

I

to

in

R

under

the 6,

effect.

I

the 11- Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia Page 2 of 2 AnnapoliS-ffalkettBáy’Proposal July 17,2012

Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be contacting you to provide information regardingthe next steps in the Fisheries Act review process.

Should you wish to discuss any aspect of this matter, please contact Bruce Clark of this office (tel.: 604-666-6140; facs.: 604-666-6627; e-mail: bruce.clarkdfo-mpo.gc.ca) at your convenience.

Sincerely, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Bruce A. Clark Habitat biologist Ecosystem Management Lower Fraser Area

P.C. Squamish Nation Tsleil-Waututh Nation Is,l4ndsTrust unshine Coast Regional District British Columbia Ministry of Environment; Parks and Protected Areas Division, South Coast Region; Regional Manager British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations; Regional Director, Resource Authorizations; South Coast British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations; Regional Director, Resource Management; South Coast Transport Canada, Environmental Assessment Environment Canada; Environmental Assessment Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency DFO Conservation and Protection, Fraser Coastal Detachment; Field Supervisor DFO Conservation and Protection, Squamish Field Office; Field Supervisor

30 ANNEX G

31 32

File: Town Port Administra(or Sue Yours The Town’s Their Att: no Sechelt, July In Dear Sunshine Re: 1975 0400-50 McNeill, response

issues of Burnco’s Harvey,. Company Teresa 18, Ms. shipping Field sincerely Box

harbour. Port 2012 BC with Coast Fortin: Rd B. Fortin, VON to 728 Aggregate - is C. the activity your 2 Regional an

3A1 McNeill VON i Town. Planner excellent enquiry can 2R0 If Shipping District We work regarding employer find on Operation the a round operation the

and

A+ 4_ www.portmcneill. Orca operates the Sand clock to 33 be in & basis. a a Gravel welcome professional Two ca operation, large contributor mooring manner. we can to tugs E-mail: our confirm r based are local [email protected] ANNEX H economy. that Fax: 1775 Tel: in there our (250) (250) Grenville are 956-3111 956-4300 Place

3un3b

Canada Sec9!t,

.1975

Teresa

Planner

aggregates

Regards,

Please

BURNCO’s 251/12 The

I

adopted

current

the

BURNCO for

development

1.6

Re: Town July

BURNCO

Sue

Dear

Port Box

4/

understand

CTC

special

million

Federal

Sunshine

728,

Harvey

5,

McNeill,

3rWsh

Ms.

of

contact

Fortin

‘ION

2012

aggregate

C3est

.\L

BURNCO’s

the

Port

has

1775

Rock

Harvey;

shipping

projects

tonnes

quarry.

3A1

and CouTca

-

AND

they

Recommendation

following

that

stated

Administrator

Coast

McNeill

of

BC

me

Products,

Grenville

ecr’a

Provincial

a

VON

the THAT

have

very

source

at

of

Aggregate

The

operation

in

Regional

one

(604) product

-

Orca

some 2R0

resolution:

with

large

staff

Regional

Place

reason

the

(near

Dsrfct

Government.

885-6804

Quarry

years.

respect

sand

owners

write

District

per from

: Shipping

..

No.

Pt.

for

C

District

year

stret

and

is

to

McNeill)

This

4

the

developing

to

near

of

(ext Board

-

the cur

‘

gravel

from

BURNCO’s

a

nearby

Toll

P

F

project

Operation

Secrnt/

would

large

5)

3C4885.7909

Town

604

Port

BURNCO

free

discussed

and

if

this

3

pit.

you 85.68ZO

-

McNeill

70

quarry.

their

rnoor

is

like

of

.3eceit 1.300.687.5753

their

site

They

also

ha

have

aggregate Port

34

to

with

site

parcel

concrete

BURNCO’s

subject

know

and

are

any

McNeill

ay

d

is

the

jn

to

estimating

that

adjacent

questions,

J

Goiernmer -

if

material

potential reduce

-

to

Port

plants

they

inquiring

the

aggregate certs

.J

McNeiIl

w.scrd.ca

[email protected]

environmental

operate

to

the

in

C

that

shipping

or

C•s:rct/

for

Howe

ek

the

barge

require

as

up average

1

project

has

Lower

to a

-

to

Sound,

Thn

marine

tow

what

had

operation;

4.0

further

of Mainland.

at

extraction

distance

any

assessment

million

Cosons

concerns

their have

exported

concerns

information.

June proposed

.

tonnes

between

7sst

rates

and

28 th requirements

construction or

OiC

to

issues,

will

issues

meeting

the

be

their

orci

be

extracted

if

with

1.0

any,

and

of to ANNEX I

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: August 7, 2012 TO: Planning & Development – September 20, 2012 FROM: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development

RE: LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING IN MORE DENSELY SETTLED RURAL AREAS

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the General Manager, Planning & Development report dated August 7, 2012 regarding liquid waste management planning be received.

BACKGROUND

At its April 5, 2012 meeting the SCRD Board passed the following Corporate and Administrative Services Committee recommendation:

Recommendation No. 8 Liquid Waste Management Plan

THAT staff include discussion on the issue of liquid waste management in more densely settled regions in the rural areas at a future Infrastructure Services Committee meeting.

BACKGROUND

Consideration of liquid waste management has long been a cornerstone of community planning at the SCRD. Soils mapping was conducted in conjunction with the original Official Community Plans for West Howe Sound, Elphinstone, Roberts Creek and Egmont/Pender Harbour. Soils types were analyzed by the regional district’s consulting engineers and recommendations for minimum parcel areas for subdivision were developed based on the soil’s long term (25 – 50 years) capability for onsite sewage disposal. This information (along with consideration of community values and information regarding water supply) was ultimately translated into zoning bylaw amendments which in many cases significantly altered the development patterns in rural areas of the coast.

In addition to general planning approaches to liquid waste management, several specific issues have arisen over the years, including: • The potential for unplanned density in rural areas through strata subdivisions • Provincial permitting processes that did not reflect local community values, especially with respect to ocean sewage outfalls being permitted over SCRD objections • Desires at the community level to have effluent treatment standards higher than those mandated by the province • Consideration of creating service areas for septic tank “pump out bylaws” • Issues relating to ongoing maintenance of community septic fields • Concern that impacts to marine water quality, recreation, shellfish resources and all other uses are occurring from bacteriological contamination and/or eutrophication due to permitted sewage discharges

\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5340 Sanitary Sewer\5340-30 Liquid Waste Management Plans\2012-08-07 report re Liquid waste management planning in rural areas.docx 35 Liquid waste management planning in rural areas Page 2

• SCRD option to manage sewage treatment plants when over 22,700 litres per day

Liquid Waste Management Plans

Regional districts have the authority under the Environmental Management Act (EMA) to develop a Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) for approval by the Minister of Environment. A LWMP provides opportunity for a community to develop a long-term plan for building, financing, and managing its liquid waste infrastructure. The purpose of a LWMP is to accommodate existing or future development with a strategy to ensure the management, resource recovery and disposal of treated liquid waste in a manner that is protective of public health and the environment. In addition, it allows local governments to obtain Ministry of Environment authorization for reuse and disposal of treated liquid waste to the environment. The LWMP forms the implementation plan for the management of liquid waste from collection, through treatment and resource recovery, to residual disposal.

Public and stakeholder consultation must be included to ensure that multiple interests have been considered and that the LWMP is supported by the community. A projected implementation schedule is generally included; the schedule may be affected by technical issues, the pace of development, and the availability of financing.

As preliminary considerations in deciding whether to undertake a LWMP, the Board should consider if significant growth and development is planned or anticipated in the area under consideration or are there known problems or constraints associated with existing infrastructure. Additionally, a LWMP allows for consideration of community-specific solutions to be developed and sets a schedule to finance and upgrade infrastructure to ultimately meet the Municipal Sewage Regulation requirements.

The Local Government Act and the Community Charter require approval of electors for the borrowing of funds necessary to finance any capital works, including wastewater infrastructure. The provisions of the Environmental Management Act allow local governments to borrow money without the approval of electors for implementation of an approved LWMP; therefore, the public consultation process must provide opportunities for elector participation during the development and amendment of a plan

A LWMP can also identify and assess opportunities for water conservation, resource recovery (e.g. heat recovery), energy efficiency and generation, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The Ministry of Environment notes that a LWMP is a significant three stage planning process that can be expected to take two to three years to complete. The LWMP is formally initiated with a resolution being passed by the regional district and forwarded to the MoE Regional Director together with a staff report providing justification for the process. A Steering Committee, Public Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee are formed to guide plan preparation and provide advice. Extensive public consultation is integral to the LWMP process.

SCRD Situation

The Halfmoon Bay LWMP was approved by Board resolution in 2002 but not subsequently approved by the Minister of Environment. Ultimately, the Board adopted the plan by resolution

\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5340 Sanitary Sewer\5340-30 Liquid Waste Management Plans\2012-08-07 report re Liquid waste management planning in rural areas.docx 36 Liquid waste management planning in rural areas Page 3 in May, 2006. The Halfmoon Bay Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) provides guiding principles and directions towards the reduction, treatment, utilization and disposal of liquid waste. The main guiding principles are as follows: • LWMP policies are not to exceed capacity of the environment to assimilate liquid waste water and ensure the protection of human health • Evaluation of sewage disposal alternatives to take life-cycle, environment and social factors into account • The LWMP and OCP are to be mutually consistent and supportive • The preferred method of liquid waste disposal consists of on-site individual lot septic and treatment plant disposal or small community treatment systems utilizing land disposal • Additional ocean outfalls within the Halfmoon Bay LWMP area are to be prohibited.

The relationship between a community’s OCP and liquid waste management planning is critical. A liquid waste management plan should ideally be part of the implementation process of an OCP – helping the community achieve the desired land uses and densities in a particular area. However, as outlined above, LWMPs also address a variety of issues. Failing onsite sewage disposal systems over a significant area is often a prime impetus for carrying out a LWMP.

SCRD OCP’s contain basic direction for liquid waste management such as policies that future LWMPs be undertaken; specifying the location and performance requirements for local community sewer systems; and restrict ocean outfalls.

The Halfmoon Bay OCP was amended in 2005 to reference the LWMP and to include policy that development should be consistent with the LWMP.

The recently adopted West Howe Sound OCP contains a policy that a Liquid Waste Management Plan for the West Howe Sound OCP area should be prepared by the Regional District that will provide a comprehensive approach to managing liquid waste reduction, treatment, utilization, and disposal.

The new Roberts Creek OCP proposes to allow for modest increased density in the Village Core subject to a liquid waste management plan. The proposed policy states that “Before the Regional District should consider approving increased density a Liquid Waste Management Plan must be completed for the core area.”

The Elphinstone OCP contains specific policies addressing liquid waste management approaches but no direct reference to the need to undertake a LWMP.

The 1994 Egmont/Pender Harbour OCP notes that “higher density areas and commercial areas such as Madeira Park and Garden Bay will require liquid waste management planning to accommodate redevelopment and future growth”. Adoption of a liquid waste management plan for the plan area is an objective of the OCP.

Options for Consideration

1. Pursue LWMPs as recommended in OCPs

LWMPs represent the most formal and comprehensive approach to planning for liquid waste management. There are a number of considerations with respect to LWMPs that

\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5340 Sanitary Sewer\5340-30 Liquid Waste Management Plans\2012-08-07 report re Liquid waste management planning in rural areas.docx 37 Liquid waste management planning in rural areas Page 4

may lead the Board to wish to investigate or pursue other options. The first consideration is that the SCRD does not control the outcome of a “formal” LWMP process, as approval of the Minister of Environment is required. The LWMP also may have, in practice, a predetermined outcome – installation, extension or upgrading of community sewer systems are usually if not always seen by ministry staff as the recommended solution to liquid waste management issues. Creativity is not encouraged. In fact, the ministry refused to approve the Halfmoon Bay LWMP because of disagreement with the SCRD on some key directions in that plan.

Where a new or extended community sewer system is going to be needed at some time in the future, such as in Madeira Park, Garden Bay or Langdale, consideration of a LWMP may be quite appropriate. The ability to implement a LWMP without referendum may in some circumstances be considered advantageous.

2. Preparation of Local Sewage Servicing Strategies

Option 2 would involve preparation of a servicing strategy for all or part of a community that has similar scope and addresses the issues considered in a LWMP, but without the formal structure, process and approvals. It is possible that a Local Sewage Servicing Strategy could be expanded or “upgraded” to a full LWMP at a later date if expected development pressure justified the additional resources necessary.

\\scrd.ad\files\NetworkFiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5340 Sanitary Sewer\5340-30 Liquid Waste Management Plans\2012-08-07 report re Liquid waste management planning in rural areas.docx 38 ANNEX J

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: August 9, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee, September 20, 2012 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner RE: Approved Old Growth Management Areas in the Howe Landscape Unit.

RECOMMENDATION

That the following report be received by the Planning and Development Committee.

BACKGROUND

As part of a Sustainable Resource Management Plan, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations adopted the Old Growth Management Areas1 (OGMAs) for the Howe Landscape Unit in July 2012. Regional District staff had reviewed the draft Howe OGMAs and sent comments to the Ministry in July 2011 (see staff report in Attachment I). This July, the Regional District Board adopted the following resolution:

Recommendation No. 6 BCTS Cutblock A79517

AND FURTHER THAT the background information regarding Old Growth Management Areas in the Howe Landscape Unit be available for the next Planning and Development Committee meeting in September.

The Ministry has now approved OGMAs in 13 of 26 landscape units in the Sunshine Coast Forest District; five of which lie within the Regional District: Brittain, Howe, Chapman, Sechelt and Skwawka. A map of the Landscape Units in the Sunshine Coast Forest District is in Attachment II.

This report will summarize the information from the Ministry regarding the Old Growth Management Areas in the Howe Landscape Unit. A map of the approved Howe Landscape OGMAs are in Attachment III and the plan in Attachment IV.

DISCUSSION

In order to manage resources in the forest, the Province has divided each Forest District into Landscape Units. There are 26 Landscape Units within the Sunshine Coast Forest District; nine of which lie within the Sunshine Coast Regional District. Five of those have approved OGMAs. The Land Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act allow MFLNRO to set legal objectives to

1 Old Growth Management Areas (OGMA) are defined in the BC Forest Practices Code Operational Planning Regulation as an area established under a higher level plan which contains or is managed to replace structural old growth attributes.

39 Approved Old Growth Management Areas in the Howe Landscape Unit PDC September 20, 2012 Page 2 of 2

address landscape level biodiversity values. One way of managing for biodiversity is to retain old growth forests2. “Managing for biodiversity through retention of old growth forests is considered important not only for wildlife, but can also provide important benefits to ecosystem management, protection of water quality and preservation of other natural resources.”

General criteria for selecting OGMAs include: - they must represent each biogeoclimatic ecosystem subzones3 and natural disturbance type4 within each landscape unit. - avoid placement over existing tenure holders (eg independent power corridors, mines, roads). - tend to overlap existing Wildlife Habitat Areas - the biodiversity emphasis option5 along with the biogeoclimatic zones determines the percentage of the Crown forest base that will be designated as OGMA.

In general, most OGMA boundaries are not ‘permanently fixed’, they can be moved over time so long as biodiversity objectives are maintained. Replacement OGMAs are required to be equivalent or better than the original. As stand succession proceeds, some currently unsuitable forests may become good OGMA candidates and as such periodic assessment or revision to the OGMAs may occur.

By way of comparison, the following table summarizes of the five Landscape Units that lie in the Regional District that have designated OGMAs:

Howe Chapman Sechelt Brittain Skwawka Size of Landscape Unit (ha) 34,627.1 34,148.7 53,145.4 44,334.5 38,713.5 OGMA area (ha) 3,182.8 2,985.9 3,738.3 2,963.8 2,322.6 # of OGMAs 170 93 110 88 79 % of Crown Land >250 yrs old 39.4% 35.6% 7.1% 21.0% 15.6% Biodiversity Intermediate Low Low intermediate High Emphasis Option Year OGMAs were 2012 2004 2002 2012 2002 established ______Teresa Fortin Planner

2 In British Columbia, the old growth definition used by forest planners is based on estimated stand age classes determined from forest cover inventory. The definition of old growth currently employed by forest planners in British Columbia is based on stand age taken from forest cover maps. In BC’s coastal forests, old growth is defined as trees over 250 years. 3 Definition of a biogeoclimatic zone: a geographic area having similar patterns of energy flow, vegetation, and soils as a result of a broadly homogenous macro-climate. There are eight biogeoclimatic subzones in the SCRD: CDFmm, CWHdm, CWHxm1, CWHvm1, CWHvm2, CWHdm, MHmm1, CMAunp, AT. 4 Definition of a natural disturbance type: an area that is characterized by a natural disturbance regime. There are five natural disturbance types. 5 A Landscape Unit’s Biodiversity Emphasis Option is determined by Ministry of Forests staff as guided by the Biodiversity Guidebook.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5287 Forestry - Environmental\5287-20 Forests\Old Growth Management Area\2012 Sept PDC HoweOGMArpt.docx 40 Attachment I

SCRD STAFF MEMO – For Information

DATE: August 10, 2011 TO: Planning and Development Committee, September 8, 2011 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner RE: Draft Land Use Order relating to OGMA’s in the Brittain and Howe Landscape Units.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations was seeking public comment on a draft Land Use Order (LUO) establishing objectives for Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) within landscape units on the Sunshine Coast. See public notice in Attachment A. The deadline for comments was September 5, 2011.

Due to the Crown’s limited timeline, the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) Board could not make a resolution regarding the draft LUO. Therefore Planning staff sent comments (see Attachment B) respecting the Brittain and Howe Landscape Units.

______Teresa Fortin Planner

H:\PLN\6660-01 Forestry\Landscape_Unit_OGMA\BrittainHoweOGMAsSeptPDCrpt.docx 41 Comments sought on old growth areas on Sunshine Coast Page 1 of 1

Attachment A

Printer-friendly version

INFORMATION BULLETIN 2011FOR0104-000830 Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations July 6, 2011

Comments sought on old growth areas on Sunshine Coast

VICTORIA – The public is invited to review and comment on the draft land use order to establish Old Growth Management Areas in five landscape units in the Sunshine Coast District.

The draft order outlines land use objectives for protecting biological diversity of old growth forests within the Bute West (2,245.1 hectares), Bute East (2,728.2 hectares), Cortes (4,002 hectares), Brittain (2,512.8 hectares) and Howe (2,805.6 hectares) landscape units on Cortes Island and the Sunshine Coast from the Sechelt Peninsula to north of Powell River. The total area covers more than 14,200 hectares.

Maps are available at the South Coast Region Office (10428 153 St.), the Campbell River District Office (370 S. Dogwood St.), the Powell River District Office (7077 Duncan St.) or online at: http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/legalobjectives/advertisedLUORs.html

Written comments can be sent to: Frank DeGagne South Coast Region Office Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Suite 200, 10428 - 153 St. Surrey, B.C. V3R 1E1

Email: [email protected]

The establishment of land use objectives that protect key resource values such as old growth is a component of the provincial government’s approach to managing land use and resource development responsibly.

Media Contact: Cheekwan Ho Public Affairs Officer Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 250 356-5261

Connect with the Province of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect

Facebook Delicious Twitter E-mail

42 http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2011FOR0104-000830.htm 10/08/2011

MUNICIPALITIES:

ELECTORAL

SUNSHINE

REGIONAL

the The

regarding

Planning

(OGMA5)

on

2.

Re:

Surrey,

Suite

Dear South

August

Ministry Frank

1.

a

There

Chapman Sunshine

Howe

to

LU’s.

if

227_135 have eliminating

attached The

Section

Independent Howe existing

Hotham

(218_129,

It

Freil Section

Ministry

Management Brittan

Hotham

draft

Mr.

they

200,

is

DeGagne

accommodate

Coast

BC

10,

Draft

AREAS:

disappointing

Howe

and

of

Lake

been

within

OGMA DeGagne:

the

seems

LU’s.

Land

Landscape

equal

10428

V3R

2011

Forests,

4.6

Landscape

4.2

local

Region

Peninsula”). Sound

District

of

have

map Development Coast

OGMA5

above

Land

(large

Landscape

added

218_130

COAST

several

discusses

Use

A/Egmont,

Forests,

and

Was

1E1

landscape

to

to

227-283

Power

power

153 rd

ISTRICT

titled

Plan,

been

of

the

Use

Regional

be

Peninsula:

Order

Lands

Office

4.7

fresh

draft

that

Secheit/Sechelt

the

in

Unit

have

that

a

Street

same Unit

proposed

fails Order

of

the

eliminated;

and

Lands

“Proposed

Projects

missed

produced

infrastructure

Pender

the

because

appears

Unit

Could

water LUO.

and

(LUO)

the

units

most

already

staff

region

to

218_hg

District

size

“Clean

relating

Sustainable and

2011

Natural

mention

the

Harbour

Therefore

opportunity

you

respecting

on

lakes

establishing

of

(IPP),

that OGMAs

to

the

Indian

on

Natural

(227_287,227_282,

OGMAs-McNabb-Valley”, Harmony

the

been

the

OGMA

Brittain

(SCRD)

explain

Energy”

terminate

as McCannel

43

‘natural’ are

has

B/Halfrnoon

to

specifically

Resource

proposed

of Sunshine

Government

three

shown

determined?

ÔGMA’s and

-

rare

been

the

the

Resource

Resource

227_99,

the

Board

Landscape

the

Canada

British

Sechelt

1976

at

Islands

projects

objectives

changing

significant

Box

following

within

the

OGMA

at

Brittain

on

lost.

rationale

Creek

Operations

Bay

Coast. Field

OGMAs

District/

the

Columbia

will

how

Canyon

in

the

boundary

227_59

VON

Management Marine

Operations

Di

the

this

Road

of

boundary

via

not

boundary

attached

by

and

the

Unit

Roberts

and

the

for

the

comments 3A1

Due

Town

recreation

Brittain

Camp email:

near

behind

LU).

be

IPP.

Box

227_279);

Old

boundaries

Howe

and

(LU)

region Park,

OGMA

of

to

of able

Creek

Freil

Canyon

Granted

Growth

Gtbsons

the

the

Toll

Web

Tel.

Malibu. Fax:

map

between

227_61

was

Frank.

was

Sustainable

that

and

Freil

Landscape to

Plan

El

but

Free

are

604.885.6800

Chapman

Lake

attributes Crown’s

Site: 604.885.7909

227_52,

seeking

there

make

“Proposed

Elphinstone

Howe

however

decision?

