Report to Director of Planning and Development

DISTRICT OF LAKE COUNTRY REPORT TO DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

REPORT DATE: AUGUST 5, 2014 FROM: JULIET VAN VLIET SUBJECT: EROSION, HILLSIDE, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, STABILITY, WILDFIRE AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS FILE #: DP2014-014

PURPOSE:  To provide Council with relevant information regarding a proposal to build a residence.  To determine if the requirements of the Hillside, Natural Environment, Stability, Erosion, Wildland Fire and Greenhouse Gas Reduction & Resource Conservation Development Permit Area guidelines have been met.

RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT Development Permit DP2014-014 for Parcel B (being a consolidation of Lots 21, 22 and 23 see LB530289) Sections 8&9 Township 20 ODYD Plan KAP521 on Okanagan Centre Road West permitting the construction of a residence be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Development and use of the subject property be in compliance with the provisions of the Municipality’s various bylaws, except as explicitly varied or supplemented by the terms of this permit, subsequent permits, amendment(s) and/or development variance permits; 2. The Development Permit is only valid for the development that is described herein. If a change to development is considered, a new development permit or an amendment to this permit is required before starting any work; 3. Emergency Access stairs be safely incorporated into the site design as per the Access Permit requirements; 4. A permit to construct within the Right of Way be approved/issued by the District; 5. Soil stockpiles will be located away from neighbouring properties and must be covered when not in use; 6. Land clearing may occur outside of the sensitive nesting period of birds between April 1st and July 31st. Development can only proceed within this period if a nest survey by a qualified environmental professional has concluded that no nests are present; 7. As a precaution to vehicular mortality, strategic fencing should be installed to direct reptiles and amphibians seeking basking opportunity away from proximate roads and parking lots; 8. The materials and colors used in building construction minimize heat absorption; 9. Large windows should be sheltered by overhangs which maximize solar input during winter months; 10. Opportunities for natural ventilation and airflow and measures to reduce heat gains by hard surfaces should be incorporated into the building; 11. Building envelopes well sealed and energy efficient; 12. Rainwater recycling should be included in landscape designs; 13. Landscaping must be low maintenance and require minimal irrigation; 14. Drought resistant and indigenous vegetation should be used throughout all areas of the property; 15. Active weed management must occur through the project duration; 16. Exposed soils must be landscaped with native trees and shrubs and should be vegetated with native seed mix; 17. Limiting development encroachment during construction may be aided by delineating the limits of the clearing and grubbing area with flagging. Any non-footprint areas that are disturbed will be hydro-seeded as soon as possible. 18. The development shall be conducted in accordance with the following documents:  Schedule A of Development Permit DP2014-014 Site Plan;

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 2  Schedule B of Development Permit DP2014-014 Geotechnical Assessment by Interior Testing Services Ltd on April 7, 2014;  Schedule C of Development Permit DP2014-014 Wildland Urban Interface Fire Hazard Assessment prepared by Swanson Forestry Services on February 19, 2014;  Schedule D of Development Permit DP2014-011 Environmental Assessment Report prepared by CTQ Consultants in March, 2014; and  Schedule E of Development Permit DP2014-014 Landscape Plan. 19. The applicant submit a survey showing that the three affected parcels are consolidated into one parcel. 20. A security deposit in the amount of $9,600 (125% of landscaping estimates) be provided to the District.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  The proponent seeks to build a residence on the subject lands (once lots 21, 22 and 23 and have been consolidated).  As most of the guidelines have been met for the Erosion, Stability, Wildfire, Hillside, Natural Environment and Greenhouse Gas Reduction & Resource Conservation Development Permit Areas, staff recommends that the permit be issued.

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 3

Application Type Development Permit File Number: DP2014-014 Folio: 02190.021 02190.022 02190.023 Proponent: Ken Wittke, previously, Owner(s): WITTKE, KENNETH E. CTQ consultants. WITTKE, MARLYNE C.

Legal Description: Parcel B (being a consolidation of Lots 21, 22 and 23 see lb530289) Sections 8&9 Township 20 ODYD Plan KAP521 PID 029-334-306 Civic Address: OKANAGAN CENTRE RD OCP Designation: Rural Residential Zoning Designation: RR2 – Rural Residential 2; Land Use Contract n/a ALR: n/a Parcel Size: 1.78 Hectares (4.41 acres) DP Area(s): Agri-Tourism; Commercial; Erosion; Greenhouse Gas Reduction; Hillside; Industrial; Multi-Unit; Natural Environment; Stability; Wildfire; Water Supply: Lake (application in with the Ministry) Sewer: Septic Site Summary: Zoning: Use: North: RR2 – Rural Residential 2 Vacant East: RR1 – Rural Residential 1 Vacant South: RR2 – Rural Residential 2 Vacant West: Okanagan Lake Lake

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 4

Wide right of way

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proponent seeks to build a residence on the subject lands. Lots 21, 22 and 23 are in the process of being consolidated into one lot.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Site Description:  The subject lands are 3 long thin vacant lots  A single family dwelling and accessory structures are permitted on this property zoned RR2 – Rural Residential 2.  The lands are quite steep off Okanagan Centre Road with a steep gully running through the northern portion of the lands. Current Development Potential:  Development may be to a maximum of 20% site coverage. Off-Site Considerations:  The adjoining properties are vacant residential: RR1 – Rural Residential 1 and RR2 – Rural Residential 2.

APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION: Local Government Act  Section 919.1 allows development permit areas to be designated throughout the community. These designations must be made within an Official Community Plan. Guidelines for the specified development permits must be detailed in either an Official Community Plan or a Zoning Bylaw.  Section 920 further explains how development permit areas shall be applied and what restrictions, requirements and conditions may be included in development permit areas.

Official Community Plan:  The Official Community Plan indicates that the proposed development on the subject property requires assessment under the Hillside, Natural Environment and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Development Permit Area guidelines.  Guideline checklists based on the required reports and other information required are provided below.

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 5

Zoning Bylaw:  The property is zoned RR2 – Rural Residential 2.  The proposal meets the site coverage, setback and height restrictions for this zone.

Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw:  Stormwater on the property must be contained on site. A drainage, sediment and Erosion Control Plan that will be used during development of the parcel must be prepared. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the District engineer for review and must include pre and post subdivision or development contour plans.  The applicant must ensure that no silt, gravel or debris resulting from construction activity in the subdivision or development is allowed to discharge into existing drainage systems, natural drainage courses, water courses, or onto highways or adjoining properties. In addition to any other geotechnical report that may be required, the owners engineer must address issues related to safety and slope stability.  Connection to the District water distribution system is not available to the subject property therefore a water supply located on the parcel or surface water source must be provided. The owner must register a Covenant in a form acceptable to the District Engineer in priority to all financial charges and other charges as required by the District against the existing land title pursuant to Section 219 of the Land Title Act.  Community sever is not available to the subject property. As the proposed septic system will be located within 100 meters of the high water mark of Okanagan Lake, the system must be designed by an appropriately qualified professional or registered practitioner.

Access Bylaw:  Driveway access is available from Okanagan Centre Road West, an access permit is required.  Stairs to provide access from the driveway to the home are required to be built as a condition of the Access Permit. The stairs must meet BC building code requirements.  A permit to construct in the Right of Way is required for Staging Area 2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT GUIDELINE CHECKLISTS:

Stability Hazard Consideration has been given to the following issues as identified in Section 22.9 of the Official Community Plan relating to Stability Hazard Development Permit Areas: Have natural features such as landforms, rock outcroppings, mature trees Yes  No  N/A  and vegetation, drainage courses, hilltops and ridgelines been protected in the proposed site layout? Has subsoil exposure been minimized? Yes  No  N/A  Has the use of fill been minimized during site preparation? Yes  No 1 N/A  Has the coverage of the property by impermeable surfaces been minimized Yes  No  N/A  to prevent oversaturation and instability of adjacent soils? Will all drainage be contained on site? Yes  No  N/A  Has existing terrain been incorporated into the project to minimize site Yes  No  N/A  alteration? Does landscaping incorporate drought resistant and/or native plant species? Yes  No  N/A  Has retaining wall usage been discouraged/minimized unless walls are Yes  No  N/A  necessary to preserve undisturbed areas of the site, address unstable slopes or continue existing wall features? Will exposed soils be stabilized through revegetation (i.e. re-seeding, Yes  No  N/A  planting, mulching, sodding, or other ground cover)?

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 6 Has a geotech submitted a report stating the land can be safely used for its Yes  No  N/A  intended use? 1 – the site requires significant cutting and filling but the current proposal is the best of the alternatives proposed through pre-application.

Erosion Hazard Consideration has been given to the following issues as identified in Section 22.10 of the Official Community Plan relating to Erosion Hazard Development Permit Areas: Does the proposal protect and/or mitigate the impacts of development and Yes  No  N/A  land alteration on sensitive soils? Will the development be completed in a way which protects and preserves Yes  No  N/A  soils from erosion? Has the project been phased to ensure that only areas actively being worked Yes  No  N/A  on are uncovered? Will soil stock piles be appropriately located (i.e. away from significant Yes  No  N/A  landforms and/or adjacent properties)? Will soil stock piles be covered when not in use? Yes  No  N/A  Will cleared areas be stabilized (i.e. re-seeding, planting, mulching, sodding, Yes  No  N/A  or other ground cover)? Will construction vehicle access be limited to one route? Yes  No  N/A  Does the proposed development adhere to the Best Management Practices Yes  No  N/A  for Erosion and Sediment Control?

Natural Environment  Consideration has been given to the following issues as identified in Section 22.8 of the Official Community Plan relating to Natural Environment Development Permit Areas: Does the timing of the development avoid windows of critical fish and Yes  No  N/A  wildlife activities? Have environmentally significant natural areas and features been identified Yes  No  N/A  and avoided? Do subdivision plans preserve and protect environmental features? Yes  No  N/A  Have environmentally sensitive features been identified and preserved? Yes  No  N/A  Are environmentally sensitive areas identified and protected? Yes  No  N/A  Has development been limited to those areas of the property which will Yes  No  N/A  minimize impacts on environmental features? Will remaining natural areas and/or sensitive features be temporarily fenced Yes  No  N/A  or otherwise protected before commencing development? Does subdivision design ensure that natural corridors are preserved? Yes  No  N/A  Has indigenous vegetation within buffer strips been retained or restored if Yes  No  N/A  damaged? Has access to the buffer strip been restricted? Yes  No  N/A  Are permeable paving materials utilized to protect groundwater supply and Yes  No 1 N/A  minimize erosion from surface runoff? Does the development proposal minimize the loss of features or functions Yes  No  N/A 

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 7 relating to environmentally significant natural areas and features? Does site development mitigate any impacts and propose to restore Yes  No  N/A  damaged areas/features to their former state? Have all measures to avoid or mitigate impacts been exhausted prior to Yes  No  N/A  proposing restoration measures? When restoration is proposed is the following being considered: Is the proposed replacement area of the same type and value; Is there risk associated with compensation measures; Is the time lag before achieving functional habitat, feature or area of significance? Has like-for-like restoration been proposed rather than replacement with a Yes  No  N/A  different feature or species? Are buildings and structures designed to minimize the developed footprint Yes  No  N/A  during and after construction? Does the building and structure design incorporate existing terrain as much Yes  No  N/A  as possible in order to minimize impacts to the natural environment? Do the buffer strips remain undeveloped? Does landscaping in those areas Yes  No  N/A  consist only of restoration which uses indigenous vegetation? If the buffer strip is disturbed does the revegetation plan consist only of Yes  No  N/A  indigenous species and are the replacement ratios adhered to? Does the landscaping plan include drought resistant and indigenous Yes  No  N/A  vegetation throughout all areas of the property? Are invasive weeds eradicated within buffer strips and controlled Yes  No  N/A  throughout all areas of the property? Do trails, landscaping or formal gardens avoid any buffer strips? Yes  No  N/A  Have existing trees been retained and will the root system and drip lines be Yes  No  N/A  protected? Will re-vegetation of exposed soils occur after land alteration in order to Yes  No  N/A  prevent erosion and noxious weed infestation? Does any in-stream works (requiring bank or shore stabilization) utilize Yes  No  N/A  natural materials and avoid channelize the watercourse or impacting wildlife movement? 1 – Access to this steep site requires paving materials for access.

