planning and development committee january 8, 2015 … · planning and development committee ....

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE January 8, 2015

SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda

DELEGATIONS

2. Representative from Vancouver Coastal Health (INVITED) Regarding VCH - SCRD Healthy Communities Collaboration Agreement

(Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)

PART 1 – ANNEX A (pages 1 – 52) 3. Erica Ellis, Project Manager, Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (INVITED)

a. Geotechnical Review - Egmont/Pender Harbour OCP Area b. Geotechnical Review - Twin Creeks OCP Area

(Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

ANNEX A pp 1 - 52

ANNEX B pp 53 - 99

PART 2 – ANNEX B – F (pages 53 – 136)

REPORTS 4. Planning and Development Department Work Plan for 2015

(Regional Planning, Rural Planning, Economic Development, Hillside, Building Inspection Services) (Voting – All Directors)

ANNEX C pp 100 - 109

5. Agricultural Area Plan Steering Committee Work Plan (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)

ANNEX D pp 110 - 113

6. Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)

ANNEX E pp 114 - 125

7. Invasive Species Technical Working Group and Advisory Committee Terms of Reference (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)

ANNEX F pp 126 - 136

PART 3 – ANNEX G – I (pages 137 – 195)

8. Referral from Squamish Lillooet Regional District Regarding a Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw for Waldorf School (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)

ANNEX G pp 137 - 166

9. Zoning Amendment Bylaw 337.111 (Whiskey Business – Pender Harbour Hotel and Grasshopper Pub, 12671 Sunshine Coast Highway) Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

ANNEX H pp 167 - 173

10. Crown Land Application File 2411037 for a Residential Private Moorage fronting Lot W, DL 68085, Plan BB790135, Middlepoint, Area A Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

ANNEX I pp 174 - 195

Planning and Development Committee Agenda – January 8, 2015 of 2

PART 4 – ANNEX J – O (pages 196 – 303)

11. Crown Referral 2411086 by A&A Trading Ltd. For Log Handling at Gustafson Bay, Salmon Inlet, Area B Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

ANNEX J pp 196 - 253

12. Road Closure Application #2014-02231 (Bone) (Area E) Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting - A, B, D, E, F)

ANNEX K p 254

13. Proposed Telecommunications Tower (Altus Group for Eneveldson/Telus) – Area F Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

ANNEX L pp 255 - 292

14. Planning and Development Division Monthly Report - December 2014 (Regional/Rural Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)

ANNEX M pp 293 - 300

MINUTES

IN CAMERA

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) of the Community Charter.

ADJOURNMENT

COMMUNICATIONS 15. P. Monteith, Executive Correspondence Officer, Office of the Prime Minister dated

December 9, 2014 Regarding Receipt of Correspondence – SCRD Resolution regarding LNG tankers in Howe Sound and Georgia Strait.

ANNEX N p 301

16. Chad Hershler, Executive and Artistic Director, Deer Crossing the Art Farm dated December 19, 2014 Regarding Request for Letter of Support for Smart Farm Project. (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

ANNEX O pp 302 - 303

1

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT Geotechnical Hazards Report: Twin Creeks OCP Area

December 2014

724.026-300

Conten ts 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Project Team .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

2. Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background Reports ............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Orthophotos ........................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 GIS Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 2-2

3. Hazard Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Hazard Overview ................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Coastal Zone Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Creek Hazards ....................................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5 Slope Hazards ...................................................................................................................................... 3-10

4. Proposed DPA Framework ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 DPA 1: Ocean Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 DPA 2: Creek Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 DPA 3: Slope Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.5 Proposed Revised DPAs for Twin Creeks OCP Area ........................................................................ 4-4

5. Suggested Guidelines for Development ................................................................ 5-1 5.1 DPA 1: Ocean Hazards.......................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 DPA 2: Creek/River Hazards ................................................................................................................ 5-3 5.3 DPA 3: Slope Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 5-4 5.4 Possible Exemptions ............................................................................................................................ 5-5 5.5 Report Submission ............................................................................................................................... 5-6

ANNEX B

53

2


December 2014

724.026-300

Figures Figure 3-1: Sc reen fo r Hydrogeomorphic Pro ces s e s (Outle t a t Ocean) ..................................................... 3-13Figure 3-2: Sc reen fo r Hydrogeomorphic Pro ces s e s (Outle t a t Tribu tary J un c tions o r a t Upper Lim it o f Development) ............................................................................................................................................... 3-14Figure 3-3: Twin Creeks Hazard Screen (Sh ee t 1) ........................................................................................ 3-15Figure 3-4: Twin Creeks Hazard Screen (Sh ee t 2) ........................................................................................ 3-16Figure 3-5: Twin Creeks Hazard Screen (Sh ee t 3) ........................................................................................ 3-17Figure 3-6: Twin Creeks Hazard Screen (Sh ee t 4) ........................................................................................ 3-18Figure 3-7: Twin Creeks Hazard Screen (Sh ee t 5) ........................................................................................ 3-19Figure 4-1: Propos ed DPAs for Twin Creeks (Sh ee t 1) .................................................................................. 4-5Figure 4-2: Propos ed DPAs for Twin Creeks (Sh ee t 2) .................................................................................. 4-6Figure 4-3: Propos ed DPAs for Twin Creeks (Sh ee t 3) .................................................................................. 4-7Figure 4-4: Propos ed DPAs for Twin Creeks (Sh ee t 4) .................................................................................. 4-8Figure 4-5: Propos ed DPAs for Twin Creeks (Sh ee t 5) .................................................................................. 4-9 Tables Table 3-1: Summary of Tra il Bay Meteoro log ica l an d Oceanographic Conditions ..................................... 3-5Table 3-2: Summary of Sc reen ing fo r Creek Flood Proces s es ..................................................................... 3-8Table 5-1: Coas ta l Flood Cons truc tion Level Comp onents bas ed on Au s enco Sandwell (2011). ............ 5-2