[email protected]

(Harmony)

didn’t

from

of does

project

1.800.687.5753

Management

www.scrd.ca

three

have

have

the

others.

a

or

Landscape

limited

not

Regional

Resource resolution

227_89

public

Units:

Chapman

mention

been

and

because

been

new on

succeeded

it

F/

OGMAs

address

is the

Attachment B

West

On

Falls

Howe

OGMAs

reduced

not

comment

removed

timeline,

and

the

Areas

Howe

District

the

the

and

clear

and Units

—

any

in Sound SCRDComments on the OGMADraft LUOin the Brittain and Howe Landscape Units Page 2

Further, the Regional District requests a GIS shapefile of the OGMA’s once they’ve been approved.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks.

Regards,

Teresa Fortin Planner

Attachments: 2 maps (Proposed OGMAs — Hotham Peninsula, Proposed OGMAs — McNabb Valley)

H:\PLN\6660-O1 Forestry\Landscape_U nit_OGMA\MFLNRO_OGMA_LUOBrittaInHowe2Oll.docx

44 Attachment II

Landscape Unit Boundaries - Sunshine Coast Forest District

Homathko ®

1:975,000 Southgate Bishop Bute West

Bute East Toba

Brem

Quatam Homfray Powell Daniels Skwawka

Cortes Powell Deserted Lake Brittain

Bunster Jervis

Lois Haslam Salmon Narrows Inlet

Texada Sechelt Howe

Sunshine Coast Forest Chapman District South Coast Region Kilometers 05 10 20 30 40 45 Attachment III

T D A

E Q

M U

P A

S T

T C i E s R OGMAs in HoweR Landscape Unit M A s E E K w Lake C e R C R E E MT# U T H E o M O K E MURCHISON O N r K M r CMAunp K CWHvm2 E V E R E CWHvm2 S y I M MT r R # R CMAunpRODERICK T I C S S CWHvm2 CMAunp A Y MT MHmm1 U E # CWHvm1 M R DONALDSON W R A

E SQUAMISH CWHvm2 Y M W R A A P A Y I T C C L R E CWHvm2 C P L S M E I R ! K C STAWAMUS r L # E R CHIEF MTN

S E U CMAunp E K E CMAunp K S

K O O D F I E E W B R C R E CMAunp T r C L R S E C WoodfibreE H t E K G A H O N N l C CWHvm2 N O E Z N eS MT# S h A C e c L R HABRICH E E MHmm1 S E K C R L G E R U E F O C E R K E E 1 K T 3 E 2 4 MHmm1 5 278 THE L 7 # COPILOT LEDGE# # CMAunp 8 MTN N 11 10 9 Britannia T 14 16 6 P I H 15 O O N 17 T BeachI T A N I A C R E 18 R E R L B M K N 22 A N 20 21 MT C T # E L MT SHEER H I N ELLESMERE L # O A Y N C E I R 28 286 S L H R 31 A 25 M L 32 M I 37 26 34 B 36 C 33 38 35 E L R V C 42 E 48 39 43 R D E R A A E 49 284 C I K 5054 53 E R 69 55 E S 46 59 R 44 45 66 65 61 63 Y 57 64 70 E C E C R E 40 68 72 E K 280 24 73 K E R 285 77 Minaty Bay CMAunp K E MT# MHmm1 E TETRAHEDRON 79 82 # VARLEY MT# K PEAK CWHvm1 K CMAunp WROTTESLEY C MT CMAunp 81 84 80 E K # 88 L E STEELE 85 282 E E 279 91 78 I R 86 R P C 93 R A Y 98 C P E R 99 G TETRAHEDRON PARK R Y 111 106 110 R 115 U R 113 105 F 118 123 92 116 C A R MHmm1 127 129 A N Y E 130 X C O O N E I B 131 132 133 C R 134 E P K E K H CWHvm2 N 287 Y CWHvm2 138 L 139 Y 143 L

K CWHvm1 144 PANTHER# 147 149 I 146 S E 148 142 PEAK 150 K E E E R MT 156 154 C CAPILANO C MT # CMAunp # # R CRUCIL R GORDANMTN CREEK RICHARDSON 153 167 McNab 162 A 168 164 E C 169 B 165 Porteau E K E E R C N I A B E 174 170 173 K E H Creek K A S N R L 180 177 L A I 182 H 187 183 N E V 184 181 188 C R R E E K R K 190 186 C I 192 E E W S E 195 189 E K R E E D E M K R LEADING# N C A R r C PEAK R C 191 O N D S 196 I N N C A W DEEKS A I CWHvm1 # APPIAN# M R PEAK K MTN P 207 MT E C # E A WINDSOR 209 R R H 285 Seaside211 E Park 200 D E E K S C E 277 R C H V E 213 K C A N O K K Ekins R 212 K E E E E CWHvm1 E E E MHmm1 E R C R Port Mellon 214 C R 281 K C 215 PointR C S n G A M B I E A S U K 220 L G Howe 216 E E N a E 219 218 I A R L O G G E R S C R E E K P N C CWHvm2217 MT A Landscape Unit T A # D 223O HANOVER m 222 K MT 221 HAT MTN I A LIDDELL # p 228 # 227 D 226 231 230 234 L 235 236 a K K E E BRUNSWICK 232 224 239 C R K # A E MTN h CWHvm2 ) E E MT# O KILLAM O E R 242 241 N C H R C 245 A C E E K Y C R 283 ( O N 238 O N I A S M M A G N E S # L O I I N 240 K W E N K K E E ! E E A R R C E MT C M # A ARTABAN R T R C R E E K A L B E C H SECHELT K E T K L Y L ! H V E THE T E I CWHdm A R # E U LIONS E E MTO E # K R ELPHINSTONE S R R C E C H MHmm1 N MHmm1 LIONS BAYK S E E O T R SELMA S R C L T S I K E R E E A L M E N E W O N E New Brighton O I T B H D A S L S PARK E E O CWHdm L T C R R A K E R C N E E G E R D CWHdm E Davis! Bay A ST. MARKS R S K L K E C C # SUMMIT R K C C K E E E E R A E K R G L K B E I D C E N E C B D E U M E N O K R C A O S S E A H A N CROWN Hopkins N C R C R S E E C MTN O SOAMES L T K R # E MT E N # E M N HILL W S # I O STRACHAN K Landing L H B CWHdm C O R C O K E R MT E E # AL COLLINS HOLLYBURN LITTLEE GOAT MTN K # R M MTN R E Roberts Creek C E K C DAM MTN CARMICHAEL# CWHdm PEAK CYPRESS PARK Y C N BLACK E A W ! STONY # K P # MTN I C O HILL N I R GIBSONS L C A N O K R E M K K I K E A Capilano V ! E E E K R E E R E E E R E C R B K R R R R R MT# C C C E C GARDNER HORSESHOEN O L C E A O K S Lake Y T C S R R N S A I E E H K C I BAY L K CWHxm1 D R C M E E E P E R E A O N Y R E K R C T T S M I C E U L C Q G R A S E E E O

W VANCOUVER K M 1 K V NORTH E 99 E ! I R RODGERS CREEK N C Seymour S O G N VANCOUVERG A Landing C W CDFmm R

E

E

K R D B U R R A I N I T

!

O Data Sources and Notes

Bute West Layer Name (Source): Key Map

Legend Bute East

OGMA Wildlife Habitat Areas - Approved

Scale: 1:60,000 Cortes Ü Biogeoclimatic Zones Grizzly Bear Winter Range Brittain

Produced for: Landscape Unit Area Ungulate Winter Range - Approved Powell River

South Coast Region Comox Ferry Route Goat Winter Range !( Produced by: Howe Road Ocean or Lake , Vancouver (! Ministry of Forests, Lands and Nanaimo River or Stream Parks and Protected Areas (! Natural Resource Operations

FileName:May 17, 2012 Heather MacKnight Date: Projection/Datum: Albers Nad83 Date: May 17, 2012 Regional Executive Director Prepared by: LG South Coast Region

46 Attachment IV

Howe Landscape Unit

Sustainable Resource Management Plan

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

South Coast Region

2012

47 Sustainable Resource Management Plan: Howe Landscape Unit

Acknowledgements

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations recognises the following participants and contributors, without which the completion of this Sustainable Resource Management Plan would not have been possible:

Smart Forest Planning Consulting: Brian Smart, RPF, RPBio

Pollock Forest Management Ltd.: Tania Pollock, RPF

BC Timber Sales: Rob Martin, RPF

Province of British Columbia: Greg George, RPBio; Chuck Anderson, RPF; Peter Verschoor, RPF; Frank DeGagne, RPF; Lew Greentree; Blake Fougere, RPF

Howe LU SRMP i 2012

48 Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 3 2.0 Howe Landscape Unit Description ...... 4 2.1 Biophysical ...... 4 2.2 Summary of Land Status...... 6 3.0 Key Resource Tenures ...... 7 3.1 Forest Tenures Holders ...... 7 3.2 Mineral Tenure Holders ...... 8 4.0 Significant Resource Values ...... 8 4.1 Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity ...... 8 4.2 Timber Resources ...... 9 4.4 Recreation ...... 9 4.4 Mineral Resource Values ...... 10 4.5 Water Quality ...... 10 5.0 First Nations ...... 10 6.0 Strategic Level Plans ...... 11 7.0 OGMA Planning Methodology ...... 11 7.1 Old Growth Management Areas Selection ...... 11 7.2 Boundary Mapping ...... 13 7.3 Amendment Policy ...... 13 8.0 OGMA Analysis ...... 14 9.0 Landscape Unit Plan Objectives ...... 14

List of Tables

Table 1. Land Status of the Howe Landscape Unit ...... 6 Table 2. Crown forest land base classification and OGMA target within the Howe Landscape Unit ...... 7 Table 3. Old Seral Representation Achieved ...... 14

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Howe Landscape Unit ...... 5

List of Appendices

Appendix I OGMA Summary and Rationale – Howe LU...... 15 Appendix II List of Acronyms ...... 21 Appendix III Public Consultation Summary ...... 22

Howe LU SRMP ii 2012

49 1.0 Introduction

This report provides background information used during the preparation of the Landscape Unit Plan for the Howe Landscape Unit (LU) and associated proposed legal objectives. A description of the planning unit, discussion on significant resource values, and an Old Growth Management Area (OGMA) summary and rationale are provided. Appendix I contains the OGMA Summary and Appendix II is a list of acronyms used.

Biological diversity or biodiversity is defined as: ‘the diversity of plants, animals and other living organisms in all their forms and levels of organisation, and includes the diversity of genes, species and ecosystems as well as the evolutionary and functional processes that link them1’. British Columbia is the most biologically diverse province in Canada.

LU Planning through Section 93.4 of the Land Act for the purposes of the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) allows legal establishment of objectives to address and sustain landscape level biodiversity values. Implementation of this initiative is intended to help maintain certain biodiversity values. Managing for biodiversity through retention of old growth forests is considered important not only for wildlife, but can also provide important benefits to ecosystem management, protection of water quality and preservation of other natural resources. Although not all elements of biodiversity can be, or need be, maintained on every hectare, a broad geographic distribution of old growth ecosystems is intended to help sustain the genetic and functional diversity of native species across their historic ranges.

In accordance with the direction of government, the Sunshine Coast Forest District has established draft biodiversity Emphasis Options (BEO) for the 26 Landscape Units in its district. Through the ranking process, the Howe LU was rated as “Intermediate” BEO, which requires that priority biodiversity provisions be undertaken immediately.

Development of this report and work to identify OGMAs was completed in collaboration with BC Timber Sales and the Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO), with original work completed by Smart Forest Planning Ltd. Funding was provided by the Forest Investment Account.

First Nations were consulted and public review from the public was sought during a 60-day public review and comment period (Appendix 3).

Supporting documentation regarding government policy, planning processes and biodiversity concepts are provided in the Biodiversity Guidebook, the Landscape Unit Planning Guide2, the

1 from BC Ministry of Forests and BC Environment. 1995. Biodiversity Guidebook. 2 BC Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment. 1999. Landscape Unit Planning Guide. Victoria, BC Howe LU SRMP 3 2012

50 Vancouver Forest Region Landscape Unit Planning Strategy3,Sustainable Resource Management Planning: A Landscape-level Strategy for Resource Development4 as well as any strategic plan(s) that may be developed post publication of this document.

The distribution of OGMAs will have to be reviewed periodically to ensure the objectives and ecological suitability are maintained through time. Wildlife management practices and operational procedures will improve as more information and technology is acquired.

2.0 Howe Landscape Unit Description

2.1 Biophysical

The Howe Landscape Unit encompasses the watersheds that drain into the west side of Howe Sound from Ouillet Creek at the south to Potlatch Creek at the northeast (Figure 1); it also includes Gambier and Anvil Islands. Major watercourses in the Howe LU include Dakota, McNair, McNab, Rainy and Potlatch Rivers. The landscape unit covers a total area of 34,622.4 ha.

The Howe LU lies within the Georgia Depression and Coast and Mountains Ecoprovinces, including the Georgia Lowland and Southern Pacific Ranges Ecosections5.

There are six Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) subzones or variants present in the Howe LU, occurring within three natural disturbance types (NDTs). NDT2 includes the CWHdm and the CWHxm1, and NDT1 includes the MHmm1, CWHvm1 and the CWHvm2 (Figure 2). NDT5 is completely comprised of the high-elevation, non-forested Alpine Tundra (AT) zone.

Forested stands on lower elevation productive sites (typically on slopes with low to moderate gradient in the CWHvm1, CWHdm and CWHxm1) have been historically disturbed by forest fires and past timber harvesting. Wildfire swept across both Gambier and Anvil Islands and up McNab and Potlatch Creeks in the late 1800’s. An intense fire killed most of the trees in those areas, leaving only remnants of the original old growth forest in the lower elevations. The low representation of old seral forest within these lower to middle elevation BEC subzones/variants and the large amount of maturing timber illustrates this disturbance history.

3 BC Ministry of Forests. 1999. Vancouver Forest Region Landscape Unit Planning Strategy 4 BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. 2002. Sustainable Resource Management Planning: A Landscape-level Strategy for Resource Development 5 Demarchi, D. 1996. An introduction to the ecoregions of British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Update March 2004. British Columbia; Ecoregion Ecosystem Classification Units, Ver. 2.01. Howe LU SRMP 4 2012

51

Howe LU SRMP 5 2012

52 2.2 Summary of Land Status

Land status within the Howe LU is summarised in Table 1. Of the total area, 21,819.9 ha (63%) are within the Crown Forested Land Base (CFLB). The remaining 12,786.0 ha (37%) of the landscape unit are classified as non-forested or non-Crown (rock, alpine tundra, water, private land, etc.) and have been excluded from OGMA contributions and calculations. There are 5038 hectares of private land and 11 hectares of Indian Reserve within the Howe landscape unit which has been excluded from the OGMA selection process. Provincial park land, located on the mainland (Tetrahedron Park) and Gambier Island (Halkett Bay Park), occupies about 2,254 ha within the LU.

Table 1. Land Status of the Howe Landscape Unit Crown Forest Excluded Total of LU Ownership Class Land Base Land Base Total Area (Ha) % Private - 5,038.1 5,038.1 14.6 Indian Reserve - 11.0 11.0 0.0 Crown UREP - 1.6 1.6 0.0 TSA or PSYU 18,407.9 5,797.1 24,205.0 70.0 Provincial Park 797.9 1,456.5 2,254.4 6.5 Misc Reserve 337.8 24.8 362.7 1.0 Misc Reserve 58.4 21.8 80.2 0.2 Timber License 2,188.5 114.4 2,302.8 6.7 Woodlot License 28.7 320.4 349.1 1.0 Community Forest 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.0 Crown Misc. Reserves - 0.0 0.0 0.0 21819.9 12,786.0 34,606.0 100.0

Table 2 provides a breakdown of the Howe LU based on BEC subzones/variants and illustrates the OGMA targets for each. Old seral representation targets are determined and applied based on the Crown forest area in each BEC unit. Landbase classification information is used in the selection of OGMAs to minimize impacts to timber supply, however, operationally the harvestable area and the Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB) are not consistent because inventories and assumptions used to identify the THLB area are not always an accurate representation of what timber will be harvested. There is usually some harvesting of forest that did not contribute to timber supply forecast used in the last Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) determination and conversely there is timber within the THLB that is unable to be harvested due to operational or economic constraints.

Alpine (AT) is included in Table 2 to account for all area in the landscape unit. Old growth targets are not set for this ecotype as it is predominantly non-forest and does not contribute to the productive forest land base. However, it is possible that small forested areas may be

Howe LU SRMP 6 2012

53 captured in the alpine, and where analysis determines that they are suitable for biodiversity conservation may be selected as OGMAs.

Table 2. Crown forest land base classification and OGMA target within the Howe Landscape Unit

Exclude Crown OGMA Target Crown Forested Land Base d Land Forested % BEC Base (ha) Land Base Total Area label (ha) (ha) C P N X (C + P + N % Ha ) AT unp - - 14.3 379.2 14.3 393.5 0.00 0.0 CWHdm 1,177.4 958.4 2,528.1 1,369.9 4,663.9 6,033.8 0.09 419.7 CWHvm1 4,896.6 1,213.1 669.6 1,651.7 6,779.3 8,431.1 0.13 881.3 CWHvm2 3,342.5 1,581.5 1,923.7 1,885.3 6,847.6 8,732.9 0.13 890.2 CWHxm1 49.3 76.3 426.5 3,483.5 552.2 4,035.6 0.09 49.7 MHmm1 699.5 362.6 1,893.8 3,966.0 2,955.8 6,921.8 0.19 561.6 10,165.3 4,191.8 7,455.9 12,735.6 21,813.1 34,548.7 2,802.6 CWHxm1 Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, very dry maritime subzone, windward variant CWHdm: Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, dry maritime subzone. CWHvm1: Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, very moist maritime subzone, submontane variant. CWHvm2: Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, very moist maritime subzone, montane variant. MHmm1: Mountain Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, moist maritime subzone, variant 1; windward.

Please refer to the attached map for location of OGMAs.

3.0 Key Resource Tenures

The process to select OGMAs included the identification of tenures that are administered by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Placement of OGMAs over cutblocks and roads that have received approval status, but were not yet harvested, was avoided; as well OGMAs avoided existing blocks. The selection of OGMAs also generally avoided placement within existing tenures where permanent forest disturbance could occur (e.g. clean energy projects). See Planning Methodology for more detail on OGMA placement guidelines.

3.1 Forest Tenures Holders

The Howe LU contains several forms of tenures including 2 woodlots, 1 forest licence, and timber licences. A significant portion of the CFLB in the Howe landscape unit is within BC Timber Sales operating area; and Northwest Hardwoods holds an overlapping deciduous licence throughout the LU. Provincial Forest covers most of the mainland portion of the landscape unit as well as Gambier and Anvil Islands, but the rest of the islands are predominantly private land.

Howe LU SRMP 7 2012

54 The OGMAs were selected to minimize impacts on areas identified for future harvesting opportunities.

3.2 Mineral Tenure Holders

At the time of plan development there were approximately 10 mineral tenures within the Howe LU. Most are adjacent to the foreshore, including a few on Gambier Island. Since the establishment of an OGMA will not have an impact on the status or activity within any existing mineral and gas permits or tenures, there was no real attempt to avoid placing OGMAs over mineral tenures. Exploration and development activities are permitted in OGMAs. The preference is that exploration and development would proceed in a way that is sensitive to the old growth values of the OGMA; however, if exploration and development proceeds to the point of significantly impacting old growth values, then the OGMA will be moved.

4.0 Significant Resource Values

4.1 Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity

Wildlife resources of significant management concern in the Howe landscape unit include: marbled murrelet, mountain goat, black-tailed deer, tailed frog, Queen Charlotte goshawk, and several species of fish. Some of these species are recognized nationally as ‘species at risk’ under Canada’s Species At Risk Act; and some are managed in British Columbia under the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (e.g. marbled murrelets for which Wildlife Habitat Areas [WHA] have been established). Knowledge of various species habitats varies widely among the wildlife listed. For the many other species that occur in this landscape unit and are poorly understood, habitat requirements are generally managed within habitat provisions provided for primary species (e.g. old forest dependent species will be managed within murrelet WHAs) or through other regulations (e.g. riparian dependent birds and wildlife within riparian management areas).

Stands suitable for marbled murrelet nesting habitat typically have attributes that also make them suitable for selection as OGMA’s, and as such areas established as WHAs have also been selected as OGMAs. For mountain goat and black-tailed deer, conservation of their critical winter range habitat is provided through establishment as Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) under FRPA. Winter range habitat for mountain goat has been identified and mapped and was legally established early in 2012. Winter habitat for black-tailed deer has not yet been adequately mapped, and its establishment is likely a few years away. Where suitable, stands within UWR were selected as OGMAs.

Howe LU SRMP 8 2012

55 All of the major streams (McNab, McNair, Potlatch, Rainy, Dakota) in the Howe landscape unit support resident and anadromous salmonid populations; and 3 streams also support sculpins. Rainy River is particularly diverse and supports 10 different fish species; its summer and winter steelhead populations are listed as extreme conservation concern. Rainy has almost 12 km of anadromous habitat and supports a small recreational fishery. Potlatch Creek also supports a suite of 10 species (some different from Rainy), and includes summer steelhead which are also of extreme conservation concern. McNab Creek has about 5 km of anadromous habitat and has low angling effort. Current regulations applicable to forested riparian areas under the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR) along with Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) riparian results and strategies will manage for the effectiveness and function of the riparian values associated with these and other riparian areas within the landscape unit. Where suitable, OGMAs have been delineated in or adjacent to riparian areas.

4.2 Timber Resources

The Howe landscape unit contains some very productive growing sites that are important to the forest industry. The close proximity to local communities makes them valuable as year-round opportunities for employment. Continued access to commercially valuable timber, including upcoming second growth, is of significant importance.

Tree species in the Howe landscape unit include Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), amabilis fir (Abies amabilis), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), shore pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta), and deciduous species [such as bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and red alder (Alnus rubra)].

4.4 Recreation

The extensive forest road network in the western half of the Howe landscape unit has allowed recreational opportunities for the public. Hunting of deer, black bears and grouse occurs throughout the area. Winter recreational activity is increasingly popular in the upper Dakota watershed in an area known as Dakota Bowl. Stream angling opportunities are provided in at least McNab Creek and Rainy River where a catch and release fishery for steelhead exists. Angling for stream resident fish is limited since resident fish are quite small. ATV, motorcycle and four wheel drive use of roads for recreation occurs to varying degrees. Hiking, berry and mushroom picking and wildlife viewing/sight-seeing also occurs. The Halkett Bay Marine Provincial Park on southeast Gambier Island is a popular stop for pleasure boaters; recreational day-use activities such as swimming, kayaking picnicking and hiking occur. Other recreational activities include wilderness camping and overnight moorage.