Hillside Consideration has been given to the following issues as identified in Section 22.12 of the Official Community Plan relating to Hillside Development Permit Areas: Does the proposal avoid developing on or alteration of ridgelines? Yes  No  N/A  Are the structures setback a minimum of 10m from ridgelines? Yes  No  N/A  Is the structure designed so as not to impede the views from upland Yes  No  N/A  properties? Are lots staggered in order to create offset building envelopes to protect Yes  No  N/A  views? Does the natural character of the hillside remain, i.e. is the residences and Yes  No  N/A  structures not the dominant feature? Has the natural topography been incorporated into the project to minimize Yes  No  N/A  site disturbance and blasting? Do the proposed contours and gradients resemble natural occurring terrain? Yes  No  N/A  Does the proposal avoid major cut and fills intended to create a buildable lot Yes  No  N/A 

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 8 or flat yards? Do the driveway grades follow the natural terrain? Yes  No  N/A  Are manufactured slopes placed behind buildings and are natural slopes Yes  No  N/A  mimicked? Are retaining walls minimized in order to decrease site disturbance? Yes  No  N/A  Are retaining wall 1.5 metres or less in height or are retaining walls Yes  No  N/A  terraced? Are subdivisions being clustered on a portion of the site in order to protect Yes  No  N/A  the remainder of the property? Has existing vegetation been retained? Yes  No  N/A  Have building envelopes been sited outside areas of established vegetation? Yes  No  N/A  Have natural color tones for housing, fences, retaining walls and Yes  No  N/A  outbuildings been used to help the development blend in to the setting? Have natural building and retaining wall materials been used wherever Yes  No  N/A  possible? Are buildings located to minimize site grading? Yes  No  N/A  Have buildings been articulated to reduce mass and vary rooflines? Yes  No  N/A  Have stories been stepped back above second levels to avoid large vertical Yes  No  N/A  planes? Have retaining walls within the front yard been discouraged? Yes  No  N/A  Has mature vegetation been incorporated into the development proposal Yes  No  N/A  wherever possible? Has landscaping been used to minimize the impact to viewscapes by Yes  No  N/A  screening buildings, landscape cuts and retaining walls?

Wildland Fire Consideration has been given to the following issues as identified in Section 22.11 of the Official Community Plan relating to Wildland Fire Development Permit Areas: Will vegetation which supports fire spread be cleared in a 10 m radius from Yes  No  N/A  all proposed structures? Will vegetation within 30 m of all proposed structures be pruned and Yes  No  N/A  thinned? Have (or will) deadfall and other flammable materials be removed? Yes  No  N/A  Have remaining trees within 30 m safe area been adequately spaced (a Yes  No  N/A  minimum of 3m to 6m apart) to minimize potential fire spread? Have lower branches been trimmed to a minimum 2.5 m in height? Yes  No  N/A  Has vegetation been cleared a minimum of 3m away from any propane Yes  No  N/A  tanks and power lines? Will buildings (including roofing) be constructed of fire resistant materials? Yes  No  N/A  Is the roof pitch steep enough to prevent collection of debris or combustible Yes  No  N/A  materials? Are any buildings used to store wood at least 10 m away from any dwelling Yes  No  N/A  units? If the outbuildings are proposed within 10m of a dwelling unit, does the Yes  No  N/A  construction method utilizing fire resistant materials for the roof and exterior walls? Do all chimneys have spark arresters? Yes  No  N/A 

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 9 Have all chimneys, eves, attic vents and other openings been screen using 3 Yes  No  N/A  mm non-combustible wires? Are outside stairways, decks, porches or balconies constructed or covered Yes  No  N/A  with fire resistant materials? Does the landscaping include vegetation that is drought tolerant and not Yes  No  N/A  highly combustible?

Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Resource Conservation Consideration has been given to the following issues as identified in Section 22.12 of the Official Community Plan relating to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Resource Conservation Development Permit Areas: Has site density been maximized for subdivisions? Yes  No  N/A  Has the building footprint been minimized in order to allow for maximum Yes  No  N/A  green space? Have lots been oriented to maximize solar orientation of building Yes  No  N/A  envelopes? Have buildings been oriented to maximize solar gain? Is the subdivision laid out to minimize the length and amount of Yes  No  N/A  infrastructure (such as sewer & water lines and roads)? Does the layout allow for alternative transportation options and transit? Yes  No  N/A  Is the subdivision laid out to maximize site connectivity to nearby amenities Yes  No  N/A  and services? Do the materials and colors used in building construction minimize heat Yes  No  N/A  absorption? Is the roof not a dark color? Are large windows sheltered by overhangs which maximize solar input Yes  No  N/A  during winter months? Do proposed buildings incorporate green roofs, living walls or other Yes  No  N/A  measures to reduce heat gains caused by hard surfaces? Are alternative energy sources being proposed in large scale structures? Yes  No  N/A  Do buildings have a south oriented roof to allow for future use of solar Yes  No  N/A  panels? Are there opportunities for natural ventilation and airflow incorporated into Yes  No  N/A  the building? Do building materials encourage thermal massing and seasonal thermal Yes  No  N/A  energy storage? Are building envelopes well sealed and energy efficient? Yes  No  N/A  Is vegetation low maintenance and require minimal irrigation? Yes  No  N/A  Is the enhanced landscaping located along the south and west facing parcel Yes  No  N/A  boundaries to create shade? Is rainwater recycling included in landscape designs? Yes  No  N/A  Have porous material been maximized throughout the landscaping? Yes  No  N/A  Do water features use recirculation systems as opposed to once through Yes  No  N/A  systems? Are opportunities for local food production and public food gardens Yes  No  N/A  incorporated into larger developments and subdivisions?

COMMUNITY IMPLICATIONS:  In 2006 there were issues raised by residents in this area related to the accuracy of lot lines.

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 10  Wildfire is a concern in the area. Wildfire implications have been addressed as conditions of the permit.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:  Environmental implications have been addressed as conditions of the permit.

COST, BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:  There are no foreseeable financial implications to the District as a result of this application.

IMPACT ON STAFF CAPACITY AND WORKLOAD:  Typical staff time will be required to process application(s) related to this development.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:  As most of the guidelines have been met for the Erosion, Stability, Wildfire, Hillside, Natural Environment and Greenhouse Gas Reduction & Resource Conservation Development Permit Areas, staff recommends that the permit be issued.

Respectfully Submitted,

Juliet Van Vliet Planner Community Services Department

This report has been prepared in consultation with the following listed departments:

CONCURRENCES Department Name Chief Administrative Officer Alberto De Feo Director of Community Services Mark Koch

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Site Plan Attachment B – Zoning Analysis Attachment C – Referral Responses Attachment D – Site Photos Attachment E – Development Permit DP2014-014

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 11 Attachment A – Site Plan

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 12

Attachment B – Zoning Analysis

Criteria: Zoning: Proposal: Minimum Lot Area (m2) 1 ha 1.78 ha Lot Width (m) 40m 60m once consolidated Lot Depth (m) 30m Over 100m Site Coverage (%) 20% Less than 20% Floor Area Ratio n/a n/a Lesser of 9.5m or 2.5 storeys, Building Height (m) except for accessory buildings it is 5m the lesser of 8m or 1.5 storeys Front Yard Setback (m) 6m 3m proposed variance 10m except 3m for accessory Rear Yard Setback (m) Over 10m buildings Side Yard Setback, Left (m) 3m Over 3m Side Yard Setback, Right (m) 3m Over 3m Other Requirements Parking Requirements 2 per dwelling 2 per dwelling Minimum elevation 343.66 359

Attachment C – Referral Responses

INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Shaw: interests unaffected.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Corporate Services: In 2006 there were issues raised by residents in this area related to the accuracy of lot lines. Engineering Services: Access Bylaw: Driveway access is available from Okanagan Centre Road West, an access permit will be required. Stairs to provide access from the driveway to the home are required to be built as a condition of the Access Permit. The stairs must meet BC building code requirements. Concrete is the preferred construction material. A permit to construct in the Right of Way is required for Staging Area 2. Access Permit approval is subject to final approval of the Lake Country Fire Department. Stormwater, Drainage, Sedimentation and Erosion Control: Stormwater on the property must be contained on site. A drainage, sediment and Erosion Control Plan that will be used during development of the parcel must be prepared. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the District engineer for review and must include pre and post subdivision or development contour plans. The applicant must ensure that no silt, gravel or debris resulting from construction activity in the subdivision or development is allowed to discharge into existing drainage systems, natural drainage courses, water courses, or onto highways or adjoining properties. In addition to any other geotechnical report that may be required, the owners engineer must address issues related to safety and slope stability. Water Distribution System: Connection to the District water distribution system is not available to the subject property therefore a water supply located on the parcel or surface water source must be provided. The owner must register a Covenant in a form acceptable to the District Engineer in priority to all financial charges and other charges as required by the District against the existing land title pursuant to Section 219 of the Land Title Act. Community Sewer:

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 13 Community sever is not available to the subject property. As the proposed septic system will be located within 100 meters of the high water mark of Okanagan Lake, the system must be designed by an appropriately qualified professional or registered practitioner. Fire/Emergency Services Department: Ensure that wildfire mitigation work occurs on the property.

Attachment D - Site Photos

Front (south west) property line stake

Proposed access along existing roughed in access

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx 14

Front (northwest) Property line stake

Looking East from Okanagan Centre Road West at significant excess right of way

S:\Council meetings\2014- Council\Aug 5\DP2014-014 - Report.docx Development Permit

District of Lake Country 10150 Bottom Wood Lake Road Lake Country, BC V4V 2M1 t: 250-766-6674 f: 250-766-0200 lakecountry.bc.ca

APPROVED ISSUANCE OF  DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (pursuant to Sec. 920 of the Local Government Act)

PERMIT # DP2014-014 FOLIO # ______ZONING DESIGNATION: RR2 – Rural Residential 2 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA: Erosion; Greenhouse Gas Reduction; Hillside; Natural Environment; Stability; Wildfire ISSUED TO: Ken and Marlyne Wittke SITE ADDRESS: OKANAGAN CENTRE RD Parcel B (being a consolidation of Lots 21, 22 and 23 see lb530289) Sections 8&9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Township 20 ODYD Plan KAP521 PARCEL IDENTIFIER: 029-334-306

SCOPE OF APPROVAL

This Permit applies to and only to those lands within the Municipality as described above, and any and all buildings, structures and other development thereon.

This Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the Bylaws of the Municipality applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit, noted in the Terms and Conditions below.

Applicants for Development Permits should be aware that the issuance of a Permit limits the applicant to be in strict compliance with all District bylaws unless specific Variances have been authorized by the Permit. No implied Variances from bylaw provisions shall be granted by virtue of drawing notations which are inconsistent with bylaw provisions and which have not been identified as required Variances by the applicant or Municipal staff.

If any term or condition of this permit is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this permit.

1. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Development Permit DP2014-003 on Lot 18, Sect. 11, Twp. 20, ODYD, Plan KAP79528 is approved, allowing the development of an accessory building with a deck over subject to the following conditions:

1. Development and use of the subject property be in compliance with the provisions of the Municipality’s various bylaws, except as explicitly varied or supplemented by the terms of this permit, subsequent permits, amendment(s) and/or development variance permits; 2. The Development Permit is only valid for the development that is described herein. If a change to development is considered, a new development permit or an amendment to this permit is required before starting any work; 3. Emergency Access stairs be safely incorporated into the site design as per the Access Permit requirements; 4. A permit to construct within the Right of Way be approved/issued by the District; 5. Soil stockpiles will be located away from neighbouring properties and must be covered when not in use; 6. Land clearing may occur outside of the sensitive nesting period of birds between April 1st and July 31st. Development can only proceed within this period if a nest survey by a qualified environmental professional has concluded that no nests are present;

S:\Planning and Development\DIVISION-PLANNING\DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS\Development Permit\2014\DP2014-014 - Wittke\DP2014-014 Wittke.docx DP2014-014 2 7. As a precaution to vehicular mortality, strategic fencing should be installed to direct reptiles and amphibians seeking basking opportunity away from proximate roads and parking lots; 8. The materials and colors used in building construction minimize heat absorption; 9. Large windows should be sheltered by overhangs which maximize solar input during winter months; 10. Opportunities for natural ventilation and airflow and measures to reduce heat gains by hard surfaces should be incorporated into the building; 11. Building envelopes well sealed and energy efficient; 12. Rainwater recycling should be included in landscape designs; 13. Landscaping must be low maintenance and require minimal irrigation; 14. Drought resistant and indigenous vegetation should be used throughout all areas of the property; 15. Active weed management must occur through the project duration; 16. Exposed soils must be landscaped with native trees and shrubs and should be vegetated with native seed mix; 17. Limiting development encroachment during construction may be aided by delineating the limits of the clearing and grubbing area with flagging. Any non-footprint areas that are disturbed will be hydro-seeded as soon as possible. 18. The development shall be conducted in accordance with the following documents: • Schedule A of Development Permit DP2014-014 Site Plan; • Schedule B of Development Permit DP2014-014 Geotechnical Assessment by Interior Testing Services Ltd on April 7, 2014; • Schedule C of Development Permit DP2014-014 Wildland Urban Interface Fire Hazard Assessment prepared by Swanson Forestry Services on February 19, 2014; • Schedule D of Development Permit DP2014-011 Environmental Assessment Report prepared by CTQ Consultants in March, 2014; • Schedule E of Development Permit DP2014-014 Landscape Plan; and • Schedule F of Development Permit DP2014-014 Septic Site Plan. 19. The applicant submit a survey showing that the three affected parcels are consolidated into one parcel. 20. A security deposit in the amount of $9,600 (125% of landscaping estimates) be provided to the District prior to issuance

THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT

2. PERFORMANCE SECURITY As a condition of the issuance of this Permit, Council is holding the security set out below to ensure that development is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Permit. There is filed accordingly:

a) Cash in the amount of $ 9,600 b) A Certified Cheque in the amount of $ n/a c) An irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $ n/a

The condition of the posting of the security is that should the Permit Holder fail to carry out the conditions of this Permit, the Municipality may use the security to carry out the work by its servants, agents or contractors, and any surplus shall be paid over to the Permit Holder, or should the Permit Holder carry out the development permitted by this Permit, the security shall be returned to the Permit Holder in the manner described below. Should any interest be earned upon the security, it shall accrue to the Permit Holder and be paid to the Permit Holder if the security is returned.

Upon completion of the works, the Permit Holder must provide a statement certified by a qualified professional indicating that the works were completed in compliance with the conditions specified in the Development Permit. Upon acceptance of the works by Municipal staff, 85% of the security shall be returned. The Municipality shall retain the remaining 15% for a period of 24 months from the date of acceptance of the works, during which time the Municipality

S:\Planning and Development\DIVISION-PLANNING\DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS\Development Permit\2014\DP2014-014 - Wittke\DP2014-014 Wittke.docx DP2014-014 3 may use the remaining security to replace the required works, if necessary. The remaining security funds shall be refunded at the expiration of the 24-month warranty period, subject to a final inspection by Municipal staff to confirm the survival of the required works.

3. DEVELOPMENT

The development described herein shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions and provisions of this Permit and any plans and specifications attached to shall form a part hereof.

The development shall commence within TWO YEARS of the date that this permit is issued. If the Permit Holder does not commence the development permitted by this Permit within TWO years of the date of issuance of this permit, this permit shall lapse.

The terms of the permit or any amendment to it are binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the land affected by the permit.

4. APPROVALS

Authorizing resolutions passed by Council on the ____ day of August, 2014.

Issued by the Corporate Officer of the District of Lake Country this ______day of August, 2014.

______Corporate Officer, Reyna Seabrook

The PERMIT HOLDER is the current land owner. The Security shall be returned to the PERMIT HOLDER.

S:\Planning and Development\DIVISION-PLANNING\DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS\Development Permit\2014\DP2014-014 - Wittke\DP2014-014 Wittke.docx DP2014-014 Schedule A Site Plan DP2014-014 Schedule B - Geotechnical report

DP2014-014 Schedule C - Wildfire Assessment

.& sw&Hs$H x'l3ffiTl:X?ffi' f O*I$TtrY$fl*Vl{t$ Ketowna,Bcv1w 4wT Office:25A-764-2820 Email:rswa nson@un iserve. com

February1gth, 2014

Ken& MarlyneWittke, #247,654 Cook Rd., Kelowna,BC, V1W 3G7.

DearMarlyne and Ken:

RE:Wildland Urban Interface Fire HazardAssessment for Lots 2'1,22,and 23, KAP 521,Sections 8 and 9, TWP 20,in the Districtof LakeCountry, B.C.

As requested,I carried out a Wildlandlnterface Fire Hazard Assessment forthe threelots property located on OkanaganCentre Road in the Districtof Lake Countryon February161h,2014. This assessment completed using the required WildfireThreat Assessment Form provided by theWildfire Management Branch of BC Ministryof Forests,Land and NaturalResource Operations, has establisheda ModerateHazard Rating for the forestinterface areas.

I haveincluded a numberof recommendationsto help to mitigatethe firehazard riskin the attachedreport. lf anyfurther information or clarificationis required,please contact me at 250- 764-2820 or 250-71 8-9637(cell).

Yourstrulv. fu;r L Signatureand Seal RichardSwanson, RPF

Attachment

fl{-

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR LOTS 21, 22, AND 23, KAP 521, SECTIONS 8 AND 9, TWP 20, ON OKANAGAN CENTRE ROAD IN THE DISTRICT OF LAKE COUNTRY.

Prepared for:

Ken & Marlyne Wittke, #247, 654 Cook Rd., Kelowna, BC, V1W 3G7.

Prepared by:

754 South Crest Drive Kelowna, B.C. V1W 4W7 Phone: 250-764-2820

February 19, 2014

Table of Contents

Objectives ...... 4 Legal Information ...... 4 Registered Owners ...... 4 Property Description ...... 4 Forest Cover – Overview of Region ...... 5 Forest Cover Description on the Property ...... 5 Forest Health...... 6 Methodology ...... 6 Wildland Urban Interface Threat Assessment ...... 6 Recommendations for Mitigating the Risk from Wildfire for the Residence ...... 8 Appendix ...... 11 Property Location ...... 12 Overhead of the Property ...... 13 Lot Boundaries ...... 14 Photos and Fire Hazard Plots ...... 15 List of Plants for Landscaping ...... 22 Fire Hazard Threat Assessment Plots ...... 24 Resume for Richard Swanson, RPF ...... 25 List of Sources ...... 28

Objectives

This report was requested by, the owners of the property: Ken & Marlyne Wittke, of Kelowna, BC. A Wildfire Interface Assessment is required as a condition for the construction of a residence on the property by the District of Lake Country. A map of the property is provided in the Appendix.

Legal Information

The property title for the Wildfire Assessment is: Lots 21, 22, and 23, KAP 521, Sections 8 and 9, TWP20, PID 001-836-625, 633, and 641.

Registered Owners

The owners of the property are: Ken & Marlyne Wittke, #247, 654 Cook Rd., Kelowna, BC, V1W 3G7.

Property Description

The subject property has an area of 1.724 ha and is located on the east side of Okanagan Centre Road in the District of Lake Country and has RR2 zoning. The property is part of a single family residential subdivision. The lot to the north is undeveloped and has forest cover. There are a number of single family homes along Okanagan Centre Road to the south. There is a gully running through the property that gradually steepens from relatively shallow depth in the western portion to deep with side slopes of over 65%. The bottom of the gully follows the northern property boundary. The gully is dry and no water flow is indicated. The property has both a northern aspect for the side wall of the gully and western aspect on the relatively flat southern portion of the property. The elevation climbs from 368 on the western boundary to 487 meters on the eastern boundary with an average slope of 40%. There are no riparian areas on the property. There are a number of foot trails that go through the property. A fire hydrant is located 1600 meters to the north at Okanagan Centre. The District of Lake Country Volunteer Fire department services the area.

A map showing the location of the property is shown in the Appendix.

Forest Cover – Overview of Region

This property is within the Okanagan Very Dry Ponderosa Pine (PPxh1) bio-geo- climatic sub-zone. This sub-zone is the hottest and driest forested zone in British Columbia, and is characterized by dry, hot summers with moisture deficits contributing towards a high to extreme fire hazard risk for most of the summer and early fall. The drier sites within this sub-zone have open ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) stands on steep, rocky, south-facing slopes. These sites usually lack shrubs and have an open herb layer dominated by the grass red three-awn (Aristida longiseta), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia fragilis) and yarrow (Achillea millefolium). Exposed mineral soil is common. Less extreme slopes contain open grasslands dominated by blue bunch wheat grass (Agropyron spicatum) and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridenta). The moister sites have open stands composed of ponderosa pine and a minor Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) component. The shrub layer is open or absent. Blue bunch wheat grass is the dominant herb, with lesser amounts of arrow-leafed balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) and timber milk- vetch (Aristragalus miser). Mosses are generally absent. The moistest sites within this sub-zone usually have a northern aspect. The forest cover is made up of young climax stands of Douglas-fir with lesser amounts of ponderosa pine and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). Here the under storey is made up of tall Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolia), common snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), and Saskatoon (Amelanchiera alniifolia) with pine grass (Calamagrostis rubescens) as a herb cover (BC Ministry of Forests, 1990).

The Okanagan Valley has fire maintained ecosystems that would normally have naturally occurring wildfires every 10-20 years. These ecosystems are maintained by wildfire and the trees and plants found in these ecosystems are all adapted to fire and benefit from these periodic wildfires. Under natural conditions a fire would likely only burn on the ground, consuming ground fuels such as fine grasses, pine needles and small saplings, leaving the larger pines and Douglas- fir larger than 15 cm in diameter at breast height (dbh) intact. The larger trees have thick bark that allows them to withstand a fire. The removal of the smaller trees creates an open forest condition with approximately 150-200 trees/ha on the south aspects and 300-500 trees/ha on the cooler east and north aspects. These forests should have light ground fires that are more easily controlled by fire crews. Suppression of natural fire has resulted in heavy fuel accumulations that are difficult to control when ignited. The potential for catastrophic wildfires, such as the 2003 Okanagan Mountain Park Fire, and the 2009 Glenrosa Fire are the consequences of not treating high fuel loads in our forests.

Forest Cover Description on the Property

The forest cover on the property is made up of mixed aged ponderosa pine, varying in height from <1 meter to 22 meters. The ladder fuels vary from ground level to 2 meters. Crown cover is denser in the polygon on the south side of the

gully. Here the north aspect allows for a moister ecosystem with a higher crown closure of between 20 and 40%. There are some small pockets of smaller ponderosa pine up to 3 meters in height, with stem counts of between 400 and 800 stems/ha. The duff layer is thin, less than 1 cm in thickness, except under some of the larger ponderosa pine trees. There are some scattered coarse woody debris piles of dead ponderosa pine trees that have fallen over. There is a well-developed shrub, herb and moss layer within the north aspects. The shrub layer consists of Saskatoon, common snowberry, and tall Oregon grape. The herb layer is made up of bluebunch wheatgrass, yarrow, arrow-leaved balsamroot, Idaho Fescue and timber milk vetch. The moss layer consists of some small patches of Brachythecium spp.. These plant species indicate that this site falls within the average portion (mesic) of this bio-geo climatic sub-zone.

The areas with a western aspect have a wider open forest cover with stem counts of around 200-300 stems/ha and make up the second polygon. Here the ground cover is almost exclusively blue bunch wheat grass and arrow leaved balsamroot. There are no shrubs or mosses and almost no duff layer. This polygon falls within the drier, sub-mesic subzone.

Forest Health

The pine forest appeared quite healthy at the time of the survey. There were no signs of recent attack by bark beetles. There are a number of small patches of dead pine trees that were killed more than 4years ago. The portion of the pine trees affected on the property is low, less than 5%. These patches are found in the western and eastern portions of the property. Pine trees infested by bark beetles tend to rot quickly around the root collar and can fall over within 1-2 years. The wood in the larger diameter trees can be affected by bark beetles becoming more brittle and less able to withstand wind stress. These trees can pose a hazard to structures and people in the area. The risk from wildfire can also increase if the trees fall over and high accumulations of ground fuels are not removed where access permits.

Methodology

Wildland Urban Interface Threat Assessment

In assessing the fire hazard threat, the property boundaries were located, and a traverse through the property determined if there was any variation in fire hazard threat rating. Two plots, representative of site conditions, were established on the property. The Wildland Urban Interface Threat Assessment Worksheets are included in the Appendix. By establishing these plots, the fire hazard threat rating can be measured. This hazard rating has four classes: low (indicating a low risk of fire, with a low number of points), moderate, high, and extreme. Copies of the

plots are provided in the Appendix along with the plot location and photos. Here is a summary of the data collected at the plots:

Plot 1 – Open Coniferous Forest Polygon: Fuel: • The duff layer is thin, or nonexistent < 2cm • Flammable surface vegetation cover is between 20% and 40% • The vegetation fuel composition is mostly bunchgrass • The coverage for fine and large woody debris is <10% • The crown closure is 20-40% • The average conifer crown base height is between 1 to <2 m • There is less than 500 understory conifers/ha • The standing dead and partly down that number 5-25 stems/ha • There is less than 20 ha of forest within 2 km. The gravel pit to the north provides an excellent fuel break. Weather: • The polygon is in the Ponderosa Pine Bunchgrass Subzone • The historical wildfire occurrence is the Penticton rating. Topography: • The aspect is predominantly north • The slope is steep, > 55% • The terrain has consistent slopes with deep gullies • Rolling terrain, minor restrictions to wildfire spread.