54

1-1


December 2014

724.026-300

1. In troduc tion

1.1 Background The OCP area of Twin Creeks is located on the Sunshine Coast, approximately 12 km northeast of Gibsons. The OCP area is bounded by the community of Langdale to the south, Howe Sound to the east and the Mt Steel Mountain Range to the North.

The Sunshine Coast is typical of many areas in south-coastal British Columbia, being subject to a number of geohazards conditioned by steep terrain and a maritime climate:

• Steep mountain slopes are sources of potential landslide activity that may affect lower slopes;

• Creeks may be subject to flooding and may serve as conduits for debris flow events;

• The sea presents a coastal erosion and littoral flood hazard;

• Tall coastal bluffs present an erosion and landslide hazard; and

• Earthquakes present a landslip and liquefaction hazard.

1.2 Projec t Scope The Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) has retained Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) to produce a Geotechnical Hazards Report for the Twin Creeks OCP area based on the RFP closed in August 2014.

The work scope was to assess and recommend revisions to the existing Development Permit Areas (DPAs) included in the Official Community Plan pertaining to the area of Twin Creeks. The study provides the SCRD with technical guidance on possible amendments to existing DPAs.

The project involves a number of key goals that include:

• Develop a consistent DPA framework based on natural hazards, and provide a rationale for development based on the current guidelines and regulations (e.g., Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines, Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for Residential Developments in BC, Professional Practice Guidelines – Legislated Flood Assessments in a Changing Climate in BC, BC Building Code, the Riparian Areas Regulation, and the SCRD Risk Assessment and Liability Policy); and

• Propose DPAs based on the assessment framework, utilizing a combination of GIS base mapping files, air photo interpretation, and prioritized field investigation.

1.3 Projec t Team The project team includes:

• Erica Ellis, M.Sc., P.Geo., KWL (Project Manager); • Mike Currie, M.Eng., P.Eng., KWL (Senior Technical Review); • Chad Davey, M.Sc., KWL (Fluvial Geomorphologist);

55

1-2


December 2014

724.026-300

• Scott Cowan, KWL (Junior Geoscientist),G.I.T., CTech, and • Pierre Friele, M.Sc., P.Geo., PG (WA), Cordilleran Geoscience (Senior Geoscientist).

56

2-1


December 2014

724.026-300

2. Data Sources

2.1 Background Reports A number of reports were reviewed in the course of this project, including:

• “Twin Creeks Official Community Plan Geotechnical Reconnaissance Study” (Thurber, 2001);

• Twin Creek Area Official Community Plan (SCRD, 2005);

• “Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Analysis for the Sunshine Coast Regional District” (EmergeX Planning, 2005);

• “Box Canyon Hydro Project: Terrain Hazards Assessment” (Knight Piesold, 2010); and

• Terrain Inventory maps for the Sunshine Coast.

Brief summaries of selected reports are provided below:

2.1.1 Thurber (2001) This report summarized a reconnaissance geotechnical hazard evaluation for the southern portion of the current Twin Creeks OCP area. The hazards that were identified focused on slope stability and watercourse hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion, debris flows/floods). The work touched upon several areas of concern, including: debris flow hazards along Bear, Cub and Ouillet Creeks, avulsion hazards along lower Bear, Twin and Ouillet Creeks, majority of upper slopes in the study area (slope stability), and undersized culverts along the Port Mellon Highway.

2.1.2 EmergeX Planning (2005) EmergX Planning conducted a general risk assessment for the entire SCRD. Geological hazards were reviewed and historic events (e.g. flooding, landslides, etc.) were discussed. The resultant risk matrix from EmergeX analyses shows that natural hazards within the SCRD are frequent, high severity events: a significant risk to people and infrastructure if left unmitigated.

2.2 Orthophotos Digital orthophotos (i.e. air photographs given a spatial position via orthorectification) from 2006, 2009 and 2014 were obtained from the SCRD and reviewed.

In general, the relatively small size of the creeks in combination with the forest canopy cover prevented detailed observations of the channels. Thus, the digital orthophotos were mainly used for:

• geographic reference; • confirmation of previously identified hazards; • noting land-use changes over time; • confirmation of steep terrain indicating a potential start zone for slope failures; and • assessment of creek confinement.

57

2-2


December 2014

724.026-300

2.3 GIS Analys is GIS data were obtained from the SCRD including:

• Topographic data: - 1 m contours (a small portion of the OCP area, near the ocean), and - TRIM digital elevation data (full coverage of OCP area).