Howe LU SRMP 9 2012

56 Tetrahedron Provincial Park protects a wide range of landscapes, including mountain peaks, lakes, streams and wetlands, and the Sechelt area community watershed. Elevations in the Tetrahedron range from 900 to 1,800 metres and include Tetrahedron Peak, Panther Peak and Mount Steele. Recreational opportunities at this park are limited but include hiking, cross country skiing and overnight use of the cabins.

4.4 Mineral Resource Values

Subsurface resources (minerals, coal, oil, gas and geothermal) and aggregate resources are valuable to the province, but deposits are difficult to characterize due to their hidden nature. Ongoing or future exploration by tenure holders within the Howe mineral tenures is the most likely way to understand the value of subsurface resources in this area.

4.5 Water Quality

There are five community watersheds within the Howe landscape unit; they are located in Dakota, McNair, Gambier, Fircom and Laurena Creeks. OGMAs have been located within the Dakota, McNair and Gambier community watersheds as noted in Appendix I.

Water bodies provide aquatic ecosystem habitat and wetland/upland (riparian) habitat that supports a high level of biological diversity. Aquatic ecosystems are often protected and managed through legislated requirements for various resources, including maintaining biodiversity through the OGMA selection process.

5.0 First Nations

The Howe landscape unit is located entirely within the traditional territories of the Squamish First Nation and Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

It is not the province’s intention to limit the ability of any parties at the treaty negotiation table to discuss issues of interest in these areas, nor to take administrative or operational action that has the potential to infringe the existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the First Nations in these areas. These OGMAs do not affect First Nations Aboriginal rights and title, nor do they affect traditional and cultural activities.

In general, since Landscape Unit planning is a conservation oriented initiative it is not expected to affect First Nations aboriginal rights or title, nor affect their traditional and cultural activities.

Howe LU SRMP 10 2012

57 6.0 Strategic Level Plans

Landscape Unit Plan objectives must be consistent with direction in any established strategic level plans applicable to the plan area. However, there currently are no designated strategic level plans for the Sunshine Coast Forest District that pertain to the Howe landscape unit.

7.0 OGMA Planning Methodology

7.1 Old Growth Management Areas Selection

The Landscape Unit Planning Guide, dated March 1999, provides direction for selecting suitable OGMA candidate stands to maximize their value to landscape level biodiversity conservation. Ecological suitability, managing Identified Wildlife, species at risk, ungulate winter range and ecosystem representation are priority selection criteria. An important part of the OGMA selection process is to ensure that separate planning processes complement each other.

OGMAs were selected based on a review of several criteria and features. Individual forest stand attributes (e.g. age, stocking, site index, species composition, height class) was one of the factors since it was helpful in maximizing OGMA value from a biodiversity standpoint while minimizing timber supply impact. An approach guided strictly by age class or AAC contributions could result in the inclusion of stands of marginal biodiversity value and significant timber supply impact. To this end, effort was also extended to use forests from the non-contributing land base (i.e. highly constrained) first for meeting OGMA objectives; and even when areas from the timber harvesting land base were required they were combined with non-contributing forests as much as possible. Air photo review and high resolution satellite imagery were also used to help verify OGMA biodiversity value.

Old growth targets were achieved in all biogeoclimatic zones in the landscape unit. Where suitable and considered ecologically viable, OGMAs were delineated to be contiguous across biogeoclimatic subzone/variant boundaries. This approach provided an opportunity to significantly improve the biological value of this plan by increasing OGMA patch size, landscape connectivity and distribution over the landscape unit.

Stand level biodiversity objectives (e.g. wildlife tree retention) together with landscape level OGMA and incidentally retained forest is a precautionary approach to management of biodiversity and ecological values. In addition to including areas with specific habitat requirements (like ungulate winter range), other factors, such as patch size (i.e. large patches provide forest interior habitat conditions), distribution and connectivity were considered during OGMA delineation. Due to the naturally rugged and fragmented nature of the landscape, opportunities to recruit larger patches to provide for forest interior conditions were limited, but larger patches were still favoured over smaller patches. Measuring the amount of OGMA that

Howe LU SRMP 11 2012

58 will provide forest interior habitat is confounded by the eventual fate of adjacent forest. In some cases, forest stands adjacent to OGMAs may never be disturbed and the OGMA (no matter what size) will maintain forest interior habitat; however in other cases adjacent forest will be harvested creating an edge and forest interior habitat will only be provided in large OGMAs (see Incrementally Retained Forest below). Specific efforts were made to ensure OGMAs were distributed throughout the landscape unit to maintain some connectivity at the landscape scale. In some cases, riparian to upland connectivity was improved by expanding a riparian OGMA to include adjacent upland forest. Importantly, narrow and isolated riparian corridors were not considered viable OGMA candidates due to their limited value at the landscape scale.

During the LU planning process, careful consideration was made to ensure that access to timber beyond an OGMA was not cut off by its delineation. Future access corridors, where known, were left out of OGMAs; and OGMA boundaries were delineated to simplify adjacent management.

Although OGMAs were primarily delineated within the oldest available age class, old forest stands that were approved or proposed for harvesting on FSPs were excluded from candidate OGMAs following direction outlined in the Landscape Unit Planning Guide.

Recruitment: As there is insufficient old forest to meet the retention targets, stands that are not characterized as old growth have also been selected as OGMAs. In some cases, these stands have attributes that are similar to old growth stands, which may include veterans, secondary layers or as smaller subunits that are a mosaic of different age classes. Based on the higher biodiversity value of these stands, as compared to even aged stands, they were considered suitable OGMA candidates. Further details regarding selection of these OGMAs is provided as part of the rationale in Appendix I Wildlife: OGMAs have been placed to overlap with established WHAs (for marbled murrelet) where suitable attributes for biodiversity conservation were present. Similarly, UWRs for Mountain Goat, which were mapped but not yet established at the time of planning, were used as OGMAs wherever forest stands were suitable (UWRs were approved in early 2102). Achieving this is a good example of separate planning processes complementing each other. Doing so also helped reduce timber supply impact associated with LU Planning because once legally established, timber harvesting, in both WHAs and UWRs, will no longer be permitted. In some cases, wildlife constrained areas provided most of the forest interior habitat conditions contained in OGMAs.

Howe LU SRMP 12 2012

59 Incrementally Retained Forest: Incrementally retained forest is a term that refers to forest that has been identified as part of the forest cover database (i.e. sensitive terrain, riparian, wetlands, sub-alpine forest) and has biological, ecological and habitat values that contribute to the overall habitat available for wildlife and biodiversity but is not set aside as OGMA. It provides a diversity of ecosystems that augment connectivity, increase patch sizes, reduces edge effect and contributes to forest interior habitat conditions. These areas may be of low-to-no economic merchantability or forests constrained in some manner whereby it is unavailable for future harvesting activities. Although these areas that are incrementally retained have no legal protection under the objectives of this landscape unit plan they do contribute to achieving old growth and biodiversity management objectives.

7.2 Boundary Mapping

OGMA boundaries were mapped to natural features (i.e. streams, slides, etc.) as well as created edges of forest stands (e.g. cutblocks or roads) wherever possible to ensure they could be located on the ground. OGMAs were also delineated to include complete forest stands wherever possible to reduce operational uncertainty and increase ease of OGMA mapping. OGMAs were initially digitized and mapped using a 1:20,000 scale TRIM base. Satellite images, aerial photography and reconnaissance flights (summer 2003) were chiefly used to designate OGMAs. During early OGMA identification, structural attributes of the stand, rather than forest cover information, were primarily used to determine appropriateness. To mitigate the issues of utilizing a number of mapping techniques, final OGMAs were mapped with the aid of recent high resolution satellite images.

7.3 Amendment Policy

A MFLNRO South Coast Region policy (dated August 13, 2010) provides direction to proponents (forest tenure holders) when applying for amendments to OGMA legal objectives. Amendment procedures will cover such things as minor or major amendments for resource development (e.g. roads, bridges, boundary issues, rock quarries & gravel pits), or the relocation of OGMAs. The policy also discusses acceptable management activities and review procedures, and forms an integral part of this LU plan.

In general, most OGMA boundaries are not ‘permanently fixed’, they can be moved over time so long as biodiversity objectives are maintained. Replacement OGMAs are required to be equivalent or better than the original. As stand succession proceeds, some currently unsuitable forests may become good OGMA candidates and as such periodic assessment or revision to the OGMAs may occur.

Howe LU SRMP 13 2012

60

8.0 OGMA Analysis

The Howe LU was ranked as an Intermediate Biodiversity Emphasis Option through the biodiversity value ranking process completed earlier. This Intermediate designation along with the BEC subzone/variant determines the minimum percentage of the Crown forested land base that will be designated as OGMA. Table 3 outlines the total amount of OGMA required and established in each subzone/variant and from which Crown forest category it is derived. The OGMAs delineated as part of the Howe Landscape Unit Plan meet the old growth targets consistent with the Order Establishing Provincial Non-spatial Old Growth Objectives. The summary indicates that a high proportion of the OGMAs in CWHvm1 are located within the unconstrained portion of the CFLB. This can be attributed to the high proportion of the CWHvm1 that is within the contributing landbase and associated with established WHAs. The location of proposed OGMAs are identified in the maps that are a part of the landscape unit plan.

Table 3. Old Seral Representation Achieved

OGMA in Non- OGMA in OGMA in OGMA in Difference OGMA Established BEC Contributing Partial Contributing (misclassified) (Established Target % OGMA label (N) Contributing (P) (C) Excluded (X) - Target) (ha) % Ha % ha % ha % ha % ha ha CWHdm 0.09 419.7 432.3 55.0 237.6 35.3 152.8 7.8 33.6 1.9 8.3 12.6 CWHvm1 0.13 881.3 917.2 20.3 186.0 29.2 267.6 44.9 412.2 5.6 51.4 35.9 CWHvm2 0.13 890.2 901.0 50.2 451.9 24.2 218.1 12.0 108.2 13.6 122.7 10.8 CWHxm1 0.09 49.7 72.8 76.2 55.5 19.8 14.5 0.1 0.1 3.8 2.8 23.2 MHmm1 0.19 561.6 565.6 70.1 396.6.8 8.3 47.1 0.5 3.1 21.0 118.8 3.9 2802.6 2888.9 46.0 1327.7 24.2 700.1 19.3 557.2 10.5 303.9 86.4

9.0 Landscape Unit Plan Objectives

Landscape unit objectives will be legally established within the current legislative framework and will become Higher Level Plan objectives under FRPA. Subsequent operational plans must be consistent with these objectives.

Howe LU SRMP 14 2012

61 Appendix I OGMA Summary and Rationale

OGMA OGMA Total Comments Number BEC Area (ha) 1 CWHvm1 18.8 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 1 CWHvm2 5.4 2 CWHvm2 16.2 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 2 MHmm1 0.5 3 CWHvm1 0.7 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 3 CWHvm2 4.5 3 MHmm1 0.4 4 CWHvm1 17.7 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 4 CWHvm2 1.2 5 CWHvm1 2.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 5 CWHvm2 7.0 6 CWHvm1 38.6 Recruitment, overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet , riparian forest 7 CWHvm1 12.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 7 CWHvm2 12.3 8 CWHvm2 4.9 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 9 CWHvm2 2.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 9 MHmm1 21.2 10 CWHvm2 2.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 11 MHmm1 15.0 Old forest representation 14 CWHvm1 12.3 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 14 CWHvm2 5.0 15 CWHvm1 0.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 15 CWHvm2 15.6 16 CWHvm1 6.9 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 16 CWHvm2 8.5 17 CWHvm1 17.3 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 17 CWHvm2 65.1 17 MHmm1 0.2 18 CWHvm1 19.0 Old forest representation 18 CWHvm2 0.7 20 MHmm1 7.7 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 21 CWHvm1 1.2 Old forest representation. 21 CWHvm2 2.0 22 CWHvm2 2.0 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 22 MHmm1 21.0 24 CWHvm1 65.7 Old forest representation. Riparian forest. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet. 25 CWHvm1 17.8 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 25 CWHvm2 7.5 26 CWHvm2 8.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. 26 MHmm1 61.2 28 CWHvm2 2.1 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 28 MHmm1 1.5 31 CWHvm2 10.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat

Howe LU SRMP 15 2012

62 OGMA OGMA Total Comments Number BEC Area (ha) 32 CWHvm2 0.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. 32 MHmm1 1.6 33 CWHvm2 10.3 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 33 MHmm1 3.9 34 CWHvm2 5.9 Old forest representation. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet 35 CWHvm2 0.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 35 MHmm1 5.1 36 CWHvm1 3.0 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 37 CWHvm2 8.3 38 CWHvm2 3.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 39 CWHvm1 6.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 40 CWHvm1 5.6 Old forest representation. Overlaps with wildlife habitat area established for marbled murrelet. A small portion is within Tetrahedron Park 40 CWHvm2 15.1 42 CWHvm2 20.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 42 MHmm1 2.5 43 CWHvm2 1.6 43 MHmm1 0.3 44 CWHvm1 22.9 Old forest representation, riparian forest 45 CWHvm1 2.9 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 45 CWHvm2 23.3 45 MHmm1 9.9 46 CWHvm2 0.6 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 48 CWHvm2 1.1 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 49 CWHvm2 1.0 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 49 MHmm1 3.5 50 CWHvm2 6.1 Old forest representation. 53 CWHvm1 4.3 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 54 CWHvm2 2.0 55 CWHvm1 2.9 Old forest representation. 55 CWHvm2 1.9 55 MHmm1 0.2 57 CWHvm1 4.0 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 57 CWHvm2 25.7 57 MHmm1 9.5 59 CWHvm1 2.4 Old forest representation. 59 CWHvm2 0.4 61 CWHvm1 4.1 Old forest representation. 61 CWHvm2 2.8 63 CWHvm1 7.0 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 64 CWHvm1 13.2 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 64 CWHvm2 2.9 65 CWHvm2 8.3 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 66 CWHvm2 0.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 66 MNmm1 2.0 68 CWHvm1 6.2 Old forest representation 68 CWHvm2 0.9

Howe LU SRMP 16 2012

63 OGMA OGMA Total Comments Number BEC Area (ha) 69 CWHvm1 1.9 70 CWHvm1 0.5 Old forest representation 70 CWHvm2 0.8 72 CWHvm2 4.0 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 72 MHmm1 16.1 73 CWHvm1 0.4 Old forest representation 73 CWHvm2 0.7 77 CWHvm1 2.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 77 CWHvm2 4.4 78 CWHvm1 56.2 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 78 CWHvm2 28.6 78 MHmm1 6.5 79 CWHvm1 14.9 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 79 CWHvm2 6.0 80 CWHvm1 8.9 Old forest representation, riparian forest 81 CWHvm1 25.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. A portion is within Tetrahedron Park 81 CHWvm2 14.0 MHmm1 1.9 82 CWHvm2 6.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 84 CWHvm1 6.1 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 84 CWHvm2 4.1 85 CWHvm2 1.2 85 MHmm1 21.2 86 CWHvm1 7.8 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. A portion is within Tetrahedron Park 86 CWHvm2 1.4 86 MHmm1 4.5 88 CWHvm1 0.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. 88 CWHvm2 1.4 91 CWHvm1 3.0 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 91 CWHvm2 8.9 92 CWHvm1 11.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 92 CWHvm2 59.8 92 MHmm1 16.3 93 MHmm1 11.6 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 98 CWHvm1 4.8 Old forest representation, ungulate winter range for mountain goat 98 CWHvm2 9.6 98 MHmm1 0.4 99 CWHvm1 13.2 Old forest representation 99 CWHvm2 1.2 105 CWHvm1 26.3 Recruitment OGMA. Riparian forest 106 CWHvm2 11.1 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. Mainly within Tetrahedron Park 106 MHmm1 6.0 110 CWHvm2 8.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 111 MHmm1 6.3 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 113 CWHvm2 4.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. Very small overlap with Tetrahedron Park 113 MHmm1 9.0

Howe LU SRMP 17 2012

64 OGMA OGMA Total Comments Number BEC Area (ha) 115 MHmm1 3.4 Old forest representation. Located within Tetrahedron Park 116 CWHvm2 15.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 116 MHmm1 5.9 118 CWHvm2 7.9 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. Very small overlap with Tetrahedron Park 118 MHmm1 5.0 123 CWHvm2 5.0 Old forest representation. 123 MHmm1 3.1 127 CWHvm2 0.2 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 127 MHmm1 3.6 129 MHmm1 2.5 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 130 MHmm1 4.2 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 131 CWHvm1 3.3 132 MHmm1 1.5 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 133 CWHvm1 0.8 Old forest representation. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet 133 CWHvm2 3.1 134 CWHvm2 3.0 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 138 CWHvm1 4.8 Recruitment OGMA 139 CWHvm2 22.5 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 139 MHmm1 28.9 142 CWHvm2 19.0 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 142 MHmm1 72.7 143 CWHvm2 0.8 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 143 MHmm1 0.7 144 CWHvm2 3.2 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 144 MHmm1 4.2 146 CWHvm2 3.7 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 147 CWHvm2 0.4 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 147 MHmm1 2.3 148 CWHvm1 2.8 148 CWHvm2 2.8 149 CWHvm2 3.3 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 150 CWHvm2 11.4 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 150 MHmm1 5.1 153 CWHvm2 0.3 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 153 MHmm1 37.8 154 CWHvm2 10.4 154 CWHvm2 1.4 156 CWHvm2 1.5 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 156 MHmm1 1.4 162 CWHvm1 21.1 Old forest representation and recruitment 164 CWHvm1 10.4 164 CWHvm2 46.5 164 MHmm1 37.7 165 CWHvm1 7.8 Old forest representation. Riparian forest 167 CWHvm1 2.7 167 CWHvm2 2.6

Howe LU SRMP 18 2012

65 OGMA OGMA Total Comments Number BEC Area (ha) 168 CWHvm2 0.5 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 168 MHmm1 1.6 169 CWHvm2 1.3 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park 169 MHmm1 1.6 170 MHmm1 7.6 Old forest representation. Partially within Tetrahedron Park. Within McNair community watershed 173 CWHdm 9.3 Recruitment OGMA 174 MHmm1 1.4 177 CWHvm1 6.0 Old forest representation 180 MHmm1 2.5 Old forest representation. Within Tetrahedron Park. Partially within McNair community watershed 181 CWHvm1 17.3 Old forest representation. Riparian forest 182 CWHdm 8.1 Recruitment OGMA 183 CWHvm1 6.8 Old forest representation 184 CWHvm1 5.4 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 184 CWHvm2 6.5 186 CWHdm 63.9 Recruitment OGMA 186 CWHxm1 8.2 187 CWHvm2 5.0 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 188 CWHvm2 4.9 188 HMmm1 2.0 189 CWHvm1 53.7 Old forest representation and recruitment 189 CWHvm2 6.6 190 CWHvm2 0.6 190 MHmm1 0.9 191 CWHvm1 36.9 Old forest representation and recruitment 192 CWHvm2 11.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 192 MHmm1 0.4 195 CWHvm1 7.1 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 195 MHmm1 3.7 196 CWHdm 23.9 Old forest representation and recruitment 200 CWHdm 73.5 Old forest representation and recruitment 200 CWHxm1 8.2 207 CWHvm1 2.9 Old forest representation. Portion within McNair community watershed 209 CWHvm1 2.6 Old forest representation. Portion within McNair community watershed 211 CWHvm1 1.1 Old forest representation. Portion within McNair community watershed 212 CWHvm1 32.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 212 CWHvm2 6.4 213 CWHvm1 3.9 Recruitment OGMA. Portion within McNair community watershed 214 CWHdm 6.3 Old forest representation and recruitment. Portion in Gamier community watershed 214 CWHvm2 0.4 215 CWHvm1 21.2 Recruitment OGMA. Riparian forest. Portion within McNair community watershed 216 CWHvm1 32.9 Old forest representation and recruitment. Portion within Dakota community watershed 217 CWHdm 17.2 Old forest representation and recruitment. Portion in Gamier community watershed 218 CWHxm1 17.6 Old forest representation 219 CWHdm 7.6 Recruitment OGMA 220 CWHvm2 2.8 Recruitment OGMA 221 CWHdm 18.0 Old forest representation and recruitment. Small portion in Gamier community watershed 221 CWHvm2 24.6

Howe LU SRMP 19 2012

66 OGMA OGMA Total Comments Number BEC Area (ha) 222 CWHvm2 10.2 Old forest representation. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet. Within Dakota community watershed 223 CWHvm1 3.8 Old forest representation and recruitment. Within Dakota community watershed 224 CWHvm1 52.6 Old forest representation. Recruitment forest. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet. Riparian forest. Within Dakota community watershed 224 CWHvm2 35.1 226 CWHdm 52.0 Recruitment OGMA 226 CWHxm1 13.3 227 CWHdm 4.8 Old forest representation 227 CWHxm1 9.4 228 CWHvm2 4.2 230 CWHdm 8.4 Recruitment OGMA. Small portion in Gamier community watershed 231 CWHvm2 3.3 Recruitment OGMA 232 CWHvm2 26.4 Old forest representation. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet. Within Dakota community watershed 234 CWHvm1 9.7 235 CWHvm1 17.4 Old forest representation. Within Dakota community watershed 236 CWHvm1 1.3 238 CWHdm 69.3 Old forest representation and recruitment 238 CWHvm2 0.1 238 CWHxm1 1.5 239 CWHdm 11.6 Recruitment OGMA 240 CWHdm 17.9 Old forest representation and recruitment 240 CWHxm1 0.1 241 CWHdm 2.0 Old forest representation and recruitment 241 CWHxm1 9.7 242 CWHdm 16.2 Old forest representation and recruitment 242 CWHvm1 30.9 245 CWHdm 4.7 Old forest representation and recruitment 245 CWHxm1 4.8 277 CWHdm 17.8 278 MHmm1 33.4 Old forest representation. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet 279 CWHvm2 5.5 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat for marbled murrelet. 280 CWHvm1 3.5 Old forest representation. 280 MHmm1 11.7 281 CWHvm1 13.5 Recruitment OGMA. Portion within McNair community watershed 282 CWHvm2 0.7 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat for marbled murrelet. 282 MHmm1 2.4 283 CWHvm2 19.7 Old forest representation. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat area for marbled murrelet. Within Dakota community watershed 284 CWHvm2 0.6 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat. Overlaps with established wildlife habitat for marbled murrelet. 284 MHmm1 4.5 285 CWHvm1 16.7 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 285 CWHvm2 6.5 286 CWHvm1 3.3 Old forest representation. Ungulate winter range for mountain goat 286 CWHvm2 6.8 287 CWHvm1 11.0 Old forest representation

Howe LU SRMP 20 2012

67 Appendix II List of Acronyms

AAC Allowable Annual Cut BEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification BEO Biodiversity Emphasis Option CFLB Crown Forest Land Base FIA Forest Investment Account FPC Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act FRPA Forest and Range Practices Act ILMB Integrated Land Management Bureau LU Landscape Unit LUPG Landscape Unit Planning Guide MAL Ministry of Agriculture and Lands MEM Ministry of Energy and Mines MFLNRO Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations MOE Ministry of Environment MFR Ministry of Forests and Range NC Non-Contributing NDT Natural Disturbance Type, see Biodiversity Guidebook OGMA Old Growth Management Area THLB Timber Harvesting Land Base WTP Wildlife Tree Patch WTR Wildlife Tree Retention

Howe LU SRMP 21 2012

68 Appendix III Consultation Summary

A notification letter was sent to all First Nations with traditional territory within the Howe Landscape Unit on October 9, 2009 to inform that the project was being initiated. Advertising was placed in the following publications: BC Gazette (July 7, 2011), Campbell River Mirror (July 8, 2011), Powell River Peak (July 6, 2011), Sunshine Coast Reporter (July 8, 2011). The public and First Nations consultation period was set for July 15, 2011 to September 15, 2011. No comments were received from First Nations on the proposed OGMAs and legal order during the concurrent 60 day consultation period. The following comments were received during the public review period.