Plot 2 – Open Forest, Grassland Polygon: Fuel: • The duff layer is thin, or nonexistent < 2cm • Flammable surface vegetation cover is between 20% and 40% • The vegetation fuel composition is sagebrush and bunchgrass • The coverage for fine and large woody debris is <1% • The crown closure is less than 20% • The average conifer crown base height is between 1 to <2 m • There is less than 500 understory conifers/ha • The standing dead and partly down number <20/stems/ha • There is less than 20 ha of forest within 2 km.

The Open Forest, Grassland and Sagebrush Polygons have a fuel rating that is too low to pose a wildfire threat. For these polygons the Wildland Urban Interface Threat Class is Low.

The risk from wildfire from the forest interface, as determined by the Wildland Urban Interface Threat Assessment Worksheet, has given this property a Moderate Wildfire Behavior Threat Class Rating for the Coniferous Forest polygon. The risk from wildfire from the forest interface as determined by the Wildland Urban Interface Threat Assessment Worksheet has given this property

a Moderate Hazard Risk Rating. The main risk to a home and buildings on the property is from sparks from a wildfire in the forested areas to the east and undeveloped lots and tree covered areas within the forested areas along Okanagan Centre Road. These forests contain untreated groups of bark beetle killed pine trees that increase the threat from wildfire due to increased fuel loads on the ground. The paved roads in the area would limit wildfires spreading on the ground to the residences; however, embers carried by the wind from a high intensity wild fire can spread to distances over 2 kilometers. Winds tend to flow uphill during the day and downhill towards Okanagan Lake in the evening. Embers can be carried to residential areas both above and below a wildfire. These embers can cause spotting fires with the resulting loss of homes, as was shown in the 2003 Okanagan Mountain Park Fire. By following the FireSmart manual recommendations, the odds of buildings surviving a wildfire can be increased to 85% (Bruce Blackwell, B. A. Blackwell and. Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C).

Development will help to lower the fire hazard threat rating by the following: • There will be people on the property that can respond in the event of a wildfire. • With landscaping, natural grassy and forested areas that could support a wildfire will be replaced with maintained lawns and gardens. • Driveways and roadways are excellent fuel breaks and will improve access to the property. Increased access to the property will also help to reduce the response time, if there is a fire.

Recommendations for Mitigating the Risk from Wildfire for the Residence

House and Building Construction

The recent forest fires in the summer of 2009 and 2012 make reducing the risk from wildfire an important part of living in the Okanagan Valley. Here are some recommendations for house and building construction taken from the FireSmart manual:

1. Roofing - The roof covering shall conform to Class A, B or C fire resistance as defined in the BC Building Code.

2. Exterior Wall Finishes- Any material used for exterior wall finishes should be fire resistant such as stucco, metal siding, brick, cement shingles, concrete block, poured concrete, logs or heavy timbers as defined in the BC Building Code, and rock. . 3. Chimneys - All chimneys should have spark arrestors made of 12 gauge (or better) welded or woven wire mesh with mesh openings of less than 12 millimetres.

4. Eaves, vents, and openings- All eaves, attic and under floor openings should be screened with corrosion resistant, 3-millimetre non-combustible wire mesh (as a minimum).

5. Windows and glazing - All windows should be double-paned or tempered. Glass can be shattered by the heat of a fire and create openings for fire and burning debris to enter the building. It is highly unlikely that an interior will ignite from thermal radiation through intact glass.

6. Balconies, decks and porches should be constructed of heavy timber as defined in the BC Building Code, or, with 1-hour fire resistant rated assemblies or non-combustible construction as defined by the BC Building Code.

Landscaping Recommendations

Due to the risk of fire spreading by sparks from forest interface areas, a 10-meter fuel modified space around homes and buildings is recommended (Priority Zone 1 from the FireSmart Manual). The main objective of vegetation within this space is to create an environment that will not support fire of any kind. Here are the recommendations within 10 meters of homes and buildings: • Removal of trees close to homes can be expensive once house construction has taken place. Remove coniferous trees with 10 meters of homes and buildings. • Landscaping on the property within 10 meters of a building should not include coniferous shrubs such as junipers, mugo pines or coniferous hedges. Plant low-growing (<0.5 meter tall) shrubs around buildings. • Deciduous trees and shrubs are favoured for landscaping. • No additional or new coniferous evergreen trees are to be planted within 10 meters of buildings. • Watered and mowed lawns are also recommended close to buildings. • It is recommended that pea gravel, lava rock or other non-combustible material be used as groundcover rather than bark mulch. • Fencing should be constructed of non-flammable material.

For the forest interface areas within the 30 meter space around buildings (Priority Zone 2 from the FireSmart Manual): • Space healthy conifers so that there is a distance of 3-5 meters between the adjacent trees to reduce the risk of a crown fire. • Where possible, remove ladder fuels to a height of 2.5-3.0 meters. On the smaller trees, retain 2/3 of the live branches. • Perform regular maintenance to clean up excessive needle accumulations and ground fuel under the larger ponderosa pines. • Clean up and remove any dead pine trees that have fallen over in the past.

In the event that some of the ponderosa pine trees are killed by bark beetles within Priority Zone 2, I would recommend removing these trees within one year for the following reasons: • The bark beetles can spread to adjacent trees. • Leaving the trees may mean additional cost for removal in the future. • Trees attacked by bark beetles tend to become brittle and can break easily. These trees could pose a hazard to people and buildings on the property. When trees are located close to buildings, the cost of removal increases substantially.

Appendix

Property Location

Overhead of the Property

Lot Boundaries

Photos and Fire Hazard Plots

The property from the northwest corner.

The property from the southwest corner.

The lake to the west.

The property to the north.

The middle of the property.

The property from the north east corner.

The property to the east.

The property from the southeast corner.

The adjacent property to the south.

FHTA Plot #1.

FHTA Plot #2

List of Plants for Landscaping

Fire Hazard Threat Assessment Plots

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE WILDFIRE THREAT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Pre-treatment Post-treatment

Plot #: Community:

Assessor: Geographic Location/Street Name:

Date: GPS/UTM: APPENDIX Photos: Y N #: Land Ownership: Crown Private I.R. Other (specify)

COMPONENT LEVELS /Subcomponent

Fuel A B C D E 1 Duff Depth and 1–<2 2–<5 5–<10 10–20 >20 Moisture Regime (cm) 3 Dry Zonal Wet Dry Zonal Wet Dry Zonal Wet Dry Zonal Wet 5 3 1 10 6 2 12 8 4 15 10 5 E 2 Surface <20 20–40 41–60 61–80 >80 Fuels Continuity 0 2 3 4 5 (% cover)

3 Vegetation Fuel Moss, Herbs, Herbs, Lichen, Pinegrass, Sagebrush, Composition Irrigated Crops, Low Deciduous Shrubs Conifer Shrubs Juniper Bunchgrass, Flammability Weeds 2 3 4 Antelope Brush, 1 Scotch Broom 5

4 Fine Woody Debris <1 coverage Scattered, 10-25 coverage >25 coverage, >25 coverage, Continuity (<=7cm) (% cover) 1 <10 coverage 7 < 10 cm deep > 10 cm deep 5 10 15

5 Large Woody Debris <1 coverage Scattered, 10-25 coverage > 25 coverage, >25 coverage, Continuity (>7cm) (% cover) 1 <10 coverage 5 not elevated partially elevated 2 7 10

6 Live and Dead Coniferous <20 20–40 41–60 61–80 >80 Crown Closure (%) 2 5 10 15 10 7 Live Deciduous >80 or <40% 61-80 41–60 20–40 <20 Crown Closure (%) coniferous crown closure 2 3 4 5 0 8 Live and Dead Conifer Crown 5+ or <20% conifer 3–5 2–<3 1–<2 < 1 Base Height (m) crown closure 5 7 10 15 0 9 Live and Dead Suppressed and 0-500 501-1000 1001-2000 2001-4000 >4000 Understorey Conifers (stems/ha) 2 5 10 20 30 10 Forest Health Standing Dead and Standing Dead and Standing Dead and Standing Dead and Standing Dead and (% of dominant and Partly Down < 5 Partly Down Partly Down Partly Down Partly Down co-dominant stems) or <20 stems/ha 5-25 >25-50 >50 - 75 >75 0 5 10 20 30 11 Continuous Forest/Slash Cover 0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 >80 within 2km (%) 0 3 5 7 10 Sub Total /155* Weather A B C D E

12 Biogeoclimatic Zone AT, Irrigated CWH, CDF, MH ICH, SBS, ESSF IDF, MS, SBPS, CWH ds1 & ds2, PP, BG 1 Dry Zonal Wet Dry Zonal Wet BWBS, SWB – Dry Zonal Wet 15 5 3 1 10 7 3 15 10 5 13 Historical Wildfire G5, R1, R2, G6, V5, R9, G3, G8, R3, R4, G7, C5, G4, C4, K1, K5, K3, C2, C3, N7, K4, K2, N1 Occurrence (by V9, V3, R5, R8, V7 V6, G1, G9, V8 V1, C1, N6 N5, K6, N4, K7, N2 15 WMB Fire Zone) 1 5 8 10

Sub Total /30 Topography A B C D E

14 Aspects (>15% slope) North East <16% slope all aspects West South 0 5 10 12 15 15 Slope (%) <16 16–29 and max score 30–44 45-54 >55 for North slopes 1 5 10 12 15 16 Terrain Flat Rolling Sloped terrain, Consistent slope, Consistent slope, 1 3 minor low relief draws deep draws or shallow gullies deep gullies 5 7 10 17 Landscape/ Topographic < 5 ha isolated forest North and/or east aspects Mountainous terrain, broken Rolling terrain, minor water Continuous, Limitations to Wildfire land dominate, wildfire spread topography, regular bodies, minimal aspect consistent Spread 1 restricted from South aspect and slope changes, and slope changes, topography and/or West multiple restrictions to minor restrictions to No restriction to 2 wildfire spread wildfire spread wildfire spread large water bodies 10 15 5 Sub Total /55 FUEL, WEATHER AND TOPOGRAPHY WILDFIRE BEHAVIOUR THREAT SCORE /240** Structural A B C D E

18 Position of Structure/ No Structures Bottom of slope, Mid-slope benchland, Mid-slope continuous, Upper 1/3 of Slope Community on Slope Values within 2 km valley bottom elevated valley, <16% slope >15% slope 15 0 5 10 12 19 Type of Development No Structures Perimeter Interface, Perimeter Interface, Intermix > 1 Intermix <1 structure/ha Values within 2 km no inclusions with inclusions structure/ha Infrastructure 0 3 5 8 10

20 Position of Assessment Area No Structures Above Sidehill Flat/Rolling Below Relative to Values Values within 2 km >500 200-500 <200 m >500 200-500 <200 m >500 200-500 <200 m >500 200-500 <200 m 0 1 10 20 1 12 25 1 12 25 1 15 30

*Proceed only if Fuel sub total is>29. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE WILDFIRE THREAT SCORE /55 ** Proceed to Structural component only if Wildfire Threat TOTAL WILDFIRE THREAT SCORE /295 Behaviour Score is >95 for untreated polygons.