• Creeks and rivers. • Administrative data:

- OCP Boundary (old and revised), - parcels, and - existing DPAs.

• Roads. • Orthophotos (2006, 2009 and 2014).

In addition, the Provincial 1:50,000 scale DEM data were downloaded to provide full coverage of the watersheds that are contained within, or cross, the Twin Creeks OCP area.

58

3-1


December 2014

724.026-300

3. Hazard Ana lys is

3.1 Background

3.1.1 Topography The Twin Creeks OCP area is generally concave in vertical profile, rising from sea-level (Howe Sound) to elevations of 1,500 m at the divide (Steel Mountains). Development is relatively sparse within the OCP area, with the limited development typically occurring on gently sloping terrain (less than 30% slopes). Steeper slopes generally occur in the following locations:

• associated with local rock outcrops; • along creek ravines; and • along the coastal bluffs.

3.1.2 Climate and Hydrology The study area lies within the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone (Meidinger and Pojar, 1991). This zone experiences relatively cool summers and mild winters, with an annual precipitation range from 1,000 mm to 4,400 mm. Less than 15% of annual precipitation occurs as snowfall.

Local creeks have two runoff peaks: a summer snowmelt freshet that typically occurs between May and July, and a fall peak. Although monthly discharges are largest during the freshet, both the annual maximum instantaneous and annual maximum daily flood peaks typically occur as a result of rain or rain-on-snow runoff events from September through March.

3.1.3 Quate rnary Geology The surficial deposits along the Sunshine Coast are the product of multiple episodes of glaciation and deglaciation. The modern landscape is dominated by the deposits of the most recent cycle of glaciation. The last, or Fraser, glaciation began 29,000 years ago and reached its peak 14,500 years ago. The region was ice free by 13,000 years ago.

Outwash sediments associated with the advancing ice front, known as the Quadra Sands, are found throughout the Strait of Georgia at elevations up to 100 m. After 19,000 years ago, the outwash was overridden by the advancing ice margin, depositing till, known as Vashon Drift (a complex of till, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine sediments). After 14,000 years ago, glaciofluvial, glaciomarine and marine sediments were deposited up to an elevation of 180 m, indicating a relative sea level much higher than that of present day. These sediments are known as Capilano Formation. Following deglaciation, fluvial and mass wasting processes rapidly reworked glacial sediments. Process rates declined over time such that by no later than 6,000 years ago the landscape was similar to today. Post-glacial sediments, formed in modern fluvial, beach and bog environments, are referred to as Salish sediments.

Thus a typical succession of Quaternary sediment in the study area would consist of Quadra Sand overlain by Vashon Drift overlain by Capilano sediments and locally by Salish sediments. Close to the mouths of major creeks and rivers, the Capilano sediments consist of large gravelly deltas, locally exploited for their aggregate potential. Away from these fluvial settings and below the former marine

59

3-2


December 2014

724.026-300

limit, there are blankets of stoney clay and more localized sand and gravel beach strands. Total thickness of overburden ranges from nothing to 100 m or more.

3.2 Hazard Overview As previously mentioned, the Sunshine Coast is subject to a number of geohazards resulting from steep terrain and a maritime climate. Hazards have been grouped into three main categories:

1. Coastal Zone Hazards; 2. Creek Hazards; and 3. Slope Hazards.

Hazards associated with the three zones are discussed below. The hazard screen maps are presented in Figure 3-3 through Figure 3-7 (Sheets 1 through 5).

3.3 Coas ta l Zone Hazards Coastal hazards include flooding from a combination of regular tidal processes (e.g., storm surge, waves, etc.), but also could occur from rare seismically-induced events, such as seiche1

Current observations and climate change science indicate that sea level rise is currently occurring and that the rate of sea level rise is expected to increase in the near future (e.g., 20 years). Sea level rise compounds regular and rare coastal hazards, where the magnitude of the hazards will increase over time.

and tsunami. In addition to flooding, coastal zone hazards include erosion and failure of coastal bluffs.

3.3.1 Coas ta l Zone Flooding Coastal flooding can arise from the combination of a number of elements, including:

• astronomic tide; • atmospheric (storm) surge; • wind and wave setup; • wave run-up; and • sea level rise.

Tsunamis pose an additional threat that is superimposed on tidal and possibly storm effects.

As tronomic Tide

Tidal fluctuations occur daily, and the magnitude of high tides vary throughout the month (e.g., week by week) and seasonally throughout the year. Highest tides are usually experienced in the winter months; however, the peak tide level will vary slightly from year to year. The tide level recommended for assessment of coastal zone flooding is the Higher High Water, Large Tide (HHWLT), the average of the highest high waters, one from each of 19 years of predictions.