Date Received From Comment Summary Reply Comment 2011-08-10 Sunshine Coast The Howe Landscape Unit SRMP does not Approx. 13.6 ha was retired Regional District address any Independent Power Projects from the draft OGMAs, with (IPP), specifically how the Box Canyon project 37.9 of the original area succeeding in eliminating several proposed retained. New OGMAs provided OGMAs and changing the boundaries of an additional 19.6 ha in the others. OGMA 227_52, 227_89 and 227_135 same general area. have been eliminated; 227_99, 227_59 and 227_61 have been reduced. Three new OGMAs have been added (227_287, 227_282 and 227_279) however it is not clear if they are equal to the same size that has been lost.

2011-08-10 Sunshine Coast There seems to be a missed opportunity at This OGMA was delineated Regional District the boundary of the Chapman and Howe LUs. specifically to provide old OGMA 227_283 appears to terminate at the growth representation within boundary between Chapman and Howe LUs. the Howe LU. OGMAs for Was that because the 'natural' OGMA Chapman LU were approved in boundary was there or because the Chapman 2002 and were not considered OGMAs have already been determined? in this process.

2011-09-16 Elphinstone What is the target for OGMAs in the District, Provided tables that describe Logging Focus and Chapman & Howe LUs? Can the public the OGMA targets for each NDT nominate areas for OGMA designation? type. Provided data to show that established OGMAs in legal L.U.s and the proposed OGMAs in the draft plans meet or exceed those targets. The public is not engaged during OGMA planning, however OGMAs are intended to co-locate with other forest values that are of public interest.

Howe LU SRMP 22 2012

69 ANNEX K

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: August 9, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee, Sept 20, 2012 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner RE: Invasive Plants Update

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Regional District staff work with the Coastal Invasive Plant Council to coordinate a date for an instructional session with Infrastructure and Parks works crews.

AND THAT Regional District staff help facilitate the formation of an independent Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Committee.

AND THAT Regional District staff explore funding for a community weed pull.

BACKGROUND

Last year, the SCRD joined the Coastal Invasive Plant Council (CIPC). The CIPC is a collective group that works to control invasive plants within BC’s southern coastal communities including the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island. In 2011, CIPC provided the Regional District with many resources: stakeholder meeting; brochures; strategic consulting; participation in the province’s invasive alien plant program database; and inventory and treatment of invasive plants.

The SCRD approved $1,000 to contribute towards the Coastal Invasive Plant Council in 2012.

On August 1st, the SCRD hosted a community information meeting on invasive plants at Chaster House. Notices about the meeting were posted at SCRD buildings, Daily Reporter, on our website and One Coast facebook site. The presentations and discussion were led by CIPC’s coordinator, Rachelle McElroy and Amber Smith, Ministry of Transportation’s Environmental Coordinator. The meeting concluded with a site visit to talk about the knotweed that’s established near Chaster Park. Thirty two people attended the meeting.

This report will summarize the meeting’s discussion.

DISCUSSION

Topics of discussion included:

Early detection and rapid response (EDRR) Ms McElroy described the process the BC government has for invasive plants. The following flow chart summarizes the process:

Early detection identification alert screening risk assessment response planning rapid response

70 Invasive Plant Update PDC September 20, 2012 Page 2

EDRR relies on the public/professionals to be able to identify and report the species to trigger the response. The following chart highlights the fact that managing invasive species before they get established is the most cost effective way of managing the invasion.

Action Categories CIPC classifies invasive plants and develops a management strategy based on its classification. For example on the Sunshine Coast:

Action Category Plant Example Prevent: Species not known to occur in region, but likely to Kudzu establish if introduced. Eradicate if found Eradicate; Species known to occur in limited distribution and low Giant Hogweed density. Eradicate if found. Contain; Established infestations found in portions of the region. Knotweed Contain existing infestations and prevent spread to un-infested areas Control: Established infestations common and widespread English Ivy, Scotch throughout the CIPC region. Focus control in high value Broom conservation areas. Use biological control, if available, on a landscape scale.

Sunshine Coast Invasive Plants Ms. McElroy then discussed several invasive plants; eg Daphne, knotweeds (see Attachment A), scotch broom and hogweed (see Attachment B) on the Sunshine Coast.

She also discussed chemical use (glyphosate) in the control of knotweed via stem injection. Attachments C provides information about glyphosate.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5280 Environmental Management\5280-16 Invasive Species\2012 Sept PCD invasiveplants1.docx 71 Invasive Plant Update PDC September 20, 2012 Page 3

Provincial Invasive Alien Plant Program Application Ms. McElroy described the provincial online reporting tool that anyone can use to report an invasive plant. The plants that get reported will get reviewed by provincial specialists. The link is to the site is: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/plants/raw.htm.

Attachment D shows a list of sites on the Sunshine Coast as of Dec 2011 that have been reported using the reporting program. CIPC does review each report and verifies the species.

Disposal The Disposal of invasive plant material can be problematic. Other than giant hogweed1, the Regional District does not have a special procedure to handle invasive plant material. At the moments each landfill has a site for green yard waste. The SCRD charges for commercial customers to dump green yard waste, but not residents. The SCRD has a contract with Coastland Wood Industries to remove the green yard waste from the landfill/transfer stations for composting.

There are two commercial composters on the Coast: Salish Soils and Direct Disposal. Both facilities have a Class A compost facility as licenced by the Ministry of Environment. Class A compost facilities must meet a provincial standard and the materials are tested at regular intervals.

CIPC does not recommend domestic composting for knotweed. Research has shown that knotweed will regenerate unless the temperature in the compost is 45oC for more than three weeks or 55oC or more for one week2. It can be challenging for a home gardener to achieve the consistent conditions required.

Education The attendees agreed that education about invasive species is important, and observed that it is difficult to reach out to everyone in the community.

Ms. McElroy introduced the idea of forming a Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Committee. Several regions (eg Sea to Sky Invasive Species Council)3.have these independent committee’s that look after invasive species in a specific region. Committee activities vary from on-the- ground management of invasive plants or species, community outreach and stewardship events, and working with the public, government, and stakeholders to achieve their unique missions and objectives. Planning staff could assist in the formation of a Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Committee.

Further, there is funding for community weed pulls. Any volunteer group, organization, school or club who meets the criteria (eg. insurance, minimum of 10 volunteers etc.) can participate in a “Communities Pulling Together” weed pull event. Groups that complete a successful weed pull event will receive a $250 honorarium. Planning and Parks staff could assist in organizing a community event.

1 As per WorkSafe BC regulations, giant hogweed is to be double bagged and buried in the landfill. 2 Ward,R. (2003), “Investigations into the effect of temperature on regeneration of Japanese Knotweed, Fallopia Japonica (Houtt.)”. CIWM Scientific and Technical Review, 4(2), 19-21. 3 Sea to Sky Invasive Species Council covers all lands within electoral areas C and D of the Squamish- Lillooet Regional District as well as the Village of Lions Bay.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5280 Environmental Management\5280-16 Invasive Species\2012 Sept PCD invasiveplants1.docx 72 Invasive Plant Update PDC September 20, 2012 Page 4

Legislation There were several questions about local bylaws/regulations respecting invasive plants. The Weed Control Act does place a duty on all land occupiers in British Columbia (including public and private) lands. However, in order to operate a program to enforce control of the weeds listed in the legislation, the Regional District must pass a service establishment bylaw. There have been several Regional Districts that have invasive plant bylaws: Comox Valley Regional District, Cariboo Regional District and the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen.

In late September of 2011, the SCRD Board adopted the following resolution:

383/11 AND THAT staff review the need for an invasive plant bylaw for rural areas in 2012, after a year of participating in the CIPC;

Planning staff recommend that the Regional District put resources into the supporting a local invasive species committee first, and then revisit the need for an invasive plant bylaw once the committee is functioning. Staff believes that invasive plant education in the community should be the focus at this time before resources are spent in administering a bylaw.

SCRD Operations to Minimize Spread Planning staff have talked with Infrastructure Services Department and discussed the potential of works crews inadvertently spreading invasive plant material to/from work sites. Staff recommends that our works/parks crew would benefit from a tailgate session with CIPC to discuss identification and management for invasive plants.

The Coastal Invasive Plant Council Follow-up Letter CIPC sent out a letter in late August that summarized the meeting, see Attachment E.

CONCLUSION Invasive plants are on the Sunshine Coast and the Regional District may be in a position to support the control and eradication of some of these species. Goals the SCRD are working towards include a combination of community education, an inventory of invasive plants and prioritizing control projects. In keeping with these goals, staff recommend that the SCRD work with the CIPC to coordinate dates for the training and inventory, explore the formation of a local invasive species committee and initiate a community weed pull.

______Teresa Fortin Planner

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5280 Environmental Management\5280-16 Invasive Species\2012 Sept PCD invasiveplants1.docx 73 Attachment A Knotweed Primer: Information about knotweed and potential treatments1

At least 93 reported sites of Japanese Knotweed in the SCRD, but the CIPC believes there is still an opportunity to control knotweed in the Sunshine Coast.

Description • Four types: Japanese, Giant, the hybrid Bohemian; watching for Himalayan • Similar to bamboo: hollow stems 1-3 m tall • Leathery leaves, egg shaped • Small white/green flowers in plume (Aug-Sept) • AKA Ornamental bamboo, Elephant-ear bamboo

Why is knotweed so good at being an invasive plant? • Roots extend 3m deep and 20m laterally • Can grow 4cm per day! • 10mm(0.7g) piece of rhizome or stem can create a new plant in 6 days • Rhizomes can be dormant for up to 20years

How does it spread? • Human activity, beavers and high water events • Roadside maintenance activities • Improper disposal • treatment attempts • contaminated soil • dumping of yard waste

Impacts • Safety and Infrastructure $$$ • Reduced highway sightlines • Hydrological changes • Grows through asphalt and small cracks in concrete • Infested riprap may require complete disassembly • Risk for home owners • grow through foundation/

Treatment Options Depends on size and density of infestation: • Mechanical methods effective for small sites (<0.001 Ha & <10 stems/m2 ) • Herbicide integration required for large sites (>0.005Ha & >10 stems/m2)

A. Small Patches (300 stems or less) 1) Digging • Cut off all stems then dig main root mass and lateral rhizomes • Stems must be elevated to allow desiccation • Roots/rhizomes must undergo deep burial at landfill • Repeat cutting and digging for 3-5yrs • Only effective with very small patches in soft soil • Can use repeat mulching (30cm) which encourages roots to colonize the mulch layer – easier to remove roots

1 Information from CIPC.

74 Attachment A

2) Cutting • Cut stems as close to the ground as possible • At least twice per month April-Sept. • Once per month in Oct. and Nov. • NEVER letting stems grow > 15cm in height • Repeat until sprouting stops (3-5 years min.) • Cut material must be elevated to allow for desiccation (or deep buried at landfill) • Monitor up to 10m away from plant

3) Smothering • Cut stems as close to ground as possible • Stomp down and flatten area • Cover site (plus several meters )with: a. woven, heavy grade geotextile, or thick cardboard b. continuous layer of heavy black plastic or a tarp or old carpet c. Layer of 10-15cm mulch • Continuously monitor: a. Remove new stems b. Repair holes c. Stomp down any that try to stand up

4) Stem Injection • Effective for sites: >1m above high water mark; High percentage of stems >2cm in diameter • Insert needle b/w 1-2 node (or just below 3rd node) • Inject 3-5ml of glyphosate-based formulation • Mark each injected stem • Return 3-4 weeks later to inject remaining stems • Monitor for re-growth for 3 years • Avg. 700-1200 stems/day/person

Interesting link to Metro Vancouver’s Invasive Species website and stem injection for knotweeds: http://www.iscmv.ca/blog/stem-injection-of-knotweed-and-results-video-blog

5) Excavator/Backpack Foliar Spray

Large Patches (300 stems or more) 1) Brush Saw (Machete)/Backpack Foliar Spray (*) 2) Cut and Insert/Backpack Foliar Spray (*)

All eradication programs must span several years and consist of multiple annual treatments

Non-Industrial Chemical Treatments Many different trials with substances such as: • Acetic acid (vinegar) • Lime (to increase pH) • Salt water/saline solution

75 Attachment B

Giant Hogweed Primer: Information about hogweed and potential treatments2

Description: • Very large: up to 6m tall • Hollow stems with reddish-purple spots • Deeply lobed leaves • Small white flowers form umbrella shape (up to 1m across), May-June • Confused with cowparsnip (smaller, leaves not sharply toothed has coarse hairs at the base of leaf stalks, and hairy leaves. Reddish-purple spots are not present on stems) and Palmate coltsfoot (only grows to a height of 10-50 cm (low-lying ground cover) with no real umbel and leaves that are lobed.)

Toxic: sap in stem and leaves • Severe skin blisters, temporary or permanent scarring & blindness • Toxin causes skin photo sensitivity • Contact: wash in soap and water, keep out of sunlight 1-2 weeks • Full protection: full body, gloves, rubber boots, full face. Wash clothes & equipment after.

Mechanical Control Options • Mature Plants: Manually remove the first 8-12 cm of the central root. Minimize soil disturbance by cutting and prying versus digging. • Immature Plants: Mow every two weeks to exhaust the seed bank in the soil. This may take 3-5 years. For small confined infestations, cut plants at ground level and cover the soil with black plastic. Monitor to ensure seedlings don’t poke through the black plastic. • Disposal: Place plant material in a large heavy duty plastic or mesh bag and landfill. Alternatively, dry and incinerate plant material away from any people-frequented areas. If umbels have formed, carefully cut them off, place them in sealed plastic garbage bags, and landfill. Do not compost this plant! • Monitor sites throughout the growing season to ensure new infestations do not grow

Chemical Control Options • Effective herbicides include glyphosate and triclopyr. Foliar herbicide applications are most effective in spring on actively growing plants, followed with a subsequent summer application for late sprouts. • Stem injections or “cut stem and inject” methods are effective after heavy sap flow in the spring.

2 Information from Invasive Plant Council of BC.

76 Attachment C

Glyphosate (eg Roundup) Primer3

How It Works: It prevents the plants from making certain proteins that are needed for plant growth. Glyphosate stops a specific enzyme pathway, the shikimic acid pathway. The shikimic acid pathway is found only in plants and some microorganisms.

Selectivity: systemic (goes to the roots) & is non-selective (will affect any plant that it touches)

Application Methods: stem injection, cut & inject with follow-up foliar backpack sprayer

Persistence in Soil: Usual half-life is > 47 days (depending on soils/climate)

Final Breakdown Products: carbon dioxide and inorganic phosphate

Toxicity: practically non-toxic to fish, mammals, honeybees, slightly toxic to birds and other aquatic organisms. But some products containing glysophate may be toxic because of the other ingredients in them.

3 Information from CIPC and the US National Pesticide Information Center

77 Attachment D

Sunshine Coast Untreated Sites Dec 20114

Invasive Plant Estimated Occurrence Area ha Scotch broom (CYTI SCO) 25.4800 148 Himalayan blackberry (RUBU ARM) 20.8799 242 Hairy cat's-ear (HYPO RAD) 162 162 Oxeye daisy (LEUC VUL) 2.6450 48 Japanese knotweed (FALL JAP) 1.6391 93 English ivy (HEDE HEL) 0.8280 16 St. John's wort/ Goatweed (HYPE PER) 0.5148 79 Field bindweed (CONV ARV) 0.3283 21 Butterfly bush (BUDD DAV) 0.2579 33 Bull thistle (CIRS VUL) 0.1334 41 Canada thistle (CIRS ARV) 0.1163 28 Curled dock (RUME CRI) 0.1155 32 Common tansy (TANA VUL) 0.0919 22 Tansy ragwort (SENE JAC) 0.0806 14 Orange hawkweed (HIER AUR) 0.0700 21 Common hawkweed (HIER VUL) 0.0515 7 Mullein (VERB THA) 0.0407 15 Meadow hawkweed (HIER CAE) 0.0255 2 Dalmatian toadflax (LINA DAL) 0.017 2 Yellow iris (IRIS PSE) 0.0150 1 Annual sow thistle (SONC OLE) 0.0142 4 Sowthistle species (SONC SPP) 0.0130 11 Burdock species (ARCT SPP) 0.0113 9 Spotted Knapweed (CENT BIE) 0.0040 1 Bur chervil (ANTH CAU) 0.0020 1 Giant hogweed (HERA MAN) 0.0010 1 Hawkweed species (HIER SPP) 0.0008 1 Yellow/common toadflax (LINA VUL) 0.0001 1 Totals 62.1012 1056

4 Data from the Province’s Invasive Alien Plant Program site. Data gathered and entered by public. CIPC ground truth some, not all entries.

78 Attachment E Coastal Invasive Plant Committee P.O. Box 48114, 3575 Douglas Street Victoria, BC V8Z 7H5 250-857-2472 [email protected] www.coastalinvasiveplants.com

Dear Sunshine Coast Community,

RE: Follow-up from August 1st, 2012 Meeting in Sunshine Coast Regional District

Thank you for joining the Ministry of Transportation and the Coastal Invasive Plant Committee on August 1st, 2012 for a half-day presentation and site visit on the co-operative management of invasive plants in the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

Addressed in this email are answers to questions that came up during the presentation and information for moving forward with invasive plant management in the Sunshine Coast.

Given the current interest and momentum building in the Sunshine Coast around invasive plant management the formation of a regional committee and the organization of a community weed pull ($250 honorarium is available) would be natural next steps.

Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Committee:

Successful examples of regional committees exist in the CIPC service area, the Capital Region Invasive Species Partnership (CRISP) has been very successful in moving forward with invasive plant management in the Capital Regional District. A CRISP page ‘now in development’ is accessible on the CIPC website under ‘regional committees’ for review and provides an example of what a Sunshine Coast Regional Committee could look.

Possible steps in the formation of a Regional Committee: 1. Identifying interested members 2. Holding a meeting (at this point CIPC staff can join-in on conference call) 3. Draft Terms of reference 4. Develop a priority invasive plant list using the CIPC list as a base and building from there. Categorize plants by action level following the Early Detection Rapid Response action levels (Prevent, Eradicate, Contain, and Control).

In the meantime, a community weed pull could be organized and staff from the CIPC could assist you with training and resources.

Q/A CIPC Meeting in Sunshine Coast Regional District (August 1st, 2012):

• How many jurisdictions have adopted enforcement of the weed control act – o We have not yet found a definitive answer to this question; however continue to investigate this question as well as the procedure a jurisdiction would need to follow in order to enforce the WCA. • Can you use the ‘REPORT-A-WEED’ application to report weeds on private property? o Yes you can and the map display will show invasive plants both on private and crown lands. 79 • Does the ‘natural boundary of the sea’ affect potential treatment sites where herbicide can be used? • Herbicide treatments completed on behalf of the Provincial Government in the lower Sunshine Coast are completed in accordance with the Pest Management Plan (PMP) for the South Coastal Mainland , which was approved by the Ministry of Environment in 2011. The PMP complies with the Integrated Pest Management Act, which identifies requirements for ‘Pesticide Free Zones’ (PFZ). The legislation identifies a 1m PFZ, above the high water mark, for glyphosate and a 10m PFZ for all non-glyphosate applications. The Integrated Pest Management Act makes no reference to the natural boundary of the sea

• What are the composting requirements for Knotweeds? o Do not home compost knotweeds! The precautionary principle applies to the commercial composting of knotweeds and rigorous testing should be conducted prior to introducing knotweeds into the compost stream, at any facility. The attached article specifies that knotweed parts need to reach 55C for a minimum of 1 week to prevent knotweed regeneration, but care must be taken to ensure that the entire compost reaches the temperature (i.e. it is turned etc...) or the lower temperature component may still regenerate.

RESOURCES:

$250 Honorarium for Community Weed Pulls (ISCBC):

Please visit the Invasive Species Council of BC website for more information about the criteria and steps to participate: http://www.bcinvasives.ca/programs/volunteer-groups

Reporting Invasive Plants (top priority are Knotweeds and Giant Hogweed):

There are several ways to report new infestations of priority invasive plants:

1. If you have access to the internet, the best thing that you can do is log onto the Provincial 'Report-A- Weed' application (set your browser to Internet Explorer). The Report-A-Weed-wizard takes you through 3 easy steps to report a suspected new sighting of an invasive alien plant species in BC. Your report will be compared to known locations of the reported species in the Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP) application, and then it will be sent directly to a provincial Invasive Plant Specialist for your area. The Specialist may then share this information with the local Weed Committee Coordinator so that the agency/land owner responsible for the infestation can be notified.

2. Sites located on Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast can be reported to the Coastal Invasive Plant Committee, by calling the Hotline: 250-857-CIPC

3. Sites located anywhere in British Columbia, can be reported by calling the Invasive Plant Council of BC's hotline: 1-888-WEEDSBC or

4. Online Report Form: http://www.coastalinvasiveplants.com/take-action/report-a-weed

______- 2 - 80 Ministry of Transportation Resources

MOT Invasive Plant Website: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/invasiveplant/

MOT Resource page which includes links to all of the PMP’s applicable to Transportation throughout the Province: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/invasiveplant/resources.html

I look forward to our continued collaboration in invasive species management.