Wildfire Behaviour Threat Class (check applicable class) Wildland Urban Interface Threat Class (check applicable class) Low 0-40 Low 0-13 Moderate 41-95 Moderate 14-26 High 96-149 High 27-39 82 Extreme >149 Extreme >39 Last Updated: January 24, 2013

Resume for Richard Swanson, RPF

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE WILDFIRE THREAT ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Pre-treatment Post-treatment

Plot #: Community:

Assessor: Geographic Location/Street Name:

Date: GPS/UTM: APPENDIX Photos: Y N #: Land Ownership: Crown Private I.R. Other (specify)

COMPONENT LEVELS /Subcomponent

4 Fine Woody Debris <1 coverage Scattered, 10-25 coverage >25 coverage, >25 coverage, Continuity (<=7cm) (% cover) 1 <10 coverage 7 < 10 cm deep > 10 cm deep 5 10 15

5 Large Woody Debris <1 coverage Scattered, 10-25 coverage > 25 coverage, >25 coverage, Continuity (>7cm) (% cover) 1 <10 coverage 5 not elevated partially elevated 2 7 10

Sub Total /30 Topography A B C D E

Richard Swanson, R.P.F. Swanson Forestry Services Ltd., 754 South Crest Dr., Kelowna, B.C. V1W 4W7 Office: (250)-764-2820 Cell: (250)-718-9637 E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

• B.Sc. Forestry (1978), University of British Columbia • Registered Professional Forester (1980) • Certified Vegetative Resource Inventory Ground Sampling Timber Cruiser (1998) • S 215-Fire Operations in the Wildland/Urban Interface (2008) • Emergency First Aid-Industry (2012) • BC Timber Sales Emergency Management System (2009) • Wildlife/Danger Tree Assessor, Parks/Recreation and Silviculture /Harvesting Modules (2009) • S-100 Basic Fire and Safety Course (2012) • Accredited Silviculture Surveyor (Reg. No. 2009011) • Safe Company Certified #3090014

FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION

• Timber Harvest Planning • Wildland Interface Fire Hazard Assessments • Fire Hazard Mitigation Treatment Prescriptions • Ecosystem Restoration Plans, Prescriptions and Implementation • Ecosystem Classification • Stand and Silviculture Surveys • Project Supervision

SUMMARY OF PAST EXPERIENCE

Timber Harvesting, Planning and Supervision Past experience includes 7 years as a TFL Forester in the interior, and an additional 18 years’ experience preparing Timber Sales for the Ministry of Forests, and logging plans for local timber companies and developers. All phases of harvesting operations, from the initial location of harvesting areas, access roads, Riparian Assessments, to the final Site Plans and Logging Plans have been prepared.

Wildland Interface Fire Hazard Assessments Conducted Wildland Interface Fire Hazard Assessments for the Regional Districts of Central Okanagan, North Okanagan, Okanagan – Similkameen (29 communities), Cities of Kelowna, Vernon and Penticton, Districts of Peachland and Summerland, BC Parks and private developers (1998-2013). These assessments included: • Mapping and describing the wildfire risk

• Making recommendations for mitigating the wildfire hazard • Combining recommendations for habitat restoration (if required) • Using the FireSmart guidelines (after 2004) for the development plans with regards to community bylaws and Official Community Plans.

Community Wildfire Protection Plans Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs) for Peachland, Summerland, Penticton, Princeton, Westside, North Westside, Ellison, Joe Rich, Wilson’s Landing and Naramata. The plans included: • Wildfire hazard risk assessments and maps for all municipal areas • Working with the local fire department and Protection Branch regarding the results of the wildfire assessments • The resulting maps were often posted on the local fire department websites • Fuel treatment recommendations and prescriptions to mitigate the fire hazard • Power-point presentations of the CWPP to council • Meeting with residents regarding the wildfire hazard assessments and recommending treatments for property owners.

Habitat Restoration Projects Clients have included BC Parks, the Fire Maintained Ecosystem Restoration Committee (Boundary Forest District), Penticton and Vernon Forest Districts (2001-2005) and the Regional District of Central Okanagan, including: • An Inventory of grassland and forest habitat ecosystems • A fire hazard risk assessment, prescribed burn plans, stand thinning prescriptions and fuel reduction plans to restore the ecosystems • Timber harvesting to restore habitat for ungulates and endangered species.

Fuel Treatment Projects Fuel treatment prescriptions have been prepared for the Cities of Kelowna (2010 - 2013), Penticton (2008), District of Summerland (2007), BC Parks (Kalamalka Lake Park and the White Lake Conservation Area 2002, 2003), and the Boundary Forest District (2002, 2003). The plans included prescriptions to return forest and grassland ecosystems to more natural conditions for fire maintained ecosystems and fuel reductions to mitigate the fire hazard.

Wildlife and Danger Tree Assessments Recent clients have included the District of Peachland parks department, a local developer and Drake Forestry Services.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY • Owner, Swanson Forestry Services Ltd., Kelowna, 1998-Present • Projects Manager, Drake Forestry, Kelowna, 1997-1998 • Forester, Simons, Reid, Collins, Kelowna, 1995-1997 • Commercial Property Owner, Kelowna, 1985-2004 • Investment Broker, Great Pacific Management, Kelowna, 1985-1991 • TFL Forester, Clearwater Timber Products Ltd., 1977-1985 • Ministry of Forests, Crown Zellerbach, BC Forest Products, MacMillan Bloedel, Reid Collins; timber cruiser, logging layout, 1969-1976.

List of Sources

Bruce Blackwell, B. A. Blackwell and. Associates Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.

City of Kelowna Fuel Management Strategy prepared by Diamond Head Consulting Ltd., Pemberton Prescribed Fire Services and Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants for the City of Kelowna, 2004.

Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region, Land Management Handbook 23, February 1990, BC Ministry of Forests.

Official Community Plan Amendment Project, Wildland Fire Policy Discussion Paper, February 2006 supplied to the Thompson- Nicola Regional District by the TRUE Consulting Group, Pages 4 - 9.

The FireSmart Manual, BC Edition, 2004, Ministry of Forests, Protection Branch. The manual is available from the local fire department and is a helpful source of information to property owners.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and Skinner, C.N. 1996. Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel management. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final reports to Congress ll Assessments and scientific basis for management options. pp. 1471-1492.

Wildland Urban Threat Assessments in BC, Wildfire Management Branch of BC Ministry of Forests, Land and Natural Resource Operations, January, 2013.

28 DP2014-014 Schedule D - Environmental Assessment Report

Ken and Marlyne Wittke Okanagan Centre Road West - Development Project Environmental Assessment Report

Prepared for: Ken Wittke #247, 654 Cook Road Kelowna, BC V1W 3G7

Prepared by: Brian Arquilla M.Sc. RPBio CTQ Consultants Ltd. #500 -1708 Dolphin Ave., Landmark 2 Kelowna, BC V1Y 9S4

March, 2014 .

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION 1

1.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE 3

1.4 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES 3

2 METHODS 4

2.1 REVIEW OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS 4

2.1.1 Federal Regulation 4

2.1.1.1 Fisheries Act 4 2.1.1.2 Species at Risk Act 4 2.1.1.3 Migratory Bird Convention Act 4

2.1.2 Provincial Regulation 5

2.1.2.1 BC Water Act 5 2.1.2.2 BC Wildlife Act 5 2.1.2.3 BC Weed Control Act 5

2.1.3 Municipal Regulation 6

2.1.3.1 Regional District of the North Okanagan 6

2.1.4 Background Information Review 6

2.1.5 Field Assessment 7

2.1.6 Regulatory Liaison 7

3 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT RESULTS 8

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 8 ii

3.1.1 Biogeoclimatic Zones and Climate 8

3.1.2 Geology and Soils 9

3.1.3 Hydrology 9

3.1.3.1 Groundwater Resources 9 3.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 10

3.2.1 Vegetation Regimes 10

3.2.1.1 Ecological Communities and Associations 10 3.2.1.2 Sensitive Ecosystems Inventories 10

3.2.2 Fish and Aquatic Habitat 12

3.2.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats 12

3.2.4 Species at Risk 12

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION 15

4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION 15

4.2 IMPACT MITIGATION 16

4.2.1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts 17

4.2.2 Soil Erosion Control Plan 17

5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 18

5.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 18

6 REFERENCES 19

Appendix A – Project Area Flora and Fauna 21

A.1 Summary of Species in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 21

A.2 Mammal Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 22

A.3 Avian Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 23

A.4 Reptile Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 24

iii

A.5 Amphibian Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 25

A.6 Fish Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 25

A.6 Insect Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 26

A.7 Mollusc Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 27

A.8 Vascular Plant Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District 27

Appendix B – Site Photos 32

Figures

Ken Wittke Project Location Figure 1.0

Tables

Project Schedule and Identified Tasks Table 1-3

Summary of Climatological Data in Winfield, BC Table 3-1

Peak Evapotranspiration Rates for the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys Table 3-2

Potential Species at Risk in the Project Study Area Table 3-3

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Ken Wittke is proposing a residential property development on private lands approximately 2.0 km south of Okanagan Centre, BC. The proposed Project calls for a development footprint of 1000 m2. The subject property consists of three lots comprising 1.47 acres.

In March 2013, CTQ Consultants Ltd. was retained by Ken Wittke to complete an environmental assessment for proposed Project works. The intention of this assessment is to review regulatory requirements, characterize existing habitat features, identify potential impacts, and provide mitigation recommendations to minimize and alleviate potential Project impacts.

Specific to the Project, regulatory agency review will require engagement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment Canada Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources (FLNRO), and the Regional District of the Central Okanagan (RDNO).

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located in within the municipality of Lake Country, BC in the Regional District of the Central Okanagan. The project is south of Okanagan Centre on Okanagan Centre Rd. W, east of HWY 97 and fully contained with lands owned by Ken Wittke. The Project study area is bordered by private to the north, south, and west. Municipal lands consisting of a road allowance on Okanagan Centre Rd. border the west side of the subject property (Figure 1-1).

Two steep ravines providing ephemeral drainage border the subject property to the north and south.

The legal description of the subject property is LOT 21, 22, and 23, SECTION 8 & 9, TOWNSHIP 20, ODYD, PLAN 521.

Figure 1.1 Project Location

1.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The Project was initiated in February 2014 with the environmental assessment commencing in March 2014. Projection construction is scheduled for Summer of 2014. Table 1.3 highlights significant tasks identified throughout the project period.

Table 1-3 Project Schedule and Identified Tasks

PROJECT INITIATION FEBRUARY 2014 PROJECT MANAGEMENT MEETING MARCH, 2014 COMPREHENSIVE BASELINE ASSESSMENT MARCH 27, 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION MARCH 28, 2014 CONSTRUCTION START MAY-JUNE 2014

1.4 ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

Assessment objectives for the Project include:

 review of regulatory framework specific to the project;  compilation and review of existing literature;  consultation with District of Lake Country Planning Department staff  identification of rare vegetation, ecological communities, and wildlife;  conducting baseline assessment of project area;  analysis of project conditions; and  establish recommendations in support of project delivery.

2 METHODS

2.1 REVIEW OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS

2.1.1 Federal Regulation

2.1.1.1 Fisheries Act

The Fisheries Act is designed to protect fish and fish habitat (Government of Canada 1985). According to the Act, “No person shall carry on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” The Act applies to this project since watercourses in the project area either provide fish habitat directly or support fish habitat in Swan Lake.

A Fisheries Act Notification is required for all works that has the potential to impact fish and fish habitat requires a Project Review by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) under the Fisheries Act. A Fisheries Act Authorization is required for all works which may cause the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat.

2.1.1.2 Species at Risk Act

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is federal legislation that provides legal protection to “at risk” wildlife and their habitats on Schedule 1. Habitats include “residences” and “critical habitat”, for which the definitions are currently being drafted. At-Risk wildlife and plants are listed in Schedule 1 of SARA (Government of Canada 2002).

The purposes of SARA are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies and distinct populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, and to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk. This protection applies to all federal lands in Canada. If a Species at Risk is identified on private or provincial crown land, best management practices and good environmental stewardship are encouraged. In addition, environmental assessment must notify Environment Canada in writing of the project if it is likely to affect a listed wildlife species or its critical habitat (Section 79(1) of the Species at Risk Act). The species protected under the Act with the potential to be in the project area have been included in the environmental assessment of the Project.

2.1.1.3 Migratory Bird Convention Act

The Migratory Bird Convention Act protects migratory birds and nests from indiscriminate harvesting and destruction (Government of Canada 1994). Section 5.1 (1) of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994,stipulate that “no person shall disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box of a migratory bird” (Section 6 [a]). The Act further states that, “no person shall deposit or permit to be

deposited oil, oil wastes or any other substance harmful to migratory birds in any waters or any area frequented by migratory birds (Section 35 [1]) (Government of Canada 1994).

In addition, restrictions have been put in place during the migratory bird season (March 15 to August 15; CWS 2008) as well as the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31; MOE 2007b).

Given these requirements, the Project proponent is compelled to implement an acceptable degree of due diligence to ensure migratory birds are protected from the risk of harm or mortality created by the operation of the development project.