Recently, the term “King Tide” has been adopted in the Pacific Northwest. King Tide is reportedly a popular term used to refer to an especially high tide, or the highest tides of the year. King Tide is not a

1 A standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water.

60

3-3


December 2014

724.026-300

scientific term, nor is it used in a scientific context. King Tides would occur when the moon and sun are aligned at extreme distances to the earth in both January and July, resulting in the largest tidal range seen over the course of a year. Alignments that result in relatively high tides occur during approximately three months each winter and again for three months in the summer. During these months, the high tides are higher than the average highest tides for three or four days. Use of the term ‘King Tide’ is reported to have originated in Australia, New Zealand and other Pacific nations and has been adapted for use in other parts of the world. King Tides would generally be lesser tide events than a HHWLT tide by definition.

In December 2012, a large tide/surge event was coined a “King Tide” for the region, that resulted in flooding in many parts of the Lower Mainland. This event also included a storm surge component, and strong wind generated to raise water levels further. The two images below illustrate flooding from the December 2012 event.

Coastal Flooding at Ambleside Park, West Vancouver (Image from Vancouver Sun)

Inundation at Kitsilano Pool, City of Vancouver

Atmos phe ric (Storm) Surge

Storm surge is caused by large prolonged low pressure storm systems. The low pressure system will locally raise water levels above normal tide levels. In the past two decades of observation, the maximum storm surge at Point Atkinson just exceeded 1 m, has reached values higher than 0.9 m several times, and is annually greater than 0.3 m. For the developed coastal areas of Howe Sound (Squamish), the suggested design annual exceedence probability (AEP) is 1 in 500 years (Table 6-1, Ausenco Sandwell, 2011a). The estimated 500-year return period storm surge is 1.3 m for the Strait of Georgia. It should be noted that a 200-year return period surge is only nominally less at 1.2 m.

Wind and Wave Se tup

The wind setup is a rise of the water surface above the water level on the open coast due to the local action of wind stress on the water surface. This process acts to raise the overall water surface and is not the same as the wave effect. Wave setup is a shorter duration and more locally raising of the water surface similar to wind setup, but not associated with individual waves. This is not a site specific (e.g.,

61

3-4


December 2014

724.026-300

shoreline specific) value, but rather a regional value based on the design wind speed and direction and could vary over the Sunshine Coast, but would not vary significantly from site to neighbouring site.

A wind setup analysis could be conducted by the Regional District based on a larger analysis; however, often these values are quite small for the wind experienced on the protected BC coast and can be lumped with wave processes.

Wave Runup

The wave runup is the vertical component of the total distance that the wave travels once meeting the shoreline. An appropriate setback (horizontal) should be applied to address wave runup on a site specific basis to avoid flooding and limit damage from spray.

Wave runup is a site specific value, and is driven by the design wind event, but is dependent on the orientation, shoreline slope and shoreline material. A general rule of thumb, is that the maximum sea state may be between 0.5 and 1.2 times the depth of water at the shoreline (e.g., seawall, dike, etc.), where sea state includes wind waves and swell (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011b). To minimize damage from waves and spray, structures should be set back from future HHWLT level, and considering climate change (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011c).

Wave runup is a site specific value, which depends on wind aspect, subtidal depth, and shoreline condition and slope. This value would best be assessed for each site under a DPA technical report.

Sea Level Ris e

Global sea level rise (SLR) allowances are suggested for the 2100 and 2200 year planning horizons (+1.0 m and +2.0 m, respectively). However, for structures with a short to medium-term design life, a reduced SLR allowance of +0.5 m is suggested (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011a). Typically, residential houses would represent a medium to long-term design life (50 to 100 years), given that renovations that do not alter the building foundation often prolong the life of a house. The regional adjustment is based on consideration of the local effect of vertical land movements (uplift or subsidence).

3.3.2 Coas ta l Flood Leve l and Sea Leve l Ris e The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations (MFLNRO) (Inspector of Dikes) has recently released three reports outlining guidelines for management of coastal flood hazard land use that incorporates consideration of sea level rise, sea dikes, and sea level rise policy (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011a,b,c). The reports outline coastal flood level components and incorporate allowances for flooding arising from tides, storms and associated waves, and sea level rise.

The report cites a potential sea level rise of about 1 m by the year 2100, and 2 m by the year 2200 (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011c). The rate at which sea level rises is also anticipated to increase over time, rather than remaining constant.

Ausenco Sandwell (2011) provides examples of preliminary flood levels for the year 2100 for selected locations around BC:

• For the Fraser River delta, the preliminary year 2100 flood level including freeboard is 6.2 m CGD2

• For Vancouver Harbour the preliminary year 2100 flood level including freeboard is 5.6 m CGD. .

2 Elevation referenced to Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum.

62

3-5


December 2014

724.026-300

Note that both of these levels have been developed assuming wave runup on a natural gravel-pebble beach shoreline, and both include a freeboard allowance of 1.0 m.

Additional, site-specific engineering work would be required to develop FCLs for the Sunshine Coast that incorporate sea level rise; such work is beyond the scope of the current project.

Example – Tra il Bay Seawall

A high-level coastal flood hazard assessment recently was conducted for Trail Bay in Sechelt for the purposes of planning a long-term approach for the sea wall and shoreline area.

The Strait of Georgia dominates conditions at Trail Bay with west to northwest winds or southeast winds and the resulting wave environment. Other controlling conditions are summarized in Table 2-2.