Sincerely,

Rachelle McElroy BSc., MSLS

Coordinator, Coastal Invasive Plant Committee

______- 3 - 81 82 83 84 ANNEX L

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats and David Rafael – Planning & Development Division RE: Agricultural Land Commission Changes and New Direction

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT the Planning and Development Committee receives the report titled “Agricultural Land Commission Changes”, dated September 12, 2012. 2. AND THAT the Board send a letter to the Senior Policy Advisor at UBCM, and copied to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) with the following comments: (i) Support the move towards a proactive approach by the Agricultural Land Commission; (ii) Request consultation on proposals to amend the process used to review Agricultural Land Reserve boundaries; (iii) Enforcement and compliance is a topic of interest and the Regional District should be consulted regarding proposed changes. (iv) Regarding a review of the ALC fee structure, the Regional District requests that prior to adopting a new structure it be given an opportunity to comment and that any increase in the fees received should flow to the ALC rather go to general revenue; and (v) Request to be kept informed of the ALC’s development of the proposed proactive planning model and have an opportunity to comment before it is adopted.

BACKGROUND The Union of British Columbia Municipalities is seeking comments or suggestions from local government on how to be consulted with respect to the changes to the Agricultural Land Commission’s application system and new fee structure (see Attachment A). UBCM provided additional information from the ALC Chair, regarding “New Directions (see Attachment B).

85 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 Regarding ALC Changes and New Direction Page 2 of 3

DISCUSSION The Agricultural Land Commission is undergoing a review of its operations and has set out specific changes it wants to make regarding how it will manage its workload and resources. The intention is to move towards proactive local planning by re-configuring the application process. Among other things, ALR applications (exclusions, non-farm use, subdivisions) will no long be considered/reviewed in a "first in time, first in line approach." Rather, a screening process will ensure that applications which stand to benefit farming are reviewed first. Furthermore, from now on the ALC aims to allocate approximately 30% of its resources to reviewing applications (down from a current 80%). ALC Changes (Attachment A) The Agricultural Land Commission is implementing measures to better protect farmland and to generate more revenue. The purpose of the new measures is to give the ALC the ability to review ALR boundaries to ensure the land is suitable for farming; to implement a proactive planning model with local government; and to ensure enforcement/compliance measures. The ALC is currently developing an Online Application Tracking System (OATS) to digitally capture historic information and to spatially link this information to GIS mapping. The goal is to require that future applications to the ALC be completed online and that it include the information required to properly assess the changes that are being requested. The ALC is also looking at a number of fee increases for services: • Application Fees • Service Fees • Monitoring Fees • Auditing Fees The Province has undertaken an online survey to get public input on the ALC fee structure; however, UBCM believes that the online survey is not an appropriate consultation tool to engage local government. UBCM sent out a survey to get local government feedback on the fee structure. Staff will respond to it after the September PDC provides feedback on this report (a copy of the survey may be available at the committee meeting). New Directions (Attachment B) The ALC Chair sets out prioritises for the ALC based upon a report provided by the Auditor General of BC (September 2010) and the Chair’s report of November 2010. The first step is to re-establish the ALC priority is to move away from being reactive and to shift resources from responding to applications. The intention is to reallocate resources to  Planning;  Policy Role;  ALR Boundary Reviews;  Compliance and Enforcement; and  Applications

N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\6635-01 General\2012-Sep-20 ALC Changes report to PDC.doc 86 Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 Regarding ALC Changes and New Direction Page 3 of 3

The province provided the ALC with transitional funding until March 31, 2013 to assist with this shift. The ALC has initiated a number of projects to aid in the shift, these include:  Updating the ALR boundary review procedural manual  Upgrade information technology and information management  Design and build a web based application portal and client self-help kiosk  Populating the ALC database with info from 25,000 applications to provide the ALC and clients with greater access to information  Scanning historical documents from the 25,000 applications to provide the ALC and its clients with greater access to information;  Digitizing and quality assurance review of historical mapping of the 25,000  applications;  Digitizing agricultural capability mapping to provide the ALC and its clients with greater access to information. This mapping will also form the technical foundation for ALR boundary reviews; and  Preparing a compliance and enforcement procedural handbook. Staff comments Staff consider that this shift towards a proactive approach can provide significant assistance to local governments in protecting the ALR and encouraging farming. Thus the Regional District should offer support. However there are some concerns regarding a review of ALR boundary (as a result of updating the ALR boundary review procedural manual). As such, the Regional District should request consultation on this procedural review. Enforcement and compliance is a topic of interest and the Regional District should be consulted regarding proposed changes. Regarding a review of the ALC fee structure, the Regional District requests that prior to adopting a new structure it be given an opportunity to comment and that any increase in the fees received should flow to the ALC rather go to general revenue. In addition, staff consider that the Regional District should be kept informed of the ALC’s development of the proposed proactive planning model and have an opportunity to comment before it is adopted.

N:\Planning & Development\6635 Agricultural Land Development\6635-01 General\2012-Sep-20 ALC Changes report to PDC.doc 87 ATTACHMENT A

MEMBER RELEASE July 20, 2012

TO: Mayor & Council | Chair & Board | Senior Staff FROM: UBCM Secretariat RE: Agricultural Land Commission Changes

The purpose of this member release is to provide an update on changes that the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) is considering in its operations and to get member feedback on how it would like to be consulted on the online application system and the new fee structure.

The Agricultural Land Commission is implementing changes to its operations in response to two reviews that were undertaken. Both of these reviews indicated that the ALC needed to implement measures to better protect farmland and to generate more revenue. The purpose of the new measures is to give the ALC the ability to review ALR boundaries to ensure the land is suitable for farming; to implement a proactive planning model with local government; and to ensure enforcement/compliance measures.

In November 2011 the Agricultural Land Commission Act was amended to give the Commission increased authority to implement new fees. Given these amendments the ALC is looking at ways to generate additional revenue that will give it the ability to implement new measures and to recover the costs of its operations.

The ALC is currently developing an Online Application Tracking System (OATS) to digitally capture historic information and to spatially link this information to GIS mapping. The goal is to require that future applications to the ALC be completed online and that it include the information required to properly assess the changes that are being requested.

The ALC is looking at a number of fee increases for services:

• Application Fees • Service Fees • Monitoring Fees • Auditing Fees

The Province has undertaken an online survey to get public input on the ALC fee structure.

88

UBCM has written the ALC indicating that the online survey is not an appropriate consultation tool to engage local government, particularly given the ongoing partnership that exists in this area. UBCM has suggested that the ALC consult with local government on the new measures that it is proposing to implement and its impact on local government.

UBCM would appreciate any comments or suggestions that you may have on the on how you would like to be consulted with respect to the online application system and the new fee structure.

Please submit your comments by email to [email protected].

If you have any questions regarding this communication please contact:

Ken Vance Senior Policy Advisor Email: [email protected] Tel: 604-270-8226 ext. 114

89 ATTACHMENT B

MEMBER RELEASE August 24, 2012

TO: Mayor & Council | Chair & Board | Senior Staff FROM: UBCM Secretariat RE: Agricultural Land Commission – New Directions

The purpose of this member release is to provide an update on changes that the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) intends to implement to better achieve its mandate.

Attached is a message from Mr. Richard Bullock, Chair of the ALC entitled, Changing the Way We Do Business: An Update on the Transition of the Agricultural Land Commission.

The Agricultural Land Commission is implementing changes to its operations in response to two reviews that were undertaken. Both of these reviews indicated that the ALC needed to implement measures to better protect farmland and to generate more revenue. The purpose of the new measures is to give the ALC the ability to review Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) boundaries to ensure the land is suitable for farming; to implement a proactive planning model with local government; and to ensure enforcement/compliance measures.

Additional Information For additional background information, including the reviews referenced above, please see the links below:

ALC Chair’s Report – November 26, 2010 http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/Final%20Report-Nov26.pdf

Government’s 2011 direction (News Releases of November 2011) http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2011/11/changes-strengthening-agricultural-land-commission- now-law.html

Auditor General of BC Report on the ALC – September 2010 http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report5/audit-agricultural-land-commission

2011 legislative changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th4th/3rd_read/gov19-3.htm http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_02036_01

UBCM Contact Ken Vance Senior Policy Advisor Email: [email protected] Tel: 604-270-8226 ext. 114

ubcm.ca 90

PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR August 23, 2012

CHANGING THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS: AN UPDATE ON THE TRANSITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

I. THE NEED FOR CHANGE On November 26, 2010, in my role as Chair of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), I issued a report laying out a strategic vision for the ALC. That strategic vision was based on two fundamental propositions.

The first proposition is that the ALC’s mandate – to preserve agricultural land, to encourage farming on such land in collaboration with other communities of interest and to encourage all governments to accommodate farming in their planning processes – is as important today as it was when the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) was created almost 40 years ago. As noted in my report, there continues to be overwhelming support for the ALR. That support reflects a consensus within society about the importance of preserving a stable and coherent agricultural land base in British Columbia.

It is widely understood that there are serious challenges to the preservation of British Columbia’s limited agricultural land base. Those factors include urban sprawl, increasing populations, changing weather patterns, competing land uses and land speculation. People readily understand that, in addition to the critical importance of the $10.5 billion agri-food sector to the provincial economy, food security is not something we can take for granted in British Columbia.

The second proposition on which my report was based is that if the Agricultural Land Commission Act (ALCA) is to truly achieve its purpose, the ALC itself must be effective. Like any other organization or business, the ALC must be willing to adapt to changing circumstances, and must be willing to re-examine previous ways of doing business. It is not good enough to operate a certain way because that is the way it has always been. It is not good enough to avoid change because some people do not support change, or because their vested interests are

91 2 affected. It is not good enough to allow the work demands related to one part of the ALC’s mandate (for example, the consideration of non-farm use, subdivision and exclusion applications) to unduly take away from other important statutory responsibilities such as policy and planning, and compliance and enforcement. The ALC has to look for creative ways to become more efficient, and has to make hard decisions about how to triage and use its resources.

In September 2010, the Auditor General of British Columbia produced a report that examined the ALC and made 9 recommendations. These recommendations encouraged the ALC to be more proactive with local government planning processes, to have a sufficiently robust compliance and enforcement scheme, and to fully evaluate decisions with a view to reviewing our overall policy direction.

The 20 months since my report was submitted have only reinforced the need for the ALC to introduce changes to the way it does business. The ALC has had time to reflect on the Auditor General’s report and my November 2010 report, and to consider the legislative changes passed in November 2011 to allow the ALC to better manage parts of our workload. I consider it appropriate now to publicly outline the changes we have decided to make in order to better achieve our mandate under the ALCA.

II. THE NOVEMBER 2010 CHAIR’S REPORT My report set out a “Strategic Vision for Future Generations”, with the following components: 1. An ALR that has defensible boundaries. The boundaries of the ALR, and any decisions to change the boundaries, should be based upon a consistent method of evaluating scientific and technical information. The boundaries should be defensible in order to discourage speculation and the proliferation of non-farm uses and subdivisions that erode the agricultural land base and drive up agricultural land prices. Communities should be encouraged to adopt compact and efficient development patterns that minimize pressure on the ALR boundary.

2. An ALR that places agriculture first. The use of lands for agriculture should take priority over all other uses within the ALR. Although the ALR permits many non-farm uses and may protect other public values that occur within it, it is first and foremost a working agricultural landscape. The ALC must have adequate resources to advocate for farmers, ranchers and the agricultural industry to encourage farming.

92 3

3. An ALC that places priority considerations on bona fide farmers and ranchers, and issues that may impact, positively or negatively, bona fide farmers and ranchers. (This requires) flexible, risk-based approach to reviewing and deciding upon proposals that are intended to support and enhance bona fide farms and ranches.

4. An ALC that builds strong alliances with farm and ranch groups and other organizations to identify and cooperatively address emerging issues that may impact, positively or negatively, bona fide farmers or ranchers. Through regular communication and consultation, the ALC will be better positioned to participate at an early stage in dialogue on issues of importance to farm and ranch communities.

5. An ALC that is able to respond to and enforce against improper use of ALR land. Ensuring that ALR lands are being used properly will maintain a high quality land base for farming and reduce the potential for lands to be degraded to the extent that they can no longer be used for agricultural production. The ALC must continue to strive to build partnerships with other government agencies and local governments to assist in compliance and enforcement related matters.

6. An ALC that moves away from being reactive and focused on applications towards becoming a proactive planning organization. This shift would allow the ALC to proactively seek opportunities to improve agricultural land preservation and utilization, encourage farming, and focus on emerging and strategic issues.

7. An ALC that has up-to-date technology. To use technology to integrate mapping (spatial) information with the ALC’s database for research, planning, ALR boundary assessments and business reporting. To seek partnerships with other provincial ministries and agencies to share data to further enhance the ALC’s technical capacity for research, planning, ALR boundary assessments and business reporting.

My report candidly states that in order to achieve many of these objectives (particularly items 1, 5 and 7 above), sufficient funding and resources are necessary. In this regard, a very positive development was the November 2011 legislative amendments that created the possibility of a fee schedule to establish a “user pay” funding model to generate revenue to augment the ALC’s base budget appropriation. The ALC awaits advice from Government regarding further developments with regard to this reform.

The ALC is committed to proceeding with our strategic vision, even if this means having to engage in a triage process where lower priority matters give way to allow higher priority matters to be properly addressed.

93 4

Part of the reason for this message is to explain to certain stakeholders – particularly those involved in the “application” side of our mandate – why their applications may in future be processed differently. On the positive side, we believe this realigning of priorities to be more consistent with our overall mandate and responsibilities, and will lead to a revitalized and proactive ALC.

III. RE-ESTABLISHING THE ALC’S PRIORITIES A disproportionate amount of the ALC’s resources are consumed in dealing, on a reactive basis, with the numerous applications made by individuals each year to exclude, subdivide or authorize non-farm uses on ALR land. Dealing with the sheer volume of these applications – 500 to 700 new applications annually – consumes an enormous amount of ALC time and resources. Of these new applications we anticipate that approximately 25% will be the subject of a request for reconsideration (a follow up review of a denied application) which will consume even more ALC time and resources. Requests for reconsideration result in the annual application workload of the ALC increasing to 625 – 875 applications.

It is also a fact that a significant number of applications are nothing more than an attempt to gain a financial benefit from non-agricultural uses, or from removing land from the ALR. As stated in my report regarding land in the ALR “land speculation remains high after nearly 40 years”.

The time has come for the ALC to take control of our agenda and workload. To avoid remaining a largely reactive organization whose priorities are dictated by the volume of applications received, the ALC has had to seriously re-think the resource allocation given to applications relative to other functions.

The ALC has determined that we can no longer afford to be an organization that spends 80% of its time dealing with applications to the detriment of other important areas of our mandate. Within the scope of resources that can be devoted to applications, we need to look beyond a simplistic “first in time, first in line” approach to doing our work and examine other process models based on priority and triage. Finally, we need to do everything we can to ensure that when dealing with applications, our decision-making remains principled, professional, consistent and timely.

94 5

The ALC will in good faith continue to perform our duty to consider each application on its merits as appropriate, but it makes no apologies for undertaking and prioritizing work based on a considered assessment of resources and priorities.

IV. RE-ALLOCATING THE ALC’S RESOURCES A. Planning The ALCA states that a local government’s bylaws (including a regional growth strategy, official community plan or zoning bylaw), and a first nations government’s laws, must be consistent with the ALCA, the regulations and the orders of the ALC. If those laws or bylaws are inconsistent with the ALCA, the regulations and the ALC’s orders, they are “to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect”: s. 46. The ALC has an important role to play in consulting with local governments to ensure that their bylaws are valid and do not contravene s. 46.

In addition, section 882(3) of the Local Government Act requires local governments to refer official community plan bylaws to the ALC for comment if the plan applies to land in the ALR. Section 879 of the Local Government Act also allows local government to consult with the ALC more generally regarding official community plans. All these powers are directly related to the ALC’s mandate to encourage farming and to encourage local governments and first nations to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land. As part of the planning process, the ALC needs to encourage communities to adopt compact and efficient development patterns that minimize pressure on ALR boundaries.

The ALC has in the past devoted insufficient resources to these critical planning functions resulting in adverse downstream effects on many of the ALC’s objectives, including promoting the use of ALR land for agriculture, preventing unnecessary urban/rural conflicts, discouraging speculative applications, and minimizing enforcement issues. The ALC has also faced significant challenges participating in provincial land use planning, resource management and major infrastructure development.

Proactive ALC participation with local governments and provincial ministries, agencies and Crown Corporations provides considerable help to these valued stakeholders who may not be well briefed on agricultural issues. Such proactive planning requires early and regular ALC communication with local government planners, provincial government representatives and

95 6 elected officials. This reflects the ALC’s larger responsibility to communicate with and educate local communities and provincial ministries, agencies and Crown Corporations regarding the ALCA in particular and agriculture generally.

In the ALC’s view, the time has come for our planning mandate to have greater prominence, with the following elements: • Ensuring earlier and more extensive involvement in local government planning processes; • Ensuring earlier and more extensive involvement with provincial ministries and agencies, and Crown Corporations in land use planning, resource management and major infrastructure planning and development; • Encouraging local governments to develop and adopt more detailed, agriculturally- focused implementation plans and strategies, such as Agriculture Area Plans and Agricultural Strategies; • Encouraging local governments to establish Agricultural Advisory Committees; • Updating “off the shelf” services for local governments, including the ALC’s Planning for Agriculture document; • Identifying priority areas for ALR boundary reviews; and • Expanding joint Ministry of Agriculture and ALC efforts regarding “strengthening farming” legislation: Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.

B. Policy The ALC’s policy role is closely related to its planning mandate. At the present time, the ALC has policies that outline principles, guidelines, strategies, rules or positions on various interpretative, operational, and fill and soil removal issues. These policies seek to provide clarification of regulations and courses of action consistently taken or adopted, formally or informally. While policies do not have the same status as laws, they are nonetheless extremely important to assist the ALC in developing plans and encouraging farming.

ALC commissioners and staff have a wealth of knowledge and experience to bring to policy development, but that resource is not currently being harnessed owing to the reactive demands on the ALC. Proper policy work cannot be undertaken off the “side of the desk”, and it is not

96 7 assisted by having to be developed on an ad hoc basis in response to a pressing need. To be of greatest value, policies that encourage farming need to result from active engagement with stakeholders and the collection of proper data and research, including analysis. The time has come to devote more of the ALC’s resources to our policy role.

C. ALR Boundary Reviews Responsibility for revising the ALR’s boundaries rests with the ALC. This role, which the ALC may exercise proactively by way of boundary reviews, is linked directly to the ALC’s responsibility to preserve agricultural land.

The ALC initiated a number of boundary reviews throughout the 1980s, but the resources to undertake that work was eliminated by 1990. The ALC today recognizes that the most realistic approach to boundary reviews is to take a more modest and targeted approach based on the areas in greatest need of review.

Any boundary review process requires great care. A boundary review is a superior method for “fine-tuning” ALR boundaries than adjudicating hundreds of disparate applications. The ALR will have greater integrity, and fewer applications will be generated, where boundaries are proactively reviewed to assess whether land is, or is not, appropriately designated as ALR land. At the same time, the purpose of a boundary review must be clear. A boundary review process cannot be allowed to turn into a debate about whether there is a “higher or better use” for agricultural land, or about whether a particular farm is economically viable. As the Courts have recognized, the ALC’s duty to preserve agricultural land requires us to take a longer term view, and to recognize that land not suitable for one agricultural purpose today may well be suitable for another agricultural purpose tomorrow.

ALR boundary reviews can generate a great deal of interest, and controversy. It is imperative that such reviews be conducted in an open and transparent manner by engaging local governments, agricultural organizations, other stakeholder groups and the general public. It goes without saying that even a modest boundary review will require the allocation of considerable resources.

97 8

D. Compliance and Enforcement The ALR will retain its integrity only if individuals comply with the prohibition against using ALR land for non-farm uses.

The threat of prosecution is not enough to dissuade some people from breaching the ALCA. For that reason, in 2002 the ALC was given additional powers to ensure compliance, including the power to inspect land, to issue “stop work” and remediation orders, and to levy administrative penalties.

While the ALC has already established a partnership with the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Resource Operations and there are opportunities to partner with local governments and other provincial ministries, the ALC recognizes that we must have the ability to act when outside help is unavailable.

The ALC has determined that resource allocation to compliance and enforcement activities must be given higher priority than some types of applications. The ALC’s re-allocation of priorities will reflect this reality.

E. Applications The ALCA currently allows several different types of applications to be made to the ALC. These include an application to authorize a non-farm use, and applications to subdivide or exclude land from the ALR.

The ALC application process has remained essentially unchanged since 1975, during which time we have considered almost 40,000 applications. As noted earlier, the ALC currently receives between 500 – 700 new applications per year plus requests for reconsideration.

As discussed earlier, the reality is that the ALC will no longer allow the purely reactive role of dealing with applications to drive our allocation of priorities. This means three things.

Firstly, applications as a class will in future receive a lower relative share of the ALC’s overall resources. Instead of application work accounting for 80% of the ALC’s budget, the ALC is initially targeting to have that work account for 30% of our budget.

98 9

Second, applications will not be addressed according to a simple “first in time” rule, but rather according to the priority of the application, after a screening process that takes into account the nature and purpose of the application and the application’s potential to encourage farming and the larger purposes of the ALCA.

Finally, within the targeted 30% budget allocated to application work, the ALC must find creative ways to increase our efficiency by streamlining the processing of applications.

To achieve the streamlining objective, several initiatives are being given active consideration; some are underway. One involves creating an application process – in due course, a fully electronic one - that places the onus to provide all relevant information on the person making the application. The days of the ALC helping to “perfect” an application cannot continue. As with all other federal and provincial regulatory processes in which persons seek an approval or a benefit, the onus must be on the person applying to provide all required information. If an application is materially incomplete it will not be processed until the required information is provided by the applicant. While it may in the past have been seen as a helpful public service for ALC staff members to “shore up” deficient applications made by landowners, this is no longer economically feasible.

Other initiatives will also be taken. One will involve an effort to educate local governments regarding applications that are and are not properly prepared. Others will involve changes within the ALC process, including eliminating the ALC staff report to the extent that it merely duplicates information in the file, improving the ALC’s information management systems (as funds are available), applying the ALC’s reconsideration power according to the language and intent of the reconsideration power in the ALCA, and improving the decision-making process through ongoing training of commissioners and organization of panels. The ALC believes that these changes, together with the new power to refuse repeat applications for non-farm use, subdivision or exclusion made within 5 years of a previous application (s. 30.1), will go a long way towards allowing us to make the best use of the resources that can be allocated to applications.