2.1.2 Provincial Regulation

2.1.2.1 BC Water Act All works in and about a water body require a Section 9 Authorization under the Water Act by FLNR. This authorization is designed to protect water resources and aquatic environments, and Authorizations are subject to specific terms, conditions and construction time frames.

2.1.2.2 BC Wildlife Act

The Wildlife Act of British Columbia protects vertebrate animals from direct harm, except as allowed by regulation (e.g., hunting or trapping; Government of British Columbia, 1996). The Minister may issue permits to authorize certain activities if they will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of that species. In 2004, the Wildlife Amendment Act was passed to protect and recover species at risk, making it an offence to kill, harm, harass or capture identified species or their habitats (Government of British Columbia 2004). Neither vertebrate Species at Risk nor their residences were identified during the assessments.

2.1.2.3 BC Weed Control Act

The B.C Weed Control Act designates provincially and regionally noxious weeds (Schedule A) and the associated regulations (B.C.MAL 2001). The Act provides guidelines for noxious weed prevention and management. The B.C. Weed Control Act imposes a duty on all land occupiers to control designated noxious plants. Weed control can be conducted during site-preparation where major clearing and grubbing of the land within the project area will occur. Additionally, weeds will be controlled throughout construction, when heavy machinery is moving on and off-site. When the project goes to tender, it is advised that contractor applicants be required to address noxious weed management in the Project’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

2.1.3 Municipal Regulation

2.1.3.1 Regional District of the North Okanagan

Riparian Area Regulation Assessment

The Fish Protection Act empowers municipal and provincial law to protect riparian and aquatic habitat. All works within 30 m of the high-water mark of aquatic environments (lake or stream) require a Riparian Area Regulation Assessment. This act applies to all works on both public and private lands.

2.2 ASSESSMENT METHODS

2.1.4 Background Information Review

A review of existing information relating to the Project site and/or proximate environment was completed. Data review examined information capture from federal, provincial, municipal and private sources. This review included, but was not limited to:

 Environment Canada’s Species at Risk Public Registry;  Environment Canada’s Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada;  BC Ministry of Forests Biogeoclimatic Zone maps;  BC Ministry of Agriculture Soil Management Handbook;  BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) of rare and threatened species and ecosystems;  BC Sensitive Ecosystem Inventories (SEI);  2013 Ken Wittke Project Map Products  The iMapBC (B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau 2010) for the study area;  Wildlife Management Units;  Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM);  aerial photographs of the study area;  previous governmental and peer reviewed studies from the Lake Country area.

2.1.5 Field Assessment

A preliminary field assessment of the property was completed on March 27, 2014 by Brian Arquilla, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. This initial assessment established property boundaries, examined adjacent property interactions, assessed slope stability, examined geologic and soil investigations, conducted a potential impact assessment overview, and conducted a high level habitat assessment.

A further objective of this survey was to identify specific habitat features and species that may be subject to potential impacts.

Habitat investigations included:

 delineating existing ecosystem communities;  establishing ecosystem structural and seral stage;  identifying forest composition and forest health;  identifying terrestrial and aquatic vegetation;  assessing mammalian denning, movement, and foraging opportunities;  assessing avian nesting and foraging potential; and  identifying amphibian overwintering, basking, and foraging potential.

A photo index of the study area was completed during field investigations (Appendix B).

2.1.6 Regulatory Liaison

Regulatory review requires engagement with a various federal, provincial, and regional, and municipal agencies. Included among the regulatory bodies specific to this Project were the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AANDC), BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources (FLNRO), and the Regional District of the North Okanagan (RDNO).

Specific contacts for these works included, but were not limited to:

 Mark Koch, Director of Planning and Development Services, District of Lake Country; Phone: 250.766.5650.  Michael J. Mercer, Director of Engineering and Operations, District of Lake Country; Phone: 250.766.5650.  Josie Symonds, Hydrologist, BC MOE Penticton, Phone: 250.558.1721.

3 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT RESULTS

3.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1.1 Biogeoclimatic Zones and Climate

The Project site is located in within the Ponderosa Pine biogeoclimatic zone (PP), Okanagan Very Dry Hot variant (PPxh1) of the BC southern interior plateau. The PP zone represents the northern limits (49º and 51º N latitude) of a zone comprising a significant portion of the North American Okanagan Ecoregion extending into central and eastern Washington.

This zone is characterized by a short, warm and dry summer season, and a cool winter (Meidinger and Pojar 1991). Recorded data from the Environment Canada climate station in Winfield (elevation 502.90 m asl) between 1981 and 2010 show that normal monthly average temperatures range from a July high of 26.8 ºC to a January low of -4.1 ºC (Environment Canada 2014). Total precipitation averages 382.0 mm, of which 91.2 mm falls as snow (water equivalent) during the winter (Environment Canada 2013).

The property is comprised of high ridge separating two ephemeral drainages. Valley slopes exhibit primarily open, late successional Ponderosa pine and on both north and south facing aspects. Sub-dominant Douglas fir is sporadic throughout the study area. A mix of both conifers occupy the ridge between drainages. The western extent of the study site maintains slight disturbance.

Table 3.1 Summary of Climatological Data in Lake Country, BC

Station Elev. GDD FFP Pa Ps Snow T Ext Ext. Jan Jul Avg Min Max. Min. Max

Winfield 502.9 2170 251 382 171 91.2 8.9 -27.5 38.5 -4.1 26.8

Sources: Environment Canada. Atmospheric Environment Service, 2014. Canadian Climate Normals: 1981-2010. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?stnID=1074&autofwd=1

Elev. Elevation (m), GDD Growing Degree Day above 5°C, FFP Freeze free period (days), PA Annual precipitation (mm), PS May- September precipitation (mm), Snow Mean snowfall (cm), Tavg, Average temperature (°C),, Ext. Min. Lowest minimum temperature ever recorded (°C), Ext. Max. Highest maximum temperature ever recorded (°C), Jan. Min. Average January minimum temperature (°C), July Max. Average July maximum temperature (°C)

3.1.2 Geology and Soils

Soil series for the Project area consist of Equesis (ES), Fowler (FR), and Pari (PAR) soils within the Postil Soil Management Group. Characteristics of the Postil Soil Management Group include moderately coarse to coarse-textured colluvium and/or glacial till deposits. Typical topography for Lake Country soil systems typically varies from moderately sloping (9 to 15%) to extremely sloping (70%). Site specific topography far greater slope nearing 45% on some aspects (Gough et al 1994).

Soil depth typically varies between 10 cm and 100 cm. On the soil surface, stone composition exhibit variation from nonstony (S0) to very stony (S3). Bedrock generally overlies surface soil veneers. Soils belonging to the Postil Soil Management Group are typically well drained (Gough et al 1994). Soils within the Okanagan’s Ponderosa Pine Zone are primarily comprised of Dark Brown Chernozems and Orthic or Eluviated Eutric Brunisols (Hope at al. 1998).

Soil limitations to growth include adverse topography (>25%), shallow soil depth, and stoniness of surface and subsurface. Together these factors contribute to inadequate plant rooting (Gough et al 1994).

Table 3.2 Peak Evapotranspiration Rates for the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys (cm/day)

Station Kelowna Soil Water Deficits 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 (cm of water) Maximum Evapotranspiration .71 .64 .61 .58 .56 Rates (cm/day) Source: Soil Management Handbook for the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys. 1995 Gough. et al.

3.1.3 Hydrology

3.1.3.1 Surface Water Resources

The study is located on the high ridge between two ephemeral drainages. Dry sandy soils along the bench provide little opportunity for surface water collection. Potential drainage to creek valleys below occurs along significant slopes (30% to 40%) on the north, east, and south aspects. Ravines flows in a westerly direction between uplands east of Okanagan Centre Rd W and into Okanagan Lake.

3.1.3.1 Groundwater Resources

Groundwater resources currently comprise an estimated 22% of total water use for communities on the Okanagan Basin. Surface water flow accounts for almost all water use for residential and commercial lands within the Okanagan Centre area (OBWB 2014).

3.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.2.1 Vegetation Regimes

3.2.1.1 Ecological Communities and Associations

The dry, sandy Project site is typified by dominant open Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and subdominant interior Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Forest density is consistent throughout the project study area, slightly increasing in ravine gullies. Common grasses include bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoregneria spicatum) and red threeawn (Aristida longespica).

Shrub species on site consist of Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium). trembling aspen (Populus tremoides), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea). Observed plant species include sagebrush buttercup (Ranunculus glaberrimus), yellow bell (Fritillaria pudica), brittle prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia fragilis) and arrow-leaved balsamroot (Balsamorhizza sagittata). Deadfall is common throughout the study site primarily comprised of fallen Ponderosa pine.

From the resort development project site, steep open slopes fall away to creek valley below. Open canopy environments are often lightly vegetated with short grass and low shrubs. The light sand soils associated with these habitats provide nesting and denning opportunity for small mammals and rodents.

3.2.1.2 Sensitive Ecosystems Inventories

Sensitive Ecosystem Inventories (SEI) captures information on rare and threatened ecosystems and provide tools for conservation and land use planning. Together with species specific data, information generated may be used to produce wildlife habitat ratings, wildlife suitability indexes, and species management plans (BC MOE 2013)

In 2007, the Okanagan valley SEI was initiated to provide inventory information on rare and fragile ecosystems that can be used for ecologically sustainable land use and development planning. Encompassing the Central Okanagan, the Okanagan Valley SEI Project includes the complete Vernon to Osoyoos corridor (Environment Canada 2009). In March 2014, a field investigation in support of an environmental assessment for the development Project identified a number of ecosystem variants, all within the Ponderosa Pine zone. These variant sub-zones included the following:

 PPxh1 WB / 00: Bluebunch Wheatgrass – Balsamroot (Grassland)

 PPxh1 PC / 04: Ponderosa pine – Bluebunch wheatgrass – Cheatgrass  PPxh1 PTks Ponderosa pine – Red three-awn:  PPxh1 CL / 00: Cliff (Rock)  PPxh1 RZ / 00: Road and Right of Way (Grods 2006)

Updated SEI (Iverson 2007) schedules in conjunction with 2014 site assessments identified the following sensitive ecosystem PPxh1 zone variants on the Project study area:

PPxh1 PCk Ponderosa pine – Bluebunch wheatgrass – Cheatgrass:  Submesic sites, often on slightly warmer or drier sites;  Sites are not as steep or shallow soiled as PT /02;  Terrain is generally morainal or colluvial; and  Open ponderosa pine overstory with bluebunch wheatgrass dominated understory (at climax).

PPxh1 PTks Ponderosa pine – Red three-awn:  Dry, open ponderosa pine forests on steep warm aspects;  Frequently occurs on shallow or very shallow colluvial or morainal materials; and  Occasionally occurs on slightly cool aspects with shallow or very shallow soils (PTks, PTkv).

3.2.2 Fish and Aquatic Habitat

No fish or fish habitat is present on site.

3.2.3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats

The Regional District of the Central Okanagan and its wild lands provide important habitat for a variety of resident, breeding, wintering, and migratory wildlife (MOE 2013). The area encompasses a complex of unique landscapes and in turn provides critical habitat for a variety rare and endemic wildlife species. The Okanagan’s composition of semi-arid and mesic systems, unique to western Canada, are high in both species diversity and richness.

The District of Lake Country offers a unique mix of lake water, river valley, upland, and urban areas within a relatively small municipal region. This mix of habitat types within close proximity facilitates life history functions for both local and migratory wildlife. Life history traits may include foraging, denning, hibernation, breeding, movement and staging opportunity. Of specific note to the Project, several ungulate trails lend to the presence of winter ungulate habitat in the immediate study area.

Wildlife habitat within the District of Lake Country supports a diverse concentration of species groups including ungulates, carnivores, mustelids, aquatic rodents, small mammals and bats, aviafauna, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. Avifauna observed during site assessment include bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), common raven (Corvus corax), American robin (Turdus migratorius), dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis), and pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea).

No mammals or herptiles were observed during site investigations.