Table 3-1: Summary of Trail Bay Meteorological and Oceanographic Conditions

Typical winds along the Strait of Georgia are modified as they approach Trail Bay and turn toward the shoreline. This results in wave crests aligning themselves more or less perpendicular with the shoreline. At high tide the waves break about 10-15 m horizontal from the top of the existing rock wall and at low tide waves break further out onto the gravel beach. During winter storms, surges can bring waves onto the top of the seawall. The wave run-up effect can result in substantial overtopping of the wall.

In Trail Bay, the seawall at 4.0 to 4.5 m elevation is overtopped annually. Raising the seawall to about 5.5 m GCD would provide protection and lower annual restoration costs annually. A seawall height of 8.0 m was proposed in the study to limit damage under sea level rise for the year 2060.

Ts unami

Hamilton and Wigen (1987) suggested that slumping of the Fraser delta could induce a tsunami of perhaps several metres height in Georgia Strait. However, Clague et al (1994) concluded that within low lying coastal wetland settings around Georgia Strait there is no evidence of tsunami deposits; therefore, had they occurred, the wave(s) would have been less than about 1 m in height.

Description Winds SE, SW and W-NW gale and storm force winds 34-47 knots Wave Heights 3 m (annual), 5 m (100-year storm) Surge 0.7 m (annual) , 1.3 m (100-year storm) Storm severity Depends on chances of storm track, tide timing, surge and wind

63

3-6


December 2014

724.026-300

Summary

To delineate the potential area of impact for coastal flooding, a conservative elevation of 8 m CGD is proposed for this project.

Typical coastal water level values for the near term quickly reach 6.15 m CGD as follows:

• High Tide: 2.05 m CGD; • Storm Surge: 1.3 m CGD; • Global Sea Level Rise to 2100: 1.0 m; • Wave Effect Allowance: 1.2 m; • Freeboard Allowance: 0.6 m; • TOTAL: 6.15 m CGD.

Freeboard is applied to these values to allow for uncertainty that could be due to wave effects, etc., and further sea level rise allowances provide for a second metre for the year 2200. Accounting for the additional 1 m provides a planning elevation for assessment of 7.15 m CGD, rounded up to 8 m.

Basing the coastal flood hazard on the area encompassed by the 8 m CGD elevation is intended to identify any sites that should be assessed by a qualified professional to address flood hazards, but does not preclude development.

3.3.3 Oceanfront S lopes Coastal erosion and instability of coastal bluffs is a recognized issue globally. Erosion or failure of high soil slopes results in retreat of the top of bank, and possible risk to structures both at the top and/or toe of the failed slope. A rising sea level poses an increasing coastal erosion hazard, since the level at which storm-generated waves impact the shore will increase over time, exposing new portions of the slope to erosion.

For this project, oceanfront bluffs have been defined as steep slopes facing the ocean and subject to potential toe slope erosion at the high watermark, under present or future sea-level conditions. The location of oceanfront bluffs within the Twin Creeks OCP area was mapped using GIS. The crest of the oceanfront bluffs was defined by the slope break to steeper terrain, and was well defined by LIDAR survey. Slope height varies along the shoreline and can be as low as one to two metres.

In order to delineate a setback for slope hazards for oceanfront slopes, a future sea level reference level of 5 m was used to set an initial 15 m horizontal setback. From that point, a horizontal setback is applied equivalent to three times the total slope height (at that point) to determine the setback line. The 5 m reference level and 15 m setback is intended to address climate change and the effects of sea level rise. This is the general approach outlined in the provincial guidelines (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011).

3.4 Creek Hazards

3.4.1 Background Steep mountain creeks may be subject to a spectrum of events, ranging from clear water floods to debris flows. Creek events are typically categorized by sediment concentration, with clear water floods having the lowest concentrations of sediment, debris floods having an intermediate concentrations and debris flows having the highest concentration.

Debris floods and debris flows are very rapid flows of water and debris along a steep channel (Hungr et al., 2001). The sediment may be transported in the form of massive surges. Flow velocities for debris

64

3-7


December 2014

724.026-300

flows may be 5 m/s to 10 m/s. These events leave sheets of poorly sorted debris ranging from sand to large boulders and logs. The peak discharge (flow rate) of debris floods and flows is commonly two to five times higher than that of 200 year return period water floods (Jakob and Jordan, 2001).

These types of events would be expected to initiate in the upper watershed, along open slopes or within channels, and be conveyed along confined channels. As the channel gradient drops and/or the channel becomes less confined, sediment is deposited. Repeated deposition forms alluvial fans, but deposition may also occur at road crossings or other human modifications in the landscape, especially where transport capacity has been reduced by encroachment.

Potential for debris floods and debris flows is primarily dictated by the basin characteristics, including gradient, watershed size, channel length, and the underlying geology/lithology of the area. Smaller, steeper watersheds may be debris flow prone; whereas larger, gentler watersheds may only be vulnerable to flooding.

Poor land-use management can also contribute to debris flood and debris flow potential. A debris flow event occurred on Clough Creek in Roberts Creek in November 1983 (MOE, 1984). This event was attributed to logging practices in the upper watershed.