99 10

V. TRANSITIONAL PROJECTS SUPPORTING THE ALC’S RE-ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES In support of re-establishing the ALC’s priorities we have embarked on a number of significant projects using the transitional funding provided by Government which is available to the ALC until March 31, 2013. The ALC has the following transitional projects underway:

• Updating ALR boundary review procedural manual to provide clear and concise guidance regarding the methodology to be employed for reviews and to ensure boundary reviews are conducted in an open and transparent manner;

• Upgrading information technology and information management capabilities of the ALC’s Online Application Tracking System (OATS);

• Designing and building a web-based application portal and client self-help kiosk to provide enhanced web services to clients and greater access to information. Establishing the ability to file applications electronically will further reduce the amount of ALC resources devoted to processing applications as the person(s) wishing to file an application will not be able to do so until all information is completed in the form and content acceptable to the ALC. The onus of completing a thorough and well documented application will be placed on the person(s) making the application;

• Populating the ALC database with information from approximately 25,000 applications to provide the ALC and its clients with greater access to information;

• Scanning historical documents from the 25,000 applications to provide the ALC and its clients with greater access to information;

• Digitizing and quality assurance review of historical mapping of the 25,000 applications;

• Digitizing agricultural capability mapping to provide the ALC and its clients with greater access to information. This mapping will also form the technical foundation for ALR boundary reviews; and

• Preparing a compliance and enforcement procedural handbook.

100 11

VI. CONCLUDING COMMENTS It is admittedly unusual for an administrative tribunal to provide this kind of public statement to explain the reasons for changing the way it does business. However, the ALC recognizes that we are an important regulatory institution within British Columbia, and that if the changes we have set in motion are to be understood, they must be explained.

This message seeks to reflect our respect for the Auditor General’s constructive recommendations, for the stakeholders whose views contributed to my November 2010 report (and whose views continue to assist the ALC), for the Minister and Government which considered my report and passed the November 2011 amendments to the ALCA, and for the public that the ALC ultimately serves.

We will, as part of our ongoing annual reporting, continue to report on our progress in carrying out the changes announced in this message and the status of the transitional projects, the details of which will be announced as and when appropriate.

As well, when the ALC is provided more certainty from Government regarding the funding model to augment provincial funding, more changes and additional projects will be undertaken to sustain the momentum now underway to enhance the ALC’s ability to preserve British Columbia’s agricultural land and encourage farming.

Finally, the changes and transitional projects form part of a new and exciting chapter in the history of the ALC; they are just the beginning.

______Richard Bullock, Chair Provincial Agricultural Land Commission

101 ANNEX M

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 7, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 FROM: Andrew Allen, Planner RE: Re-consideration of Risk Assessment and Liability Policy

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the existing SCRD Board Policy on Risk Assessment and Liability stating the following be deleted:

The Sunshine Coast Regional District’s acceptable minimum threshold for development permits is 1:200 for flooding and 2% in 50 years or 1:2475 annual probability for other types of hazards.

The SCRD requires that the qualified geotechnical engineer’s report state whether the site is safe for the use intended and that the risk threshold is met.

And be replaced with:

1. The SCRD requires that the qualified professional’s report state that the site is safe for the use intended and that the report specifies what conditions are required to ensure the site will be safe.

2. That the development meets the 2% in 50 year seismic design.

3. That the development meets the 1:200 year flood design.

4. For landslides, the SCRD requires that the qualified professional’s report include a completed Appendix D Landslide Assurance Statement.

5. For other hazards the qualified professional shall: a. describe the method of hazard or risk analysis used; b. referred to an appropriate and indentified provincial, national or international guideline for level of safety; c. compare the guidelines with findings of his/her investigation; d. make a finding on the level of safety on the property based on the comparison; e. make recommendations to reduce hazards and risks; and f. report on the requirements for future inspections of the property and recommend who should make those inspections.

N:\Planning & Development\6970 Planning Reports & Statistics\6970-20 Reports\Risk Threshold and Liability\re-consideration of risk assessment and liability policy 2012-Sep-06.doc 102 Page 2 of 3

BACKGROUND

In 2006 the Board adopted a policy on Risk Assessment Liability stating that the threshold for geotechnical hazards shall be no greater than 10% in 50 years or 1:475 years and that the threshold for flooding shall not exceed 1:200 years. In 2012 after changes to the BC Building Code the Board policy for geotechnical hazards was changed from 10% in 50 years to 2% in 50 years.

The change however has caused some confusion on the review of recent geotechnical reports as the 2% in 50 years was introduced into the building code for seismic events rather than all geotechnical occurrences. This has created a problem where geotechnical reports cannot meet our threshold and thus properties that are otherwise deemed safe for the use intended by the consulting engineer do not qualify for the issuance of a development permit under the current Risk Assessment Liability policy, which is causing a problem for property owners wishing to construct dwellings on their properties.

At this time Planning staff request an additional re-consideration of the policy for purpose of clarity and moving forward with issuing permits on properties which have been declared safe for the intended use.

DISCUSSION

In February of this year staff wrote a report to the Board requesting an amendment to the Risk Assessment and Liability policy, requiring all development permits to meeting a 1:200 year flood event and a 1:2475 geotechnical event. It has come to staff’s attention now through consultation with geotechnical engineers that there may be a misinterpretation of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia’s Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for Proposed Residential Developments in BC. (APEGBC Guidelines) This document requires a 2% in 50 year threshold analysis for seismic events, which is based on the BC Building Code. Neither the BC Building Code nor the APEGBC guidelines refers to 2% in 50 years for all geotechnical events that the SCRD Board policy requires.

Recently Planning staff have been unable to issue some development permits due to non- conformance with the Board policy. Geotechnical reports are indicated that properties are safe for the use intended (pursuant to the current SCRD policy) and indicating that the properties have a 2% in 50 year risk assessment threshold for seismic events (pursuant to the BC Building Code and the APEGBC Guidelines). However, the reports also indicate that the probability of landslides on the properties will be about less than 2% in 50 years and therefore, while the Engineer essentially declares the property safe, the declaration does not meet SCRD policy and permits are unable to be issued.

The multiple tiered approach to hazard acceptability is not new; in 1993 Dr. Peter W. Cave summarized the estimated probability of occurrences based on estimated annual return frequencies in his report entitled: Hazard Acceptability Thresholds for Development Approvals

N:\Planning & Development\6970 Planning Reports & Statistics\6970-20 Reports\Risk Threshold and Liability\re-consideration of risk assessment and liability policy 2012-Sep-06.doc

103 Page 3 of 3 by Local Government. At that time Dr. Cave established the 1:500 level for debris flow and 1:200 for flooding along with the 1:2475 for seismic. It wasn’t until 2006 that the SCRD had any type policy standard 1:500 and 2010 before the BC Building Code and Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists adopted the 1:2475 for seismic event.

Staff discussed this issue at length with our consultant engineer David Matsubara of Kerr Wood Leidel and senior geoscientist Pierre Friele at the project initiation meeting for the geotechnical assessment studies for Halfmoon Bay, West Howe Sound and Elphinstone. The advice provided as a result of that discussion was that the best option would be to refer to the APEGBC guidelines. Accordingly the revised policy is based on the APEGBC guidelines.

SUMMARY

At this time it is acknowledged that in February, when recommending the new policy to the Board, Planning staff may have misinterpreted the risk assessment threshold and recommended 1:2475 for all events when it should have applied only to seismic events and that localized landslides and debris flow should be examined through the lense of the Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement and associated recommendations within the APEGBC Guidelines.

The revised policy maintains the high level of standard for development approvals; however it clearly indentifies the separate analysis required for seismic events, flooding, land sliding and other potential hazards.

______Andrew Allen, Planner

N:\Planning & Development\6970 Planning Reports & Statistics\6970-20 Reports\Risk Threshold and Liability\re-consideration of risk assessment and liability policy 2012-Sep-06.doc

104 ANNEX N

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 6, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 FROM: Andrew Allen, Planner RE: Highway Frontage Requirement – Subdivision 2012-01002

RECOMMENDATION

THAT with respect to subdivision application MOTI File #2012-01002, for Block 22, District Lot 695, Plan 2746 Except: Firstly; Part Road in Plan BCP15723, Secondly; Part Subdivided by Plan BCP41989, located at 1154 & 1158 Boyle Road in West Howe Sound, the requirement for 10% parcel frontage on a highway be waived and forwarded to the Board for approval.

DISCUSSION

Section 944 of the Local Government Act requires that all newly created lots have a minimum 10% parcel frontage onto a highway unless otherwise waived by local government. This requirement must be waived for the subdivision to proceed.

The subdivision application was made in February of this year and was put on hold until the implementation of the recommendations of the West Howe Sound OCP was undertaken. The property is now zoned for subdivision and has been reviewed by SCRD staff and the West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission.

At is meeting of August 21st of this year, the West Howe Sound APC indicated that it had no objection to the subdivision providing all conditions are achieved. At this time it is requested that the Planning and Development Committee recommend to the Board that the parcel frontage requirement be waived.

This application (see Attachment A) is for a two lot subdivision to divide a property into two parcels, each approximately 8,000 square metres in size. There are two dwellings on the parent parcel, which after subdivision would result in one dwelling per parcel. The rear parcel requires a pan handle access due to Boyle Road being the only possible access point and thus the subdivision requires a parcel frontage waiver.

N:\Land Administration\3320 Subdivisions\3320-20 Subdivisions\2012-01002 DL 695 (Singleton)\PDC report frontage waiver single.doc 105

Larry

Box

B.

VON

SITE CL I SCALE

______

C.

505

IYQ

Land

W.

Ph

Gibsons,B.C.

:

PLAN

1500

Surveyor

886-2531 Penonzek - —6.0

IP

LEAD ____ OF

FOUND

H

PLUG

LOT FOUND

____

22,

I DL

____

PROPOSED

695, C SPIKE ON

180.0 182.0 PROPERTY

SET

LOT PLAN

____ 8003

IN

B L LINE

TREE

m 2 2746

____

A x INDICATES

______REM

FLAGGED I

385.7 25 PICKET

106 21

SET 61.5 ON

PROPERTY o___...__

LINE

REM

K 22 SPIKE ON PROPERTY

SET

REM

68.3 23 ON LINE FIR

STUMP a— 0 IP

FOUND

May

2

F 10,

2110 2010

- 1605 ANNEX O

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: July 23, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planning Technician RE: Highway Frontage Requirement for Subdivision Application by Gordon for Macaulay on Block B, District Lot 809, Plan 524, located at 3063 Lower Road, Roberts Creek, BC (MOTI File # 2011-05530)

RECOMMENDATION(S):

THAT the Planning and Development Committee receive the report titled, “Highway Frontage Requirement for Subdivision Application by Gordon for Macaulay on Block B, District Lot 809, Plan 524, located at 3063 Lower Road, Roberts Creek, BC (MOTI File # 2011-05530)” and dated, July 23, 2012;

AND THAT the requirement for 10% parcel frontage on highway be waived and forwarded to the Board for approval.

DISCUSSION

Section 944 of the Local Government Act requires that all newly created lots have a minimum 10% parcel frontage onto a highway unless otherwise waived by local government. This requirement must be waived for the subject application in order for it to proceed. The layout of proposed Lot 2 requires the 10% parcel frontage to be waived.

This application (see Attachment A) as proposed creates two waterfront lots. Proposed lot 1 has an existing house, a small cabin, auxiliary buildings and a boat house, which meet the required setbacks to all new parcel lines. Proposed lot 2 is a vacant lot.

This application was considered by the Area D APC in January, 2012. The APC supports the subdivision with the condition that Lower Road access be limited to one driveway and that the tree buffer along Lower Road be maintained, as per the OCP.

Preliminary Layout Approval has been issued by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI). The MOTI has required that proposed lot 5 continue to use the existing driveway on proposed lot 6, which will be protected by a covenant. The existing access will also be upgraded by paving a minimum of 6 metres from the road and will include a culvert. By accessing proposed lot 5 via a shared driveway, additional trees will be preserved on the lot and the number of road accesses on Roberts Creek Road will be minimized, though independent road access will be preserved by the 10.1 metre panhandle on proposed lot 5.

Planning staff recommend that the SCRD Board waive the Section 944 Local Government Act requirement for 10% parcel frontage on a highway for the subject subdivision application.

N:\Land Administration\3320 Subdivisions\3320-20 Subdivisions\2011-05530 DL 809 (Peter Gordon for Alice Macaulay)\Frontage Waiver Report to PDC.doc 107 Proposed Subdivision Plan of Block B. 0.L. 809, REF. PLAN 524.

0 to 30 50 AtES’RES Scale — 1:750 Contour intereni - Moior 5m - Fdiw Im Del. MIs MI Ssplenbw lath, 7071. Al deMISOS er i mow m.d inIs, loL This — boo alibI, lb. Sleulis. Coos! #191.001 DistrIct.

ElmIlisos S’l *7 mel,.. sod sb,.le M.’.eC bow a. SOlD #115 Lsod FlIes 900 fly boa ow Rood to 0.5,910 si,.ct.

#1aesty Zmed PIE. lIb.insm pooodlsd owl, is sos pasel pa’ 5000 m2 .77Th0 0070.0 tel libel 4 aS.

qJ 13

11675

Ii)

A

D.L. 809

Plan

8896

B

Detail

Scale — 1:250

strait

LEGEND

• denotes stondont fran post found denotes trolers, hub & tog no set. denotes hydrant • denotes h,id’o pole. PETER N. GORDON - denotes hydro pole onohas uJc d90lOleSsO#testhate. 0’ PD BOX8389 SEChEL r ic. denotes percolation test hole, t .540 S0l-—3Z00 fAX 800-IlD—2500 Co.” 108 5890 78.04 ANNEX P

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: August 8, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee, Sept 20, 2012 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner RE: Licence of Occupation Application File 2410732 by Pender Harbour Landing Ltd. for a Group Moorage Facility fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour

RECOMMENDATION

That the following comments and recommendations regarding the pre-application zoning request by Bob Fielding for group moorage fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour Area A, be forwarded to the applicant and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations:

1. The applicant should be aware that the OCP acknowledges that there is a moderate and high steep upland slope hazard geotechnical assessment area along the whole of the foreshore fronting DL 1543. The Building Department may require a geotechnical assessment for any development in this area and may require a building permit and/or a development variance permit if any structures are constructed to access the moorage facility. 2. The use of the proposed docks must reflect the upland residential zoning. 3. Eel grass beds that lie within the area the applicant has chosen must be accommodated. 4. The Regional District would prefer that all the waterfront owners (including those owners of Lot 16-19) share this dock strata. The Regional District may not support subsequent individual moorage applications in this area. The owners of the properties fronting the docks will have to provide consent. 5. Access to the most westerly dock appears to require a walkway along the foreshore. This structure should be included in the application. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be advising on the construction of this structure. 6. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be satisfied that the docks are placed in the most optimal area in order to minimize the impact on foreshore habitat. 7. Moorings (including anchors and floats) should be made of clean material. If concrete anchors are used, they should be pre-cast and cured away from water before use to prevent seepage of potentially toxic substances into the water body. 8. Use of pressure treated wood should be discouraged. 9. There is an archaeological site on the foreshore near the most eastern application area and near the most western application area. 10. The applicant should inform the shíshálh First Nations of the project and address their concerns.

N:\Land Administration\3020 Crown Land\3020-20 Crown Referrals, Leases & Licenses (Non-SCRD)\2410732 strata moorage pender harbour fielding\2410732 group moorage DL 1543 2012 Sept PDCrpt.docx 109 File 2410732 Group Moorage fronting DL 1543 PDC Sept 20, 2012 Page 2 of 4

BACKGROUND

The Regional District is in receipt of a Crown referral for a group strata moorage facility in Pender Harbour by Pender Harbour Landing Ltd. In November 2011, the Regional District reviewed a pre-application referral for the same project and made the following recommendation:

492/11 THAT the SCRD request the Crown delay a decision on the issuance of permits for new docks for the following private moorage applications pending further Board investigation of the issues surrounding these applications:

• Group Moorage fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour.

There appears to be no change in the application from November.

The applicant would like to place three group moorage facilities fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour (see Attachment A) to accommodate berths for 12 upland owners fronting Pender Harbour.

DISCUSSION

There is no zoning on the water in Pender Harbour. The upland is zoned RU-1 (Rural Residential).

The Egmont Pender Harbour Official Community Plan designates the area around the most westernly dock (fronting Lot 25) as partially being within a General Commercial land use designation. See map below. Policy 12.2 states those land and water areas designated as commercial are “currently utilized for commercial facilities which include retail sales, marina with fuel sales, commercial marinas, grocery and liquor sales outlet, and other commercial uses, and those parcels which have been historically zoned for such uses.”

The OCP doesn’t give any guidance respecting consideration of group moorage facilities, other than the expectation that Irvines Landing Bay (Joe’s Bay) would be used for commercial activities.

OCP General Land Use Map: Schedule A4 (Arrows show proposed dock locations; triangles show upland park OCP request).

110 File 2410732 Group Moorage fronting DL 1543 PDC Sept 20, 2012 Page 3 of 4

Staff have the following observations and questions: • There is limited public moorage in the area. • According to our BC Marine Conservation Analysis maps, there appears to be eel grass beds in each of the proposed locations. The applicant will have to manage around this resource. • Access to the most western application area (near the Irvines Landing wharf) is not clear. Is the walkway on the survey plan existing, or will it be under its own licence area? • Staff understand the use of the docks will be exclusively for the adjacent upland owners. Staff have counted 16 lots that front the water in this subdivision (Lots13-28), yet the applicant has allowed for use of 12 of those lots (excluding 16-19). The Regional District would prefer that all the waterfront owners share in this dock strata. The Regional District may not support subsequent individual moorage applications in this area. The owners of the properties fronting the docks will have to provide consent. • With this many boats, how will the liquid waste from the boats be managed? • It is very steep along this section of the harbour. The OCP shows a moderate and high steep upland slope hazard geotechnical assessment area along the whole of the foreshore fronting DL 1543. • The recreational and visual resources within the area are very important.

APC Comments This application has gone to the Area A APC twice: first as a pre-application in November 2011 and more recently as a Crown referral.

November 2011 Area A APC comments were “ this APC considers the water zoning with respect to this application is appropriate to the adjacent upland residential zoning and appreciates the efforts the developer has made to consolidate the docks.”

July 2012 Area A APC supported the draft recommendations from Planning staff except for the comment that the “use of pressure treated wood should be prohibited.” The APC felt that the construction material “is a matter that should be deferred to the advice of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans”. Planning staff included that comment to reflect the concerns around pressure treated wood. Information from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans doesn’t forbid the use of treated wood in a marine environment, but there appears to be caution. For example: • According to the 1993 Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat suggest that treated dry wood should be “weathered or seasoned for a minimum of 45 days before it is used in or near any body of water”. • According to the 2003 Coastal Shore Stewardship:A Guide for Planners, Builders and Developers on Canada’s Pacific Coast”, when planning any kind of marine structure, consider the following design parameters…reduce or eliminate the use of materials that leach toxics into seawater (such as copper, arsenate, zinc and chromate from treated wood).”

111 File 2410732 Group Moorage fronting DL 1543 PDC Sept 20, 2012 Page 4 of 4

Preliminary Planning Department recommendations include:

1. The use of the proposed docks should reflect the upland residential zoning. 2. Eel grass beds that lie within the area the applicant has chosen must be accommodated. 3. The Regional District would prefer that all the waterfront owners share this dock strata. The Regional District may not support subsequent individual moorage applications in this area. The owners of the properties fronting the docks will have to provide consent. 4. The applicant should be aware that the foreshore fronting DL 1543 is rather steep and access to these structures might be difficult. The applicant should be advised that the Regional District may require a building permit and/or a development variance permit if any structures are constructed to access the moorage facility. 5. Access to the most westerly dock appears to require a walkway along the foreshore. This structure should be included in the application. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be advising the construction of this structure. 6. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be satisfied that the docks are placed in the most optimal area in order to minimize the impact on foreshore habitat. 7. Moorings (including anchors and floats) should be made of clean material. If concrete anchors are used, they should be pre-cast and cured away from water before use to prevent seepage of potentially toxic substances into the water body. 8. Use of pressure treated wood should be prohibited. 9. There is an archaeological site on the foreshore near the most eastern application area and near the most western application area. 10. The applicant should inform the shíshálh First Nations of the project and address their concerns.

CONCLUSION The Regional District has been asked by the Crown to provide comments on an application for group Moorage fronting DL 1543 in Pender Harbour, Area A by Pender Harbour Landing Ltd. Regional District staff have several comments regarding the project and that these be forwarded to the applicant and to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Teresa Fortin Planner

112 Attachment A

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 ANNEX Q

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee (September 20, 2012) FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner RE: NARROWS INLET HYDRO PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

RECOMMENDATION THAT the report titled “Narrows Inlet Hydro Project Environmental Assessment Process” be received for information.

BACKGROUND The Narrows Inlet Hydro Project is entering the public consultation phase for the environmental assessment (Attachment A). The proponent, Narrows Inlet Hydro Project Corp. is a partnership that includes Renewable Power, based in Gibsons, that was the project developer for the McNair Creek and Tyson Creek power projects which are currently producing power under contract to BC Hydro. The Narrows Inlet project was included in BC Hydro’s 2008 call for power and received an energy purchasing agreement in March 2010. A site map shows the location of the main components (Attachment A). DISCUSSION The following description was provided in the application: “The proposed Project will produce sustainable, green and clean energy, to be delivered to BC Hydro pursuant to BC Hydro’s 2008 Clean Power Call. The power will be generated from 5 interrelated components on 4 creeks that are located within a radius of 5 ‐ 8 km, centered at the confluence of Tzoonie River and Tyson Creek. The five hydroelectric projects will have an overall nameplate generating capacity of approximately 44 megawatts (MW) at peak water flow times. An earlier design of the proposed Project incorporated a sixth hydroelectric component, known as the MM Creek component. Upon review, the decision was made to remove MM Creek, as it mitigated the potential impact to fish and fish habitat. Green and clean electrical energy will be transmitted from the Project via a single wooden pole 138 kV transmission line to Sechelt Inlet and will interconnect to the BC Hydro’s (BCH) 1L37 powerline on the Sechelt Peninsula. The Project will mainly use the existing TCHP transmission line constructed in 2009 for most of the route. The new sections of transmission line consist of 15.2 km of 25 kV feeder line from the individual hydroelectric components, an underground segment of 0.2 km long on the east bank of Sechelt Inlet, an underwater component of 2.0 km long accomplishing a marine crossing of the Sechelt Inlet, and an overhead segment of 7.4 km long interconnecting to 1L37. The power will flow into BC Hydro’s Malaspina Substation and be used by BC Hydro customers on Vancouver Island and the Lower Mainland of BC. BC Hydro is the sole buyer of the generated power.” While the majority of the project is in Halfmoon Bay, the power lines (for the most part using existing infrastructure) will cross and may be visible from Egmont and other parts of Area A.