3.2.4 Species at Risk

Several Species of Risk potentially occupy habitat available in the District of Lake Country (Table 3.1). Site-specific habitat features and species-specific life history traits further reduce the derived assessment of potentially occurring species. A query of BC MOE Ecosystem Explorer revealed the potential presence of nine Species at Risk in habitats proximate to the Project study area (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3 Potential Species at Risk in the Project Study Area

Scientific Name English Name Provincial BC List COSEWIC SARA Anaxyrus boreas Western Toad S3S4 (2010) Blue SC (2012) 1-SC (2005) Coluber constrictor North American Racer S3 (2012) Blue SC (2004) 1-SC (2006) Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's Big-eared Bat S3 (2013) Blue Crotalus oreganus Western Rattlesnake S3 (2012) Blue T (2004) 1-T (2005) Hesperia nevada Nevada Skipper S3S4 (2013) Blue Lycaena nivalis Lilac-bordered Copper S3 (2013) Blue Western Small-footed Myotis ciliolabrum S2S3 (2013) Blue Myotis Myotis thysanodes Fringed Myotis S3 (2013) Blue DD (2004) 3 (2005

Reithrodontomys Western Harvest Mouse S2S3 (2006) Blue SC (2007) 1-SC (2009) megalotis Sorex merriami Merriam's Shrew S1 (2010) Red

Spea intermontana Great Basin Spadefoot S3 (2010) Blue T (2007) 1-T (2003) Taxidea taxus American Badger S1 (2011) Red E (2012) 1-E (2003) Vallonia cyclophorella Silky Vallonia S3 (2008) Blue

Search Criteria Search Type: Plants & AnimalsAND Species Subgroups: Amphibians (Frogs, Toads, Newts & Salamanders) OR Reptiles & Turtles (Lizards, Skinks, Snakes, & Turtles) OR Fish, Freshwater OR Fish, Marine OR Birds, All Species OR Birds, Species Breeding in BC OR Mammals OR Beetles (Tiger Beetles only) OR Butterflies OR Dragonflies & Damselflies OR Grasshoppers and Related Insects OR Molluscs, Freshwater (Snails, Mussels & Clams) OR Molluscs, Terrestrial (Snails & Slugs) OR Other Invertebrates OR Spiders (Partial List) OR Flowering Plants (Monocots & Dicots) OR Conifers (Cone-bearing Woody Plants) OR Ferns (Includes Horsetails and Club-mosses) OR Hornworts OR Liverworts OR Mosses OR Lichens (Macrolichens & COSEWIC- listed)AND BC Conservation Status:Red (Extirpated, Endangered, orThreatened) OR Blue (Special Concern)AND Forest Districts:Okanagan Shuswap Forest District (DOS) ( Restricted to Red, Blue, and Legally designated species) AND MOE Regions:8- Okanagan (Restricted to Red, Blue, and Legally designated species AND Municipalities: Lake Country Restricted to Red, Blue, and Legally designated species AND Habitat Subtypes: Conifer Forest - Dry( Restricted to Red, Blue, and Legally designated species )AND BGC Zone:PP Sort Order:Scientific Name Ascending Notes 1. Citation: B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2013. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Minist. of Environ. Victoria, B.C. Available:http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jul 17, 2013). 2. Forest District, MoE Region, Regional District and habitat lists are restricted to species that breed in the Forest District, MoE Region, Regional District or habitat (i.e., species will not be placed on lists where they occur only as migrants).

A lack of vegetative cover and wetted areas on the Project study area reduce the potential for available habitat for the Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana). Existing cavity trees may provide roosting and hibernating opportunity for the Townsend’s Big Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Western Small-footed Myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) and Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes),

The Project areas composition of sandy soils and sparse, low growing vegetation may provide for the three mammal species potentially occurring in the region. The American badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) occupies open valley bottoms and open canopied forests (Parks Canada 2013). Small areas of open canopied forests exist at the Project site and immediately proximate areas. However, surrounding areas of closed forest bottomlands may isolate movements for any potentially occurring individual animals. No den sites and or sign of badger activity was identified during field investigations.

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

4.1 POTENTIAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION

4.1.3 DESIGN PHASE IMPACTS

Design phase impacts primarily address the need for soil retention and water runoff mitigation on Project lands. Infrastructure design will best attempt to minimize additional runoff from the Project footprint over existing steep slopes.

Project design considerations for waste storage and removal will best protect terrestrial and downslope aquatic environments from impacts during both construction and operation phases.

4.1.3 CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

During the Project’s construction phase, the potential for impacts are available through land clearing, soil disturbance, transportation, and infrastructure works. Potential threats to the integrity of terrestrial habitat includes invasive species introduction, soil loss and degradation, and soil channelization.

Resulting impacts may include reduced native species diversity and richness, non-native and invasive species propagation, soil erosion, wildlife habitat loss, and wildlife extirpation. Construction activities may only conducted during work windows outside of the avian breeding season. A professional biologist is required for site inspection prior to all construction works during the avian breeding season. Breeding avifauna occupy the following work windows:

 Raptors August 15th to January 30th  other birds August 1st to March 31st

Source: BC MOE 2013. Okanagan Region. Timing Windows http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/regions/okr/wateract/workwindows.html

Construction impacts to soil systems may be best mitigated via planting and hydro-seeding of exposed soil and slopes upon completion of construction works.

Construction monitoring should be completed by a qualified environmental professional during the construction phase of the Project. It is recommended a spill response plan that details emergency procedures and relevant contact information in the event of accident be prepared in conjunction with a construction work plan.

3.1.4 OPERATIONS PHASE IMPACTS

Project operations may incur potential impacts including invasive species introduction, sensory disturbance to terrestrial wildlife, waste management, spill potential, and soil channelization on steep slopes. Potential impacts during Project operations may include deteriorated quality of surface and ground water, invasive species propagation, and sensory disturbance to local wildlife.

It is recommended an operational spill response plan that details emergency procedures and relevant contact information in the event of accident be prepared

4.2 IMPACT MITIGATION

Identified potential Project impacts may be minimized or eliminated via prescribed mitigation practices. Mitigation may be adopted at all Project phases including design, construction, and operations. Mitigation measures will be subject to review and revision throughout the Project process. A qualified professional, on-site during construction works, will facilitate the communication and delivery of best practices during this phase of the Project.

Consistent with recommended mitigation is the requirement on behalf of the District Planning Department for heightened and regular communication between proponent, consultants, and municipal staff. Open and consistent communication between all parties will provide result in efficient and anticipated progress throughout the duration of the Project.

4.2.3 SPECIES DIVERSITY AND HABITAT LOSS

Clearing of land and associated disturbance will decrease overall species diversity through habitat loss, reduced ecosystem function, and reduced ecological community interactions (Walker 1995). Impacts to local wildlife resulting from Project development may include loss of wildlife habitat including fragmented corridor connectivity, loss of den and nest sites, reduced thermal cover, decreased grazing and browse opportunity for large ungulates, decreased foraging habitat and prey availability for carnivores, loss of cover and foraging opportunity for small mammals and insects.

Mitigation measures to minimize the effects of land clearing include minimizing the overall development footprint, retaining habitat where possible, observing work windows for breeding avifauna, active weed management through project duration, landscape exposed soils with native trees and shrubs, and revegetate exposed soils with native seed mix.

Weed management may be accomplished through mowing, pulling, chemical application (in accordance with municipal and provincial guidelines), or biological controls. Limiting development encroachment during construction may be aided by delineating the limits of the clearing and grubbing area with flagging. Any non-footprint areas that are disturbed will be hydro-seeded as soon as possible. The existing habitat and potential presence of Species at Risk within the project area require that a SARA permit will be required for this project.

All active bird nests are fully protected under the B.C. Wildlife Act and it is an offence to destroy nests occupied by a bird, its eggs or its young (Government of British Columbia 1996). In accordance with the Migratory Bird Act (Government of Canada 1994), land clearing may occur outside of the sensitive nesting period of birds between April 1st and July 31st. Development can only proceed within this period if a nest survey by a qualified environmental professional has concluded that no nests are present.

4.2.1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts

Vehicles provide the primary form of direct mortality to local fauna. Large ungulate movements between seasonal foraging and bedding areas heightens the vulnerability of these animals to vehicular mortality. Appropriately placed signage indicating the existing wildlife corridor-road crossings may reduce potential mortality to local fauna for vehicles accessing Project site.

Human–wildlife interactions may result in wildlife abandoning local habitat in favor of areas of less disturbance. Sensory disturbance resulting from increased vehicular traffic is expected as a result of the project. Most of the disturbance is anticipated during the construction phase of the Project.

Minimizing sensory disturbance may be accomplished by a variety of methods. Local wildlife will be aided by the maintenance and revegetation of native flora regimes that provide visual and sound barriers from development operations. Maintaining vegetated buffers between the Project development and the property area boundary will reduce disturbance to natural systems. These barriers further provide connectivity to wildlife movement between upland and bottom lands. Observation of work windows during species-specific periods of sensitivity or vulnerability further reduces disturbance impacts.

There is potential for the presence of several species of rare or threatened cold-blooded species on Project lands. As a precaution to vehicular mortality, strategic fencing may be installed to direct reptiles and amphibians seeking basking opportunity away from proximate roads and parking lots.

4.2.2 Soil Erosion Control Plan

A complete Soil Erosion Plan is recommended for both the construction and operations phase of the Project. This Plan will provide site specific detail for reducing disturbance and soil loss on both the Project footprint and adjacent lands. Sandy soils typical of the PPhx1 zone may be subject to channelization and trenching from heightened erosion potential from potential development impacts.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

A summary table describing mitigation of ecosystem components with respect to Project design, construction, and operation is provided below (Table 5-1). This evaluation considers Project impacts, applied mitigation, and resultant effects following mitigation.

Consultation with Greg Buckles, Lake Country Department of Planning, has identified a request for heightened communication with all phases of the Project from Design through Operation.

Table 5-1 Mitigation Summary Table Arranged by Ecosystem Component and Project Phase

Ecosystem Design Phase Construction Phase Operation Phase Component

Surface Water  Heightened  Work to be completed in  Spill response and Quality Communication with isolation. clean-up BMPs Municipal Planning  Erosion and sediment  Water quality Departments control EMP monitoring  Spill response planning Soils  Heightened  Employ Erosion Control  Employ Erosion Communication with Plan Control Plan Municipal Planning  Vegetate slope upon  Maintain vegetation Departments construction completion on slopes  Soil retention design Vegetation  Heightened  Accommodate seasonal  Accommodate Communication with flooding without seasonal flooding Municipal Planning channelization without Departments  Retention of slope channelization  Develop vegetation vegetation community  Retention of slope plan vegetation Wildlife  Heightened  Observe avian breeding  Landscape with Communication with work windows. native plants Municipal Planning  Install fencing to reduce  Post public Departments human-wildlife conflicts educational signage

6 REFERENCES

B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2004. BC Wildlife Act. Victoria, BC

B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. 2001. BC Weed Control Act. Victoria, BC

B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2013. Riparian Area Regulation. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habitat/fish_protection_act/riparian/riparian_areas.html Accessed: March 21, 2014.

BC MOE. 2013. Sensitive Ecosystems Inventories. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/sei/ (accessed March 21, 2013).

Biodiversity Branch Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2013. PO Box 9374, Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 9M4 http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld (accessed March 20, 2014).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2013. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. Available:http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Mar 20, 2014).

Environment Canada. Atmospheric Environment Service, 1982. Canadian Climate Normals, Volumes 2, 3, 4 and 6: 1951-1980. Downsview, Ontario, and Air Studies Branch. Climatic Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia, RAB Technical Paper 1. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C., 1978. Environment Canada—Canadian Climate Normals 1971– 2000,

Environment Canada. Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory - Okanagan Valley: Vernon to Osoyoos, 2000– 2007. 1:20,000. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region. 2009.

Hope G.D., D.A. Lloyd, W.R. Mitchell, W.R. Erickson, W.L. Harper, and B.M.Wikeem. 1998. Chapter 9: Ponderosa Pine Zone

McKee, P., B. Fraser, and M. Patterson. 2003. Five-Year Receiving Environment Study, Brenda Mines. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd and Noranda Inc.

Medinger, D. & Pojar, J. (1991). Ecosystems of British Columbia, Rep. No. Special Report Series 6. BC Ministry Of Forests, Victoria BC.

Okanagan Basin Water Board. 2014. Groundwater. Okanagan Water Supply and Demand Project. http://www.obwb.ca/wsd/key-findings/groundwater

Pearson, M. and M.C. Healy. 2012. Species at Risk and Local Government. A Primer for BC. Stewardship Centre of British Columbia, Courtney, BC.

Queens Printer. 1985. Fisheries Act. Government of Canada, Ottawa.

Queens Printer. 2002. Species at Risk Act. Government of Canada, Ottawa.

Queens Printer. 1994. Migratory Bird Convention Act. Government of Canada, Ottawa.