In most cases, the Twin Creek OCP area watercourses are confined within incised channels and ravines, and potential hazards are restricted to the immediate creek or river corridor. Areas with lower confinement usually are floodplain areas or small localized fans. In these areas, flood hazards can be more extensive and unpredictable channel relocation (avulsion) is possible due to debris blockages or sediment deposition. Avulsion events are also possible due to land-use management impacts or construction of undersized culvert crossings. Debris blockages at culvert crossings can result in overland flow paths that convey floodwaters along roads and into developed areas.

3.4.2 Defin ing the Dominant Creek Hazard GIS data were used to assess the creeks draining through the Twin Creek OCP area for debris flow or debris flood potential. It has been shown that the Melton Ratio3

The screening tool was applied in two ways:

can successfully discriminate between floods, debris floods and debris flow watersheds in BC (Millard et al., 2006). This is related to the physics of initiation, transport and deposition of these events (determined by the viscosity/rheology of the material).

1. For the entire watersheds, with the outlet at the ocean.

2. For the upper part of the watersheds, with outlets either at major tributary junctions or where the creeks cross the upper limit of existing development.

The results are displayed in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, and summarized in Table 3-2.

3 The Melton Ratio is defined as the ratio of total watershed relief to the square root of the drainage area.

65

3-8


December 2014

724.026-300

Table 3-2: Summary of Screening for Creek Flood Processes

Creek Name Process Category (Ocean Outlet)

Process Category (Tributary Junction or at Upper Limit of Existing Development)

Langdale Creek Debris flood Debris flood Hutchison Creek Debris flood Debris flow Ouillet Creek Debris flood Debris flow Twin Creek Debris flood Debris flow Bear Creek Debris flood Debris flow Dakota Creek Flood Flood McNair Creek Debris flood Debris flood Mohawk Creek Debris flow Debris flow Rainy River Flood Flood Unnamed Creek #3 Debris flow N/A1 Stolterfront Creek Debris flow N/A1 Bain Creek Debris flow N/A1 Unnamed Creek #4 Debris flow N/A1 Unnamed Creek #5 Debris flow N/A1 Harlequin Creek Debris flow Debris flow McNab Creek Flood Flood Unnamed Creek #6 Debris flow N/A1 Unnamed Creek #7 Debris flow N/A1 Potlatch Creek Debris flood Flood / Debris Flood Unnamed Creek #8 Debris flow Debris flow Notes: 1. Very little or no drainage area upstream of existing development according to mapping.

As indicated by the results of the morphometric screening, of the 20 creeks included in Table 3-2, 14 may experience debris flows.

It should be noted that the morphometric screening alone is insufficient basis to determine the likelihood of a debris flood or debris flow event or the frequency with which they may occur, but will dictate a basis for future detailed investigation.

3.4.3 Ravines Ravines are landforms associated with creeks that have become incised into thick deposits of surficial material. Typically there is an abrupt slope break from adjacent terrain onto a steep erosional slope. At the toe of slope there may or may not be a floodplain between the toe and the creek’s natural boundary.

Since ravines are inherently associated with creeks, they are included within the creek hazard group.

To be consistent with the Riparian Assessment Regulations (RAR), RAR definitions are followed:

• Ravine: a narrow, steep-sided valley that is commonly eroded by running water and has an average grade on either side greater than 3:1 measured between the high water mark of the watercourse contained in the valley and the top of the valley bank, being the point nearest the watercourse beyond which the average grade is less than 3:1 over a horizontal distance of at least 15 m measured perpendicularly to the watercourse; a narrow ravine is a ravine less than 60 m wide, and a wide ravine is a ravine with a width of 60 m or more.

66

3-9


December 2014

724.026-300

• Top of the Ravine Bank: the first significant break in a ravine slope where the break occurs such that the grade beyond the break is flatter than 3:1 for a minimum distance of 15 m measured perpendicularly from the break, and the break does not include a bench within the ravine that could be developed.

• Riparian Assessment Area:

- for a stream: the 30 m strip on both sides of the stream, measured from the high water mark;

- for a narrow ravine: a strip on both sides of the stream measured from the high water mark to a point that is 30 m beyond the top of the ravine bank; and

- for a wide ravine: a strip on both sides of the stream measured from the high water mark to a point that is 10 m beyond the top of the ravine bank.

Ravine crests were mapped in the GIS based on slope (by including areas of 30% or steeper terrain within the ravine), and also using slope breaks identified on the contour maps. Since creeks may or may not be incised in ravines, ravine crests are not necessarily continuous along creeks.

3.4.4 Floodpla ins , Fans and Channe l Confinement Flood hazards and channel avulsion occur in areas of low channel freeboard where the channel is not well confined by high ground on either side (i.e., floodplains and fan areas) LIDAR contour data (1 m contour interval) were reviewed to identify potential areas of low channel confinement, or fans, based on judgment.

3.4.5 Creek-Road Cros s ings The majority of the major crossings in the OCP are reported to be Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) assets, not Regional District structures.