128 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (September 20, 2012) Regarding Narrows Inlet Hydro Project Page 2 of 2

The project as it was originally proposed was of sufficient scale to be the subject of an environmental assessment by BC Environmental Assessment Office. As noted above some elements were removed the project fell below the threshold, however the proponent chose to continue with the EA process. The SCRD participated in the working group that aided the EAO in establishing the application information requirements/terms of reference. These were approved by the EAO in October 2010. At the time the terms of reference was being developed the proponent held public open houses in Sechelt and Egmont and presented the project to the SCRD Planning and Development Committee. Since that date the proponent carried out the studies required to meet the requirements and prepared the application documents. The proponent produced a formal application that was reviewed for completeness by the EAO and members of the working group in May 2012. This process was to check that the information requirements set out in 2010 were met; it was not to comment on the detailed information. Due to a clerical error the SCRD was not informed of this review. The proponent was asked to fill some gaps and a revised application was submitted in July 2012. SCRD staff reviewed the revised application and due to time constraints it was not possible to provide the SCRD Board with an opportunity to consider the revised application. Thus staff, rather than Board, comments were passed to the EAO (Attachment C). After the second review, the EAO accepted that the application was complete (all the required information was present) and the formal public consultation period started on September 7, 2012 and will end on October 22, 2012. The EAO will consider all representations and make a determination by the end 120 day from the application date (when the EAO is legislated to reach a recommendation). The proponent was advised that the SCRD requests that a rezoning application be submitted for the powerhouses and was recently reminded of this on September 6, 2012. Copies of the application are available at the Gibsons, Sechelt and Madeira Park libraries, at the SCRD offices and on line at the EAO website http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/ Information about the project, was posted on the SCRD website. The application information package is large (upwards of 18,000 pages according to the applicant; the table of contents is over 120 pages) so the copies are on CDs (one set of 13 in each location) and one paper copy at the Field Road office. The following are key dates:  SCRD staff will participate in a meeting of the working group on September 19 in Vancouver (either in person or by conference call).  SCRD staff will draw on the expertise offered by the Natural Resources Advisory Committee and the proponent was invited to the NRAC meeting of September 26, 2012.  As part of the public consultation two public meetings are scheduled for Friday October 12 in Egmont and Saturday October 13 in Sechelt.  A site visit will be arranged by the EAO; places reserved for five representatives of the SCRD (to include two members of the SCRD staff, two Directors and one member of NRAC).  The proponent offered to attend the October 18 Planning and Development Committee.  SCRD Board’s initial comments are to be submitted by October 12, 2012 Staff will inform members of the Regional District Board of progress and updates by e-mail and provide report(s) as time allows. This report will be provided to the Halfmoon Bay and Egmont/Pender Harbour Advisory Planning Commissions for information.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet\2012-Sep-20 PDC report re Narrows Inlet IPP.docx 129 ATTACHMENT A

Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Narrows Inlet Hydro Project

Open House and Invitation to Comment

Narrows Inlet Hydro Holding Corp. (Proponent) is proposing to and health – that might result from the proposed Project are construct the Narrows Inlet Hydro Project that consists of five identified for consideration as part of the assessment small hydroelectric facilities in the Tzoonie River Valley, process. approximately 50 km north of Sechelt, BC ((Project). The proposed Project would have a combined capacity of The EAO accepts public comments through the following approximately 44 megawatts. ways:

The Proponent chose to opt in to the Environmental  By Online Form at Assessment process and therefore the Project is being http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca reviewed under British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment  By Mail: Act. Garry Alexander Project Lead The Proponent has submitted an application to obtain an Environmental Assessment Office environmental assessment certificate (Application) which is PO Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt required before any work can be undertaken on the proposed Victoria BC V8W 9V1 Project.  By Fax: Fax: 250-356-6448 In order to provide information about the Application, and to receive comments from the public, the Environmental An electronic copy of the Application and information Assessment Office (EAO) invites the public to attend regarding the environmental assessment process are Open Houses to be held: available at www.eao.gov.bc.ca. Copies of the Application are also available for viewing at these locations: Location: Egmont Hall SecheltBandHall 6801BathgateRd 5532XenechinenAve  Sunshine Coast Regional District, 1975 Field Street, Date: October 12, 2012 October 13, 2012 Sechelt. Time: 6:30 to 9:30 pm 1:00 to 4:00 pm  Public Library, Madiera Park, 12952 Madeira Pk Rd  Public Library, Sechelt, 5797 Cowrie Street There will be a slideshow of information regarding the environmental assessment process and the content of the  Public Library, Gibsons, 470 S. Fletcher Rd. Application along with information poster boards. The  Proponent and their consultants will be in attendance to The Proponent has requested that the following provincial answer your questions. permits be reviewed concurrently under the Act:  Water Licences under the Water Act; If you are unable to attend the Open House, you may still wish  Lease, Licence or Right of Way under the Land Act. to make a written submission at any time during the 45 day public comment period which begins September 7, 2012 and These applications are also available on the EAO’s website ends midnight on October 22, 2012. All comments received at www.eao.gov.bc.ca and at the above locations. during this comment period in relation to the Application will Comments on these may also be submitted to the EAO be considered. during the comment period as described above.

The intention of seeking public comments is to ensure that all potential effects – environmental, economic, social, heritage NOTE: All submissions received by the EAO during the comment period in relation to the proposed Project are considered public and will be posted to the EAO website.

130 ATTACHMENT B 131131

Sunshine

Canada

Sechelt,

1975

ELECTORAL

Field

British

VON

Road

Coast

letter

N:\lnfrastructure

604

[email protected]

Enclosures:

David SUNSHINE

Yours

Please detailed Advisory

Should

This

to

focus

aspects.

I

an these

Please

RE:

Adrienne

Dear Victoria

3A1

August

P0 B.C.

1St

AREAS:

Columbia

have

specific

aid

Regional

to

885

Floor

MUNICIPALITIES:

Box

is

Environmental

Ms

EAO Rafael,

truly,

is

comments

for

not

likely

contact

the

A

find

Narrows

3,

6804

on

comments

BC 9426

-

Committee

Butler:

836

the

Butler,

Egmont,

re

commented

2012

sections

Sunshine

relation

application

aspects

attached

COAST

V8W

NIHP

to

&

District

Senior

ext

Board

Yates

Stn

Public

me

be

Pender

Environmental

are

Inlet

screening.docx

4

9V1

to

the

Prov

District

if

on

of

of

Coast

Works\5510

Assessment

Application

REGIONAL

and

St

you

during

Planner

from

a

the information

.

the

a

Hydro

be

Harbour

upon

copy

Govt

of

broader

for

have

Toll

F

P

accepted application

Regional

project

Sechelt

staff

604.885.7909

the 604.885.6800

future

of

information

free

Project

B

any

Independent

my

Information and public

-

Assessment

/

Halfmoon

range

DISTRICT

Sechelt

Office

1.800.687.5753

that

reviewed

detailed

questions. review

District

by have

132 that

—

are

review.

the

of

Indian

screening

Bay

provided

not

Power

staff

topics

are

of

likely

Requirements

EAO

review

in

D

the

Government

been

Officer of

-

detail

revue

Roberts

Projects\5510-20

to

then

application.

interest

than

regarding

be

of

considered

of

of www.scrd.ca

[email protected]

by

the

the

of

those

Creek

application

NIHP

District

the

interest

and

contents

SCRD

E

SCRD’s

considered

application

/ habitat

-

started

Town

Due

Elphinstone

IPP\Narrows

by

to

is

the

of

to

I

likely

the

provided

Gibsons

and

Natural

to

time

SCRD

for

SCRD

look

at F

ATTACHMENT C

to

specific

- lnlet\2012-Aug-03

completeness

constraints

this

West

provide

at

eores Resource

Board.

references

Board.

stage. specific

Howe

species.

Sound

The

As in Sunshine Coast Regional District staff revue of NIHP application Page 1 of 6 for completeness in relation to Application Information Requirements

1.6 Estimated Government Revenues (section 1.3.4 of the application) Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met with respect to identifying government revenues as it relates to the SCRD. There is a disagreement over the specific revenue projections and the applicant is requested to contact David Rafael, Senior Planner ([email protected] or 6094-885-6804-ext 4) to arrange to discuss this matter with the SCRD Chief Administrative Officer and Treasurer. Specific Comments: The final report should show the calculations that were used to derive the estimated values. The estimates differ significantly from those sent to and discussed with the SCRD in July 2011. Further discussions with the SCRD are needed to resolve this. 1.8 Regulatory Framework Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met with respect to identifying the regulatory framework as it relates to the SCRD. There may be issues relating to the temporary construction facilities and the applicant is requested to contact David Rafael, Senior Planner ([email protected] or 6094-885-6804-ext 4) to discuss this matter. Specific Comments: The report notes the role of zoning bylaw and building permit requirements. It should add reference to temporary use permits for temporary construction facilities (such as location of concrete batch plant, lay down and storage areas) as an alternative to rezoning. This would apply to areas within the SCRD jurisdiction. TUP’s can be issued for sites identified as temporary use permit areas. The SCRD is currently considering an amendment to Bylaw 310 to designate all of the area covered by the bylaw as a temporary use permit area; this includes the project area. The proposed amendment should be the subject of a report to the September 20, 2012 Planning and Development Committee for consideration of which areas the amendment should cover (e.g. all of Bylaw 310 area or part of the area) and of scheduling a public hearing. The proponent should consult the SCRD’s Planning and Development Department regarding temporary use permit process. 2.1.6 Temporary Construction Facilities (2.4 of application) Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met with respect to identifying temporary construction facilities. There may be issues relating to zoning and the applicant is requested to contact David Rafael, Senior Planner ([email protected] or 6094-885-6804-ext 4) to discuss this matter. Specific Comments: Construction camp is discussed and zoning allows for this on parcels greater than 1.75 Ha. The location for the camp/laydown/storage area is zoned Rural Two (RU2), however the lease area proposed is 1.5 Ha. Zoning does not allow for laydown/storage area. This will need to be resolved as noted above.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet\2012-Aug-03 SCRD staff revue of application against AIR.docx 133 Sunshine Coast Regional District staff revue of NIHP application Page 2 of 6 for completeness in relation to Application Information Requirements

Use of mobile concrete batch plant is noted in section 2.4.1.6 and it would be moved to the laydown/spoil area for each component site. This is not allowed in RU2 zone and will need to be resolved as noted above. 3.3 Planned Consultation Activities During Application Review (3.3 of application) Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met with respect to the public consultation program. The applicant is requested to contact David Rafael, Senior Planner ([email protected] or 6094-885-6804-ext 4) to arrange for meetings with the SCRD Directors and advisory groups. Specific Comments: A section on engagement with the shíshálh Nation is included. SCRD staff are not commenting on this section. Applicant proposes two open houses (one each in Egmont and Sechelt) and these could be weekend workshop format. Applicant offers to host meetings with stakeholders and community groups in addition to open houses. The applicant offers to meet with the SCRD and its Natural Resources Advisory Committee. The SCRD’s Planning and Development Committee and Natural Resource Advisory Committee extend invitations to attend their meetings of September 20th and 26th respectively; contact David Rafael at SCRD to arrange attendance or discuss alternative dates. The SCRD has also established an advisory planning commission for Halfmoon Bay which meets on the 4th Tuesday of the month, the applicant is encouraged to attend one of their meetings; contact David Rafael to arrange. The public meetings can be considered to satisfy the requirements for a rezoning and temporary use permit application(s) depending on the timing. Applications to the SCRD need to be submitted before the public meetings for them to be considered as part of the SCRD’s requirements. The applicant should contact David Rafael to discuss. The applicant commits to distribute the application to stakeholders and public during the public review period, including copies in Sechelt, Gibsons, and Pender Harbour libraries. The applicant has committed to continue to meet with the Ramona Creek Landowners Association and individual landowners. Public announcements will be made via local media (there are two local newspapers and a local radio station and cable TV station). Written report will be provided to EAO at completion of public consultation period setting out concerns and mitigation proposed. 5.2.2 and 8 Socio Economic Effect and Conditions (19 and other sections of the application) Conclusion: The AIR requires information on a range of issues. SCRD staff focussed on specific topics and the information seems to be present as required. However, much of the information is disjointed (spilt into different documents and sections) in what seems arbitrary for the most part. Detailed review should help to understand why the info is split and to determine if there is consistency in conclusions.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet\2012-Aug-03 SCRD staff revue of application against AIR.docx 134 Sunshine Coast Regional District staff revue of NIHP application Page 3 of 6 for completeness in relation to Application Information Requirements

Specific Comments: The following are of specific interest to the SCRD:  Tourism (sections 8.3.3.3, 19.2.3.4, consultant report Volume II Appendix 42 of the application, pg 2-84 refers to ROW and public access, 22.2.20) The applicant looked at Coast from Gibsons to Egmont, established baseline conditions (such as list/location of main facilities) and commented on residual effects. The information and analysis is split into two parts with far more detail provided in 8.3.3.3 which is within the document specifically considering First Nations and Socio- Economic Environment. It is unclear why there is such a split as most of the information is not specific to First Nations. The information is there but disjointed for no apparent reason. Detailed review may clarify why there is a split and will examine if different conclusions where reached.  Wilderness (sections 8.3.4, 19.2.4, consultant report Volume II Appendix 42 of the application) This section considers the impact of human activity on the wilderness. There is very little in 8.3.4 (in the document specifically considering First Nations and Socio- Economic Environment), more detail in other document. No obvious reason for the split.  Recreation Values (sections 8.3.3.4, 18.2.1.8, 18.2.2.6, 19.2.3, consultant report Volume II Appendix 42 of the application) This section considers impact and assessment of the aesthetic quality of landscape and of access. As with the Tourism section, the information is split with more detail in the document specifically considering First Nations and Socio-Economic Environment. It is unclear why there is such a split as most of the information is not specific to First Nations. The information is there but disjointed for no apparent reason. Detailed review may clarify why there is a split and will examine if different conclusions where reached.  Visual impact (sections 8.5, 18.3.6, 19.4.2 – for each component, 22.2.23 and consultant reports Volume II Appendices 44-47 of the application) 19.4.2 considers each component/location of the project separately providing photos of existing and potential new (post construction) views. There were calls in earlier phases of the project that this information is needed and the applicants have responded. 8.5 sets out how the viewpoints were selected, shíshálh Nation had key input. 18.3.6 looks at cumulative impacts. 22.2.23 considers protecting visual quality. The information is provided, although it is split into several sections that relate to specific aspects of the project. This makes it difficult to consider the topics as a whole, but it would be difficult not to have disjointed info. For example if all visual impact info gathered in one document, then cumulative impact info would be split and so on.  Noise (sections 5.1.3, 6.1.2, 6.2.2, 6.5, 10, 22.2.8 of the application) 5.1.3 considers the regulatory setting, issues previously identified and comments about the character of the area with respect to noise interaction. 6.1.2 describes how/when readings were taken to establish background levels.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet\2012-Aug-03 SCRD staff revue of application against AIR.docx 135 Sunshine Coast Regional District staff revue of NIHP application Page 4 of 6 for completeness in relation to Application Information Requirements

6.2.2 describes how/when readings were taken to establish background levels on shíshálh nation land in the area. 6.5 considered data collected at/near Tyson Creek IPP as an indication of possible impact of the project. 10 assessment of project effect (construction, operation and mitigation) and 22.2.8 discusses a noise management plan. The information is provided, although it is split into several sections that relate to specific aspects of the project. This makes it difficult to consider the topics as a whole, but it would be difficult not to have disjointed info.  Airborne Contaminants (sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 9, 18.3.1, 22.2.7 of the application) 5.1.1 considers air quality, the regulatory setting, issues previously identified and comments about the character of the area with respect to interaction. 5.1.2 considers greenhouse gases, issues previously identified and comments about the character of the area with respect to interaction and net-zero emissions. 6.1 and 6.2 describe climate and atmospheric conditions/data, air quality data and emissions. 6.4 looks at air quality in more detail. Unclear why the information is split; detailed review may clarify why there is a split. 9 assesses project’s impact on air quality (such as vehicle movements, construction and fugitive dust) and 22.2.7 considers an air quality and dust control plan. The information is provided, although it is split into several sections that relate to specific aspects of the project. This makes it difficult to consider the topics as a whole, but it would be difficult not to have disjointed info.  Fire Risk (section 20.2, 21.4 of the application) 20.2 assesses the potential sources that could trigger an accidental fire, considers mitigation measures and fire response. 21.4 considers risk of forest fire (not related to project) and role of climate change in changing risk level. The information is provided. 5.2.3 Cumulative Effects (sections 4.1.7, various in 17, 18, 23 of the application) Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met. Specific Comments: This is a significant issue for the SCRD as the wider area is identified having potential for many IPP projects. The Narrows Inlet project offers an important opportunity to examine cumulative impacts. 4.1.7 describes what is meant by cumulative effects assessment, what issues were considered and how the topic is presented. 17 (concentrates on combined and residual effects) and 18 (concentrating on cumulative effects) provide the main body of information and conclusions on a range of issues. The regulatory requirements are set out.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet\2012-Aug-03 SCRD staff revue of application against AIR.docx 136 Sunshine Coast Regional District staff revue of NIHP application Page 5 of 6 for completeness in relation to Application Information Requirements

23 sets out a summary in tabular format. Very useful guide that could be enhanced by providing references to other sections of the application where the detailed information can be found. There does not appear to be any obvious gap in the range of issues considered. Although not set out as a requirement in the AIR, the applicant could comment on the potential impact on recreation opportunity as new existing roads/trails will be maintained and whether this will increase access to and use of the area. 4.4 Construction Phase Activities and 4.5 Operations & Management Phase Activities (sections 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 22.2, 22.3 of the application) 2.4 Construction Phase Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met. Specific Comments: Information appears to be provided as required in AIR. There may be changes as specific studies done to determine if rocks are acidic and alternatives storage and use of excavated material material may be required. 2.5 Operation and Maintenance Phase Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met. Specific Comments: Some aspects will require plans to be developed and information to be disseminated to agencies. The SCRD will look at this in detail to see which aspects it wants to be kept informed of and have input in plan development. 2.7 Decommissioning Phase Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the AIR is met. Specific Comments: The applicant notes that the project as a whole is not intended to be decommissioned and with on-going maintenance it should operate indefinitely. If there is a need to decommission it then a plan can be developed. Specific components will be decommissioned (such as laydown/storage areas, some roads and so on). Information is provided about how each temporary component will be decommissioned. 22.2 Construction Environmental Management Plan Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the breadth of issues set out in the AIR are covered. 22.3 Operations Phase Environmental Management Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the breadth of issues set out in the AIR are covered.

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet\2012-Aug-03 SCRD staff revue of application against AIR.docx 137 Sunshine Coast Regional District staff revue of NIHP application Page 6 of 6 for completeness in relation to Application Information Requirements

Specific Comments: The applicant is required to provide details of the operations phase management 60 days before the project is commissioned for operation. The requirements set out in the AIR are listed and detail is provided for some aspects. Sedimentation and Turbidity (22.2.1, 22.2.6, pg 2-43, 2-50, 2.55, 2.82, 22-3 to 22-11, 22-29, 22- 30, 22-32, 22-34, 22-37, 22-40 to 42, 22.47, 22.48, 22.50, 22-52 to 64 in the application) Conclusion: SCRD staff consider that the applicant provides information regarding sedimentation Specific Comments: In light of the experience at Tyson Creek Hydro site of a sediment release event this is a topic of specific interest to the SCRD and the community. The applicant sets out a monitoring program for measuring turbidity manually and automatically in various locations and reporting to the province. This includes weekly manual tests with data collection sites will be in the tailraces, up/downstream of tail race and river confluences with Tzoonie and above reaches with known fish reserves. Proposed studies also look at potential for sediment release such as that experienced at Tyson Creek for each site. Example of commitment: “The Proponent will engage a professional engineer with experience in reservoir sediment management to prepare a Lake Sediment Management Plan to mitigate potential increased sediment load during operations due to management of the Ramona Lake storage” (page 22-59).

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5510 Independent Power Projects\5510-20 IPP\Narrows Inlet\2012-Aug-03 SCRD staff revue of application against AIR.docx 138 ANNEX R

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Planning and Development Committee – September 20, 2012 FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner RE: DISTRICT OF SECHELT REFERRAL REGARDING AN OCP AMENDMENT TO THE BONUS DENSITY POLICIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report titled “District of Sechelt Referral regarding an OCP amendment to the Bonus Density policies for affordable housing” be received; AND THAT the Regional District supports the District of Sechelt’s proposed amendments to its Official Community Plan bonus density policy and Density Bonus Implementation Policy.

BACKGROUND The District of Sechelt initiated a review of their bonus density policy which is designed to generate affordable housing. District staff propose to make two amendments to its Official Community Plan (OCP). The first is to delete the specifics in the existing OCP policy and refer to a Bonus Density Implementation Policy, which is described in the District’s staff report. The implementation policy is outside of the OCP, thus providing the District with the flexibility to amend the policy, without the need for conducting a formal OCP amendment process, as they gain experience in applying it. The second change is to update the definition of “base density” to include a wider range of circumstances that would trigger the policy. Discussions have taken place with community stakeholders, including the Coast Community Builders Association. A copy of the District of Sechelt’s staff report is attached for reference (Attachment A). DISCUSSION A Bonus Density Implementation Policy is already in place and the District proposes to amend it by setting the cash in lieu option to be based upon 20% of the average list price of the project, thus taking into account location and pricing characteristics of the project. This is advantageous over a simple $ per unit calculation which may be a greater burden on relatively lower cost units in less ‘desirable’ areas. The cash in lieu would be applied to units achieved by the increase in density. To add flexibility, the payment could be made in installments and include in-kind contributions such as off-site works or land donations. Where cash in-lieu is not the desired option, the District could also establish a below market value for actual units; the number of units based upon a proportion of the density increase. Another proposed change is a sunset clause in the Housing Agreement requirements such that at the time of re-sale the sale price discount (difference between regular market and the agreement price) would be given to the District; this would provide funds for the Districts’ affordable housing funds and reduce the ongoing administrative efforts.