Tredger, C.D. 1988. Okanagan Lake Tributary Assessment Progress in 1988. Ministry of Environment, Recreational Fisheries’ Branch, Victoria, BC.

Walker, B. 1995. Conserving Biological Diversity Through Ecosystem Resilience. Conservation Biology 9:747-752.

Appendix A – Project Area Flora and Fauna

A.1 Summary of Species in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

Species No. Status No.

Number of Species 130 BC Red List 64

Mammals 12 BC Blue List 59

Birds 20 Identified Wildlife 25

Breeding Bird 0 COSEWIC Endangered 26

Reptiles 8 COSEWIC Threatened 17

Amphibians 5 COSEWIC Special Concern 23

Fishes 7 SARA Schedule 1 58

Insects 13 Extirpated form BC 3

Molluscs 3 Extinct 0

Vascular Plants 58

Mosses 4

Fungus 0

A.2 Mammal Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

American Badger Taxidea taxus Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Special Concern None Blue

Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue Rainieri Subspecies rainieri

Nuttall's Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus Threatened Schedule 1 Red

Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue

Western Harvest Reithrodontomys Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue Mouse megalotis

Wolverine (luscus Gulo luscus Special Concern None Blue subspecies)

Townsend's Big- Corynorhinus None None Blue eared Bat townsendii

Merriam's Shrew Sorex merriami None None Red

Northern Bog Synaptomys borealis Lemming, artemisiae None None Blue artemisiae subspecies

Preble's Shrew Sorex preblei None None Red

A.3 Avian Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

Barn Owl Tyto alba Threatened Schedule 1 Blue

Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue

Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Threatened Schedule 1 Red

Numenius Long-billed Curlew Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue americanus

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Special Concern None Red (anatum subspecies) anatum

Oreoscoptes Sage Thrasher Endangered Schedule 1 Red montanus

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Special Concern Schedule 3 Blue

Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis Endangered Schedule 1 Red

White-headed Picoides albolarvatus Endangered Schedule 1 Red Woodpecker

Williamson's Sapsucker, Sphyrapicus Endangered Schedule 1 Red thyroideus thyroideus subspecies

Yellow-breasted Icteria virens Endangered Schedule 1 Red Chat

Western Screech Megascops Owl (mcfarlanei kennicottii Endangered Schedule 1 Red subspecies) macfarlanei

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Threatened Schedule 1 Yellow

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Not at Risk None Blue

Botaurus American Bittern None None Blue lentiginosus

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Threatened None Blue

Olive-sided Contopus cooperi Threatened Schedule 1 Blue flycatcher

Grasshopper Ammodramus None None Red Sparrow savannarum

A.4 Reptile Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

Great Basin Pituophis catenifer Threatened Schedule 1 Blue Gophersnake deserticola

Hypsiglena Desert Night Snake Endangered Schedule 1 Red chlorophaea

Rubber Boa Charina bottae Special Concern Schedule 1 Yellow

Western Rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus Threatened Schedule 1 Blue

Plestiodon Western Skink Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue skiltonianus

Western Yellow- Coluber constrictor Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue bellied Racer

Western Painted Chrysemys picta Turtle -intermountain Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue pop. 2 - Rocky Mountain pop.

A.5 Amphibian Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

Pacific Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue

Great Basin Spea intermontana Threatened Schedule 1 Blue Spadefoot

Northern Leopard Lithobates pipiens Endangered Schedule 1 Red Frog

Blotched Tiger Ambystoma Endangered Schedule 1 Red Salamander mavortium

Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Special Concern Schedule 1 Yellow

A.6 Fish Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

Columbia Sculpin Cottus hubbsi Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue

Umatilla Dace Rhinichthys umatilla Threatened Schedule 3 Red

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus (Okanagan River Threatened None Yellow tshawytscha population)

Acrocheilus Chiselmouth Not at Risk None Blue alutaceus

Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma None None Blue

Catostomus Mountain Sucker Special Concern None Blue platyrhynchus

Salvelinus Bull Trout None None Blue confluentus

A.6 Insect Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

Behr's Hairstreak Satyrium behrii Threatened Schedule 1 Red

Monarch Danaus plexippus Special Concern Schedule 1 Blue

Mormon Metalmark Apodemia mormo Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Sonora Skipper Polites sonora Special Concern Schedule 1 Red

Halfmoon Hairstreak Satyrium semiluna Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Western Pondhawk Erythemis collocata None None Blue

Western River Macromia magnifica Not at Risk None Blue Cruiser

Pachydiplax Blue Dasher None None Blue longipennis

Autumn Sympetrum vicinum None None Blue Meadowhawk

Emma's Dancer Argia emma None None Blue

Dark Saltflat Tiger Cicindela parowana Endangered None Red Beetle

Mormon Fritillary, Speyeria mormonia None None Red erinna subspecies erinna

Olive Clubtail Stylurus olivaceus None None Red

A.7 Mollusc Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

Rocky Mountain Gonidea angulata Endangered Schedule 1 Red Ridged Mussel

Northern Tightcoil Pristiloma arcticum None None Blue

Black Gloss Zonitoides nitidus None None Blue

A.8 Vascular Plant Species at Risk in the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District

English Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA BC Status

Phacelia Branched Phacelia ramosissima var. Endangered Schedule 1 Red ramosissima

Psilocarphus Dwarf Woolly-heads brevissimus var. Endangered Schedule 1 Red brevissimus

Giant Helleborine Epipactis gigantea Special Concern Schedule 3 Blue

Scarlet Ammannia Ammannia robusta Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Phlox speciosa ssp. Showy Phlox Threatened Schedule 1 Red occidentalis

Slender Collomia Collomia tenella Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Small-flowered Lipocarpha Endangered Schedule 1 Red Lipocarpha micrantha

Symphyotrichum Short-rayed Aster Endangered Schedule 1 Red frondosum

Grand Coulee Owl- Orthocarpus Endangered Schedule 1 Red clover barbatus

Polystichum Lemmon's Holly Fern Threatened Schedule 1 Red lemmonii

Lyall's Mariposa Lily Calochortus lyallii Threatened Schedule 1 Blue

Psilocarphus Dwarf Woolly-heads brevissimus var. Endangered Schedule 1 Red brevissimus

Giant Helleborine Epipactis gigantea Special Concern Schedule 3 Blue

Scarlet Ammannia Ammannia robusta Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Phlox speciosa ssp. Showy Phlox Threatened Schedule 1 Red occidentalis

Slender Collomia Collomia tenella Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Small-flowered Lipocarpha Endangered Schedule 1 Red Lipocarpha micrantha

Symphyotrichum Short-rayed Aster Endangered Schedule 1 Red frondosum

Grand Coulee Owl- Orthocarpus Endangered Schedule 1 Red clover barbatus

Polystichum Lemmon's Holly Fern Threatened Schedule 1 Red lemmonii

Lyall's Mariposa Lily Calochortus lyallii Threatened Schedule 1 Blue

Polystichum Mountain Holly Fern Threatened Schedule 1 Red scopulinum

Stoloniferous Antennaria flagellaris Endangered Schedule 1 Red Pussytoes

Toothcup meadow- Rotala ramosior Endangered Schedule 1 Red foam

Anemone Alpine Anemone drummondii var. None None Blue drummondii

Cut-leaved Water- Berula erecta None None Blue parsnip

Cacaliopsis Silvercrown None None Red nardosmia

Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea None None Blue

Steer's Head Dicentra uniflora None None Blue

Epilobium Smooth Willowherb glaberrimum ssp. None None Blue fastigiatum

Nuttall's waterweed Elodea nuttallii None None Blue

Short-fruited Smelowskia ovalis None None Blue Smelowskia

Bearded Sedge Carex comosa None None Red

Beaked Spike-rush Eleocharis rostellata None None Blue

Dotted Smartweed Persicaria punctata None None Blue

Long-leaved Potamogeton None None Red Pondweed nodosus

Verbena hastata var. Blue Vervain None None Red scabra

Callitriche Two-edged Water- heterophylla ssp. None None Blue starwort heterophylla

Delphinium bicolor Montana Larkspur None None Blue ssp. bicolor

Small-fruited Epilobium None None Blue Willowherb leptocarpum

Brandegee's Lomatium None None Blue lomatium brandegeei

Purple-marked Viola purpurea var. None None Red Yellow Violet venosa

Field Dodder Cuscuta campestris None None Blue

Heterocodon Heterocodon None None Blue rariflorum

Lindernia dubia var. False-pimpernel None None Blue anagallidea

Short-flowered Mimulus breviflorus None None Red Monkey-flower

Elegant Jacob's- Polemonium elegans None None Blue ladder

Kruckeberg's holly Polystichum None None Blue fern kruckebergii

White Wintergreen Pyrola elliptica None None Blue

Andean Evening- Camissonia andina None None Red primrose

Cockscomb Cryptantha None None Red cryptantha celosioides

Dark Lamb's- Chenopodium None None Red quarters atrovirens

Leptosiphon Harkness' linanthus None None Red harknessii

Micranthes Idaho saxifrage None None Red idahoensis

Northern Gooseberry Ribes cognatum oxyacanthoides ssp. None None Red subspecies cognatum

Owyhee Mudwort Limosella acaulis None None Red

Lepidium Prairie Pepper-grass densiflorum var. None None Red pubicarpum

Rydberg's spring Claytonia multiscapa None None Red beauty ssp. pacifica

Slender Hawksbeard None None Red Crepis atribarba ssp.

atribarba

Eriogonum strictum Strict Buckwheat None None Red var. proliferum

Tall Beggarticks Bidens vulgata None None Red

Tweedy's Lewisia Lewisia tweedyi None None Red

Centaurium Western Centaury None None Red exaltatum

Wild Tobacco Nicotiana attenuata None None Red

Hairy Water-clover Marsilea vestita None None Red

Bent Spike-rush Eleocharis geniculata Endangered Schedule 1 Red

Colorado rush Juncus confusus None None Red

B Appendix B – Site Photos

Photo B-1 Wildlife/Cavity from high ridge (southwest view)

Photo B-2 Okanagan Lake from height of Project study area (west view)

Photo B-3 Ungulate trail through Project study area site (north view)

Photo B-4 Wildlife tree and open Ponderosa Pine forest (northeast view)

Photo C-5 Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium)

Photo C-6 Sagebrush buttercup (Ranunculus glaberrimus)

Photo C-7 Brittle prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia fragilis)

Photo C-8 Ravine bordering south extent of subject property (southwest view)

Photo B-3 Open forest and grassland complex above steep ravine (southwest view)

Photo B-4 Open Ponderosa Pine forest typical of study area (west view)

DP2014-014 Schedule E - Landscape Plan Legend Recommended Plant Material

Large Scale Deciduous Trees aspen

coniferous Trees ponderosa pine

Massed Shrub/groundcover/ Rose, Ornamental Grasses, rudbeckia, ornamental grasses Lavender, Day Lily, Daisy, Winter creeper, Perennial Planting in ogogrow dwarf burning bush , kinnickinick, mulch adjacent patio Hosta

Massed Shrub/groundcover/ Low Sumac, saskatoon, basin sage. ornamental grasses snowberry. mock orange, Perennial Planting in ogogrow dwarfexisting oregon grape, sumac mulch tree blue bunch grass, rough and idaho fescue, Dryland Grass mix in all disturbed areas - typ dryland grass mix giant wild rye,tufted hair grass Sierrascape wall virginia creeper

SierraScape Vegetated Wall see detail

Patio NOTES 1. All plants, material and planting practices to

conform to the BCLNA 'BC Landscape

Standard' - 7th Edition

2. Contractor to provide a warranty and

1.2m ht retaining wall maintenance period of 1 year on all plants

and materials. Plants and materials that fail

SierraScape Vegetated Wall before end of the warranty period shall be replaced by the contractor.

Patio 3. Contractor to verify the location of all existing

utilities on the site.

LAWN 4. All planting areas to receive 450mm of topsoil

5. All planting beds to be crowned with 1 in 10

slope to avoid at appearance. Dryland Grass mix in all disturbed 6. Prior to delivery to site, a representative areas - typ sample and test results of topsoil should be

made available to the consultant for

approval.

7. No plant species substitution will be

accepted without the written consent of the Dryland Grass mix in all disturbed consultant. Existing areas - typ Trees -typ 8. All planting beds to receive 75 mm depth of

Ogo - Grow mulch.

9. All p[planting beds and lawn areas to be

irrigated.

Recommended Plant Material Character images

L-01 DP2014-014 Schedule F Septic site plan