Flooding and or avulsion may occur at road crossings (i.e., culverts and bridge openings) due to insufficient conveyance of creek flow, or blockage. An evaluation of the conveyance capacity of all creek crossings is beyond the scope of this project; rather, these locations are flagged for reference and to highlight the number of potential flood/avulsion sources that may exist within the OCP area given the drainage/road network density.

Avulsion at road crossings can often result in unexpected overland flooding, as roads and roadside ditches tend to convey floodwaters quickly and often directly to driveways and developments. An inventory of drainage infrastructure (e.g., size, material, age) could be developed to assist in master drainage planning and further revisions to DPA conditions.

The conveyance capacity of culverts and bridges should be designed for the process expected to occur within a selected design return period (i.e., water flood, debris flood or debris flow). The crossings are considered permanent. In forested settings a return period of 1/100 year would be recommended. However, in the residential setting, MOTI (2007) makes the following recommendations for return periods:

• culverts with a span of less than 3 m: design event return period between 1/50 and 1/100;

• culverts with a span equal to or greater than 3 m: design event return period between 1/100 and 1/200; and

• bridges: design event return period between 1/100 and 1/200.

67

3-10


December 2014

724.026-300

The variation in MOTI-recommended return periods depends on consideration of the road classification (e.g., low volume, local, collector, arterial or freeway). Bridges have a recommended design event return period of 1/200 for all roads except low volume roads (MOTI, 2007).

Where debris floods are a possibility (e.g. Table 3-2), extra allowance should be provided for sediment and debris.

Where debris flows are anticipated (e.g. Table 3-2), analysis of the debris flow recurrence interval should be conducted, and findings should inform the design, before it is finalized.

Design of road crossings for return periods less than 200 years may have an impact on legislated flood assessments (APEGBC 2012) for residential areas.

3.5 Slope Hazards

S lope Thematic Mapping DEM data were used to classify the terrain within the OCP based on slope steepness categories, after Howes and Kenk (1997). The LiDAR-based DEM was used where available, which yields 1 m by 1 m cells, and the 1:50,000 DEM was used for the remainder of the OCP (approximately 30 m by 30 m cells).

The following slope categories were used:

• 0 to 5%: plain; • 5 to 30%: gentle; • 30-50%: moderate; • 50-60%: moderately steep (1); • 60-70%: moderately steep (2); and • >70%: steep.

(Note that 45° is equivalent to 100%.)

The slope classification was used to aid delineation of potential open slope landslide initiation areas, as well as ravine sidewalls and oceanfront slopes. LIDAR allowed accurate definition of these slope areas and slope breaks. In the areas beyond LIDAR coverage, definition of slope breaks is less accurate.

Many jurisdictions define development permit areas based solely on arbitrarily selected slope classes without reference to a particular hazard affecting the site. The intent of such slope-defined development permit areas is typically to govern residential growth based on environmental and other planning considerations, rather than purely geotechnical considerations. Further, there is no geotechnical basis for using slope alone to define DPAs for hazards.

The APEGBC (2008) Legislated Guidelines for Landslide Risk Assessment and Residential Development provide guidance for conducting seismic slope hazard assessments. The APEGBC guidelines use a screening process based on a factor of safety calculation. Factor of safety considers slope, but includes other variables also. Depending on the site conditions, lands that are gently-sloped could be seismically vulnerable, while lands that are steep could be seismically stable. Given the considerations outlined above, KWL has not recommended DPAs based on slope categories alone, without additional consideration of hazard mechanism.

68

3-11


December 2014

724.026-300

3.5.1 Open S lope Fa ilures and As s oc ia ted Hazard Area Open slope landslides typically start in steep terrain and run to the base of slope. In forestry practice, slope is one of the primary determinants of potential landslide activity, and is used to map slope instability potential when planning forestry activities. Several terrain attribute studies have found that steep terrain (>70%) has a significantly higher potential to generate landslides than less steep terrain.

Extensive areas of moderately steep (50-70%) and steep (>70%) terrain are located within the Twin Creeks OCP area. These areas are identified as potential landslide initiation areas.

Areas at the base of steep terrain may be affected by potential open slope failures occurring on the terrain upslope. There are various empirical methods to estimate how far a hypothetical landslide might travel, in order to determine how large an area might be impacted in the runout. For this project, landslide travel angles (the angle from crest to toe) have been used.

Corominas (1996) provides a set of travel angle equations based on a large data set of landslides from a global sample. The landslide travel angle was found to be proportional to the landslide size, or volume. Herein, travel angles are applied to predict areas within the Twin Creeks OCP area potentially affected by open slope landslide hazard.

Typical landslide dimensions have been assumed (length of slope by 50 m width by 1 m thickness), with resulting volumes rounded up to provide a degree of conservativeness. The equation for unobstructed (or channelized) failures was applied to predict a landslide travel angle based on estimated landslide volume. This angle then was projected from the top of the steep slope area to the ground intersection point at the base of slope. The terrain between the crest and the toe is estimated to be the area of potential impact. The results of this method have been compared to the method proposed by Horel (2007) and found to be conservative.

3.5.2 Seis mically-In itia ted S lope Fa ilures The study area is vulnerable to seismicity from a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake as well as more frequently-occurring crustal earthquakes. The National Building Code (2005) and the BC Building Code (2006) require building design to conform to the 2% in 50 year return period event. This standard is also referenced by APEGBC (2008).