139 Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (September 20, 2012) Regarding District of Sechelt bonus density policy referral Page 2 of 2

The downside is that the affordable market housing (agreement price) would revert to market housing (regular market price). Overall the District’s staff see this amendment as a means of shifting the focus from price restricted ownership to creating a more robust affordable housing fund that could support the development of affordable rental units resulting in opening funding opportunities for any group rather than favouring middle income households. Although the latter group would likely continue to benefit from the initial relatively lower cost at the time of the first sale. The approach taken by the Town of Gibsons is that any rezoning application that results in added value to the applicant (such as increase the potential number of multi-family dwellings or residential lots) will require funds to be paid towards or the provision of community amenities and affordable housing. The Town has established an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. When the increase in units is less than 10 then the contribution will be to the fund. When the increase is greater than 10 at least 10% of the units will be provided for affordable housing on or offsite or contribute funds or in kind services in an equivalent amount towards an affordable housing reserve fund. In order to ensure the long term sustainability of the affordable housing it will have to be either transferred to a non-profit organization or a covenant or housing agreement will have to be registered on title. CONCLUSION Regional District staff note that there is no direct impact of the proposed changes to the Regional District. The District of Sechelt is refining and developing their policy for attracting affordable housing through tapping into the increased value associated with increasing development density. The experience gained by the District will be of benefit to the Regional District when it develops and affordable housing approach in consultation with the Regional; Housing Committee and the community. The policy changes should be supported by the Regional District Board.

N:\Administration\0420 District of Sechelt\0420-20 Referrals\2012 Affordable Housing Policy\2012-Sep-20 PDC report re DoS referral affordable housing policy.doc

140 ATTACHMENT A

REQUEST FOR DECISION

TO: Committee of the Whole

REPORT DATE: July 16, 2012

TARGET DECISION DATE: July 25, 2012

FROM: Community Planner

RE: Bonus Density Policy

FILE NO: 6440-20 Affordable Housing Policy Review

PURPOSE To outline updated bonus density policy consisting of an Official Community Plan bylaw amendment and a Council implementation policy as outlined in Council’s Strategic Plan.

OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES 1. Staff recommends that the updated bonus density policy be considered for first reading, forwarded to an information meeting and a statutory public hearing.

2. Alternatively, Council can request amendments to the proposed policy.

DISCUSSION Context/Background On March 7, 2012 Council requested staff to work with community stakeholders on an updated bonus density policy that would include a variety of options such as the provision of units, cash in lieu, land in lieu or in kind support (see also resolution no. 710-03/2012). Staff drafted a bylaw and implementation policy and held further discussions with Coast Community Builders Association and other stakeholders.

Generally, there is strong support for the proposed changes to the policy (outlined below) as demonstrated by feedback received during consultation meetings in December 2011 and February 2012 (see memo’s summarizing the meetings attached).

An item of the density bonus policy that has been subject of discussion is the cash in lieu formula. In principle most people agree that the cash in lieu option for affordable housing should be relative to the location and pricing of a project. However, opinions on how to do that vary and it has become clear that there is no consensus on the best solution. Staff has included a formula for cash in lieu which is based on listed sale prices of residential units or subdivided lots.

141 2

Proposed bylaw and implementation policy The proposed bylaw makes two changes to the current Official Community Plan (OCP) housing policy in sections 5.21 to 5.28. A marked up text outlining all deletions and additions is attached as attachment 3. • The first change deletes specifics of the policy and instead, the OCP will refer to a Bonus Density Implementation Policy in the Policy Manual. The reason to create a separate policy is flexibility. There are on-going changes in the housing market, labour market and in the availability of senior government funding for affordable housing. A Council policy makes it easier to make adjustments in the future without the need to go through a formal OCP amendment process. The District already has been using an implementation policy for affordable housing since 2008. • The second change involves updating the definition of base density. Under current OCP provisions a theoretical base density is used. Development above the base density is required to provide affordable housing. However, some of the developable lands in Sechelt have rural zoning with a low existing density (for example RR-1 minimum lot size 6,666 m2) which is much lower than the OCP base density. Currently, a rezoning in these areas to a regular single family zoning (for example R-1 minimum lot size 500 m2) does not necessarily result in affordable housing units being required if the proposed density is within the OCP’s base density. This is contrary to the intent of the District’s affordable housing strategy. For this reason staff recommends to use existing zoning as the basis for determining affordable housing contributions instead of OCP designations.

The proposed Bonus Density Implementation Policy clarifies current housing policies and introduces the following new policies: • Under Affordability a policy regarding the number of bedrooms and price for three different types of affordable units is added. The previous policy did not specify type in relation to price and this has led to unsatisfactory results in the past. • Under Cash in lieu contributions cash in lieu per unit is defined as 20% of the average list prices in the project. This way, the contribution requirement takes into account location and pricing characteristics of a development. Information from the developer would be used unless Council decides an appraiser should be used. Also, the developer may request a recalculation based on actual sale prices at the time of the last payment. This would offer some protection for the developer if sales prices fall over the course of the project. • Regarding timing of payment the policy offers the option of payment in installments by the developer, along the lines of similar provisions that are in place for development cost charges. (The option of deferred payments was requested by development industry members.) Another suggestion from the consultation process included in the policy is an incentive if the cash in lieu contribution is paid in full at the start of the project. • Other options for cash in lieu are in kind contributions such as site preparation, assistance in off-site works and land donations. This option was added following suggestions from housing societies. • Under Housing Agreement requirements it is outlined that price restricted ownership housing will be subject to a sunset clause at the time of re-sale. At that time the

142 3

value of the sale price discount needs to be returned to the District of Sechelt. This provision will reduce future administration efforts for restricted units and it will support the build-up of an affordable housing fund. • Other provisions in the proposed implementation policy have been copied or adapted from the existing policy.

Strategic Plan A rewrite of the Affordable Housing bylaws is one of the Very Short Term Goals for 2012 in Council’s Strategic Plan.

Sustainability Guiding Principles A bonus density policy that promotes affordable housing supports the guiding principles of Economic Prosperity and Community Well-Being.

Policy Implications The proposed bonus density revision would shift the focus of affordable housing requirements for new development as follows. Currently the policy tends to result in price restricted ownership units. The new policy could see a mix of build ownership units and cash in lieu contributions. In the long term the cash in lieu could be leveraged for affordable rental housing projects. The results in terms of affordable housing on the ground would change: • Initially there will be less units built because the cash in lieu option will probably be used more often. • Overtime, as cash in lieu reserve builds up, opportunities arise for the development of rental units in partnerships with non profit housing societies. • Eventually, more affordable units could be created if local cash contributions can be leveraged with senior government funding or financing. In terms of addressing housing needs, the change opens up funding opportunities for any group in need rather than favouring middle income households.

Financial Implications Currently, cash in lieu for a required affordable housing unit is set at $ 206,000. The table below outlines potential cash in lieu contributions under the new policy. Any contributions received would be added to the District’s affordable housing fund.

Typical candidate Average unit 20% in lieu of 1 project price unit Land development $ 180,000 / lot $ 36,000 Baillie Road Midtown condos $ 200,000 / unit $ 40,000 Oracle Properties $ 320,000 $ 64,000 townhouses Ranchers West $ 400,000 $ 80,000 Sechelt Watermark (Pacific $ 500,000 $ 100,000 Spirit) condos table 1: estimated value of a 20% cash in lieu contribution

143 4

Communication Strategy Two earlier consultation meetings resulted in feedback mainly from housing societies and development industry members. Following first reading of the bylaw a follow up information meeting is proposed to inform any interested community stakeholders of the proposed bylaw and policy.

Furthermore, Council must consider consultation pursuant to s. 879(1) of the Local Government Act. Staff proposes that the OCP Amendment Bylaw be referred to the below noted organizations so that an opportunity is provided for consultation in respect of the bylaw. Staff considers that consultation beyond this referral will be unnecessary.

• Sunshine Coast Regional District • Town of Gibsons • Advisory Planning Commission • School District 46

Staff does not consider the Sechelt Indian Band to be affected by the OCP amendment because housing policies for First Nations are managed at the provincial and federal level without other local governments input.

Staff does not consider the provincial or federal government to be affected by the OCP amendment because the proposed changes are minor amendments to a policy that falls within the provincial legislative framework.

Following the information meeting and referral process a Public Hearing would be scheduled.

Analysis/Application of Recommended Course of Action Sechelt’s Affordable Housing Strategy contains several tools, one of which is the Bonus Density Policy. Council had requested a review of this policy because the resulting housing units varied greatly in size and quality. Staff has consulted with housing societies and development industry representatives. An updated Bonus Density Policy is proposed with the following changes: • Update the Official Community Plan to ensure a separate Council implementation policy for bonus density situations. • Update the Official Community Plan to ensure any rezoning applications with a lift in density are subject to affordable housing requirements. • Update Council’s Bonus Density implementation policy to incorporate cash in lieu options that are more attractive for the development industry. Cash in lieu contributions may assist in growing a fund for the development of a wider range of affordable housing units overtime.

144 5

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. That the report from the Community Planner dated July 16, 2012 regarding Bonus Density Policy be received.

2. That pursuant to Section 879 of the Local Government Act Council consider that the following persons, organizations and authorities may be affected by the Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw: (i) Sunshine Coast Regional District (ii) Town of Gibsons (iii) Advisory Planning Commission (iv) School District 46; And that the Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw be referred to the above noted, organizations for their comments with a 30 day response time;

3. That Council give consideration to giving first reading to Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-6, 2012 and refer the bylaw to a Public Hearing after an information meeting has been held;

Respectfully submitted, André Boel, Community Planner

Reviewed by Director of Development Services

Attachments 1. Meeting notes consultation meeting December 14, 2011 2. Meeting notes consultation meeting February 9, 2012 3. Marked up version of Official Community Plan text changes 4. Draft Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-6, 2012 5. Draft Density Bonus implementation policy for the Policy Manual

145 6

Attachment 1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: January 6, 2012

TO: Who It May Concern

FROM: André Boel, Community Planner

RE: meeting notes affordable housing consultation meeting December 14

FILE NO: 6440-20 Affordable Housing Community Amenities Policy / Review

Mayor and Council of the District of Sechelt have requested a review of the current housing policies. Staff had drafted a preliminary outline and organised a consultation meeting for the development industry and local housing providers on December 14, 2011. This memo summarises comments and questions from the approximate 25 people in attendance. Also, comments from a separate meeting with planners from the SCRD and the Town of Gibsons are included.

Current developments The following projects and recent developments were mentioned during the introductions: • A Sunshine Coast Housing Committee is about to be established by Sechelt, Gibsons, SCRD. • Habitat for Humanity continues their work on their site in Wilson Creek, two duplexes are under construction. They are in need of funding for off site services required. • Coast Community Builders Association is working with the Town of Gibsons, BC Housing and a developer (Upper Gibsons area) to stimulate development by building 5 affordable ownership homes. • Coast Housing Society is looking at expanding their portfolio for families with children by investigating a possible project for 30 units in Downtown Sechelt, in partnership with the Coast Community Builder’s Association. • Sunshine Coast Association for Community Living reflected on their experience when they developed the Midtown project in Sechelt. The project was successful for SCACL but not for the developer. For the policy it is relevant to consider if the total package of municipal requirements is feasible for developers.

146 7

Attachment 1

Presentation proposed housing policy update The presentation highlighted the need to update the policy because of two main reasons. First of all Council asked for a review because the policy to date has seen mixed results with regards to size and price of the unit. Secondly it has become clear that affordable housing projects depend more and more on complex partnerships and the availability of local equity or cash before a project can be outlined and considered for provincial assistance. The current policy was not set up for this.

Key changes proposed are: • Lower cash-in-lieu contribution option is proposed in order to provide more realistic alternatives for developers to providing affordable units within a development. • Collecting more cash contributions also creates opportunities to support future new housing projects by non-profit housing societies. • The results of the housing policy will become more diverse: not only price restricted ownership units, but also rental and / or special need housing projects can be realised.

Feedback from participants The following comments and ideas resulted from a discussion with the participants about the proposed changes: • Application for Sechelt grant funding: consider setting criteria upfront that would take into consideration the housing need that the project would address. • Key ingredients for a project: the Lions mention that at a cost of $ 144,000 / unit owning the land was key to make the business plan work as well as a guaranteed 10 year property tax holiday. • Not a lot of money in land development: Participants cautioned against the impression that land developers have deep pockets. There are a lot of other cost involved, and affordable housing requirements add to the burden. • Affordable housing as part of the amenities package: Affordable housing contributions should not be considered on its own, but as integral part of all the amenities and infrastructure provided by land development projects. The District of Sechelt should do a better job in balancing the total impact of all requirements. • Land development not the only way to increase affordable housing: It was noted that the District is also using other means to encourage affordable housing. For example by legalising secondary suites, property tax exemptions, development cost charges rebates, grant funding, support for project development and the regional Housing Committee. • Development results in increased property tax revenue: It was pointed out that following development, overtime, the District benefits from increased taxation. A portion of this increased tax revenue could be used for affordable housing purposes instead of requiring contributions up front. Or maybe a specific property tax charge could be applied to new residential units to raise housing funds. • High priced retirement homes and affordable housing needs: Some participants explained that they see a direct link between the influx of retirees from

147 8

Attachment 1

Vancouver and high housing prices. This would justify solutions where part of the burden is carried by tax payers or residents of new units. • Can Sechelt administer cash contributions? The District already has an Affordable Housing Operating Reserve with remaining funds from an earlier development contribution. A basic policy is in place that outlines how the funds can be used. • Regarding the possible 15% cash contribution: Participants agree with the proposed % based approach that would take the value of a project into consideration. However, the details of the formula (the % and sales value or other base number) needs to be carefully evaluated. Furthermore, timing is relevant for developers, other requirements of the District result in upfront costs. Maybe a cash contribution can be received at a later date. • Need for a affordable housing platform: Participants applauded today’s meeting as a way for land developers and affordable housing providers to meet. Continuing this type of meeting platform in the future is desirable. The Sunshine Coast Housing Committee may offer a forum for this. • Could the new policy apply to existing housing agreements? The Community Planner clarified that new cash in lieu contribution options would likely also be available for existing housing agreements in place. • Marketing and qualifying occupants for affordable housing units: it was recommended that consideration would be given to the marketing and qualifying process. Currently, for price restricted ownership housing the District would supervise this. Possibly a non profit society could take this on. In closing participants suggested that a follow up meeting be held with interested participants of this meeting to discuss the proposed cash contribution option in more detail.

Meeting with planners from SCRD and Gibsons During a meeting with planners from neighbouring jurisdictions the following comments were made: • The SCRD has few re-zoning applications for larger projects and therefore has not had much opportunity to negotiate affordable housing requirements. • The Town of Gibsons has a similar policy as Sechelt. Some covenants with developers require that housing agreements be drafted at time of development. To date no housing agreement is in place. For a development in Upper Gibsons a housing agreement is under preparation.

148 9

Attachment 2

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 9, 2012

TO: Stakeholders Affordable Housing Policy

FROM: André Boel, Community Planner

RE: meeting notes affordable housing consultation meeting February 9

FILE NO: 6440-20 Affordable Housing Community Amenities Policy / Review

Following a meeting on December 14, 2011 another meeting was held to specifically discuss cash in lieu options for the bonus density policy in the affordable housing strategy.

The attached memo was e-mailed to the participants and invitees of the December meeting. During this follow up meeting participants included 2 housing societies, 5 members of the development industry and 2 councillors.

Highlights: • For some developers the suggested cash in lieu option of 20% of average listed prices is unattractive. • As an alternative it was suggested to establish a % of building permit construction value as a cash in lieu option. -> Clarke Hamilton, CCBA, volunteered to explore this option in more detail. • Another suggestion was to define the affordable housing program needed for the next few years, create a budget and determine how much money would be needed for each unit, taking into account leveraging opportunities of mortgages or senior government funding. -> Other participants pointed out this approach may not be feasible due to the volume and diversity of housing units needed.

• The example of the City of Langford was referenced with affordable units priced at a % of market price and cash contribution options. -> the Community Planner mentioned the Langford approach was used as one of the examples during the development of the Sechelt policies in 2007. • Affordable housing can also contribute to the preferred development in the Downtown area. Currently, DCC’s and off site requirements are barriers to make this a reality.

149 10

Attachment 2

• The idea of using property tax or a charge on any housing unit constructed was floated. -> property tax is already used (indirectly) for grants in aid, property tax exemptions and Development Cost Charge waivers. Under the current legislative regime, the District cannot directly tax for affordable housing. • It was suggested that a discount should be offered for developers who are willing to pay cash in lieu upfront.

• Some participants suggested the focus of the new policy should be on collecting cash in lieu rather than affordable housing units. Some participants don`t believe there is a place for affordable housing in some high end projects. -> Others suggested there it is in the community’s interest to have affordable housing integrated in other developments. The alternative could result in dedicated affordable housing neighbourhoods and this is not considered to be an desirable trend. -> the Community Planner explained that part of the housing needs are for households on median to low incomes, looking for lower priced ownership housing. This type of housing can easily be combined within for example townhouse developments. The Housing Agreement for Oracle Properties provides an example.

At the end of the meeting the Community Planner thanked the participants for their input. He will inform Council about the results of the consultation meetings.

150 11

Attachment 3

Affordable, Accessible and Special Needs Housing

5.21 Sechelt supports initiatives to create more accessible and adaptable housing to accommodate aging in place and for people with permanent or temporary mobility issues.

5.22 Secondary suites are supported as a primary means of creating affordable housing for both owners and renters within all single-family areas.

5.23 The District of Sechelt will use the tools provided by the Local Government Act to guarantee the long-term affordability of affordable, special needs and accessible/adaptable housing acquired from new developments, within the following general framework:

(a) Where Affordable Housing for Groups in Need is provided by a developer, Council may enter into a housing agreement pursuant to S.904 or S.905 of the Local Government Act and/or S.219 of the Land Title Act to ensure lots/units are retained in the long-term for Groups in Need;

(b) Council may accept land in lieu of housing units for Affordable Housingbased on guidelines in the District’s of Sechelt Policy Manual. , provided the land is suitably located for future affordable housing, and where the fair market value of the land is equal to or greater than the fair market value of the required affordable housing units;

(c) Lands acquired by Council for Affordable Housing may be conveyed to a registered non- profit Housing Corporation for the provision of Affordable Housing;

(d) Council may accept funds of cash in lieu of housing units for Affordable Housingbased on guidelines in the District’s of Sechelt Policy Manual., provided the cash is equal to or greater in market value than the fair market value of the required units. Any funds acquired will be appropriated to the Affordable Housing Statutory Reserve Fund.

Density Bonus – General Framework

5.24 The District of Sechelt supports bonus densities for residential developments in exchange for the provision of Affordable Housing and Community Amenities. Council may allow a density bonus only within the framework of the policies below.

5.25 Base and mBase density is based on the existing zoning for a site. Maximum density limits will be based on policy 5.29 (Housing Types and Density) except where existing zoning for a site allows a higher base density. In that case, the base density of the zoning provisions for a site will apply.

151 12

Attachment 3

5.26 Affordable Housing requirements will be part of any residential development that is granted a density bonus. At least 20% of any density bonus units (or density “lift”) in adevelopment will consist of Affordable Housing for Groups in Need. This means the housing must be affordable to low or moderate income households or have special features that the private market does not typically provide.

5.27 A density bonus may be achieved by providing a combination (as appropriate to the development site and location) of community amenities described in policies 5.17 to 5.20 in addition to Affordable Housing as described in policies 5.21 to 5.26. The following increases in density will be considered:

(a) 2% density bonus for every 10% of the total number of units built adaptable and accessible;

(b) 10% density bonus for every 5% of total site area as additional protected, publicly accessible open space in locations satisfactory to the District. This open space is separate from any open space requirements as a result of increased building heights under policy 6.14;

(c) Up to 10% density bonus for providing cultural or recreational facilities in locations and forms satisfactory to the District;

(d) 2% in density bonus for every 10% of the total number of units built according to green standards (Built Green Gold or Ashrae 90.1(2007) or better standards).

Definitions

Base Density

Means the current lower specified density for a site as determined by the current zoning for the site under the District’s Zoning Bylaw. the future land use designation shown on Schedule C.

152 13

Attachment 4

153 14

Attachment 4

154 15

Attachment 5

155 16

Attachment 5

156 17

Attachment 5

157 18

Attachment 5

158 Prior to Public Hearing Bylaw

DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw No. 492-6, 2012

A bylaw to amend District of Sechelt Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 492, 2010

______

WHEREAS Council of the District of Sechelt wishes to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw to make certain changes to the Affordable Housing and Density Bonus policies;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Sechelt in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:

1. TITLE

This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “District of Sechelt Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-6, 2012”.

2. AMENDMENTS

The District of Sechelt Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 492, 2010 is hereby amended as follows:

(1) Part Four “Land Use Policies”, 5. “Residential and Special Infill Areas”, policy Affordable, Accessible and Special Needs Housing 5.23 (b) by

deleting:

“provided the land is suitably located for future affordable housing, and where the fair market value of the land is equal to or greater than the fair market value of the required affordable housing units”

and replacing it with:

“following the Density Bonus Implementation Policy in the District of Sechelt Policy Manual.”

(2) Part Four “Land Use Policies”, 5. “Residential and Special Infill Areas”, policy Affordable, Accessible and Special Needs Housing 5.23 (d) by

deleting:

“provided the cash is equal to or greater in market value than the fair market value of the required units.”

and replacing it with:

“following the Density Bonus Implementation Policy in the District of Sechelt Policy Manual.”

159 Page 2 District of Sechelt Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-6, 2012

(3) Part Four “Land Use Policies”, 5. “Residential and Special Infill Areas”, policy 5.25 (under Density Bonus – General Framework) by

deleting policy 5.25 in its entirety:

“Base and maximum density limits will be based on policy 5.29 (Housing Types and Density) except where existing zoning for a site allows a higher base density. In that case the base density of the zoning provisions for a site will apply.”

and replacing it with:

“Base density is based on the existing zoning for a site. Maximum density limits will be based on policy 5.28 (Housing Types and Density).”

(4) Part Nine “Definitions”, “Base Density” definition by

deleting the Base Density definition in its entirety:

“Means the lower specified density for a site as determined by the future land use designation shown on Schedule C.”

and replacing it with:

“Means the current density as determined by the current zoning for a site under the District of Sechelt’s Zoning Bylaw.”

READ A FIRST TIME THIS 1st DAY OF August, 2012

READ A SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF 2012

PUBLIC HEARING HELD THIS DAY OF 2012

READ A THIRD TIME THIS DAY OF 2012

ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2012

Mayor Corporate Officer

I hereby certify this to be a true and accurate copy of “District of Sechelt Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-6, 2012”.

______Corporate Officer

160