APEGBC (2008) states:

“earthquakes can destabilize slopes leading to landslides, can cause liquefaction leading to landslides and/or can cause slope displacements. Therefore, seismic slope stability analysis, or seismic slope displacement analysis (collectively referred to as seismic slope analysis) may be required as part of the landslide analysis.”

It must be emphasized that the seismic slope stability analysis applies to the design of foundations and engineered slopes.

The assessment of natural landslides potentially affecting a site considers the frequency and magnitude of historic and prehistoric landslides, as revealed through the historic record, peer-reviewed publications, anecdotal evidence and geologic fieldwork. The historical record extends back thousands of years and over many earthquake cycles, thereby implicitly including seismicity as a triggering agent.

Seismic slope analysis requires comparatively detailed knowledge of subsurface bedrock, soil and groundwater conditions. The required factor of safety calculation references many data sources, including:

• seismic hazard maps and reports;

69

3-12


December 2014

724.026-300

• ground motion data; • seismic Site Class; and • modal magnitude values of the design earthquake.

As previously discussed, seismic slope stability cannot be captured by a simple screening process, such as slope-based DPA.

A suitable hazard screen would consist of a seismic slope hazard map. A seismic slope hazard map has been created for Greater Victoria (McQuarrie and Bean, 2000), and is being developed by the National Research Council of Canada (NRCAN) for the District of North Vancouver.

In the interim until such a screening map is produced for the Twin Creeks OCP area, seismic slope assessments should be conducted as part of any other slope, ravine, or coastal slope detailed assessment, or as required under the BC Building Code based on soil type or Building Importance Factor. Seismic slope stability assessment should be conducted by a qualified professional, but could be addressed by local geotechnical expertise.

70

3-13


December 2014

724.026-300

Figure 3-1: Screen for Hydrogeomorphic Processes (Outlet at Ocean)

71

3-14


December 2014

724.026-300

Figure 3-2: Screen for Hydrogeomorphic Processes (Outlet at Tributary Junctions or at Upper Limit of Development)

72

3-15


December 2014

724.026-300

Figure 3-3: Twin Creeks Hazard Screen (Sheet 1)

73

3-16


December 2014

724.026-300


74

3-17


December 2014

724.026-300


75

3-18


December 2014

724.026-300


76

3-19


December 2014

724.026-300


77

4-1


December 2014

724.026-300

4. Propos ed DPA Framework

4.1 Overview The following sections outline the proposed development permit area (DPA) framework for hazardous areas in the Twin Creeks OCP area, based on the rationale outlined in the previous section. For the current OCP revision, a generalized, process-based approach to DPA delineation is proposed, with three main categories:

1. Coastal Zone Hazards: flooding and erosion / slope stability;

2. Creek Hazards: ravines, creek corridor flooding, debris flood/debris flow, floodplain areas, creek fans / avulsion risk, and flooding at road crossings; and

3. Slope Hazards: open slope failures, rockfall, and seismically induced failures.

Within each main process category, sub-categories are presented and discussed below. There may be spatial overlap between some DPA categories.

4.1.1 Uncerta in ty The goal of the DPA boundary delineation, as provided in this report, is to apply a uniform criterion to screen for potential hazards. The likelihood or magnitude of possible hazards is not explicitly estimated.

In determining the DPA boundaries for the hazard categories, it is recognized that there is inherent uncertainty in the spatial data upon which the DPA categories have been based, as well as uncertainty in the extent of influence of possible hazards. Therefore, for future project purposes, surveys and professional assessment(s) may be needed to confirm lot layout, natural features, and setback determination on a site specific basis (e.g., top of ravine vs. setbacks).

4.2 DPA 1: Ocean Hazards Ocean hazards include flooding of lower-lying terrain, and erosion and instability of oceanfront slopes. Slope stability issues on oceanfront slopes may arise as a result of coastal erosion (e.g., undermining of the toe), poor or mismanaged drainage, gradual weakening, or seismic shaking.

A rising sea-level has been considered in the development of the Ocean Hazards DPA 1A, but the impact of sea-level rise on ocean slope erosion and stability is difficult to anticipate. Consideration should be given to a regional study to define future coastal flood construction levels incorporating sea level rise.

4.2.1 DPA 1A: Coas ta l Flooding The DPA extends from the coastal DPA boundary to 8 m CGD4

Within the DPA, it is envisioned that the SCRD may require that development applications include a coastal flood hazard assessment to define the coastal flood components by a qualified professional, or that development be sited above 8 m CGD.

.

4 Elevation referenced to Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum.

78

4-2


December 2014

724.026-300

4.2.2 DPA 1B: Coas ta l Slopes Recent provincial guidelines address the need to provide setbacks under conditions of a rising sea level (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011b). For lots with coastal bluffs, the following guidance is provided:

“For lots containing coastal bluffs that are steeper than 3(H):1(V) and susceptible to erosion from the sea, setbacks shall be determined as follows:

1. If the future estimated Natural Boundary is located at least 15 m seaward of the toe of the bluff, then no action is required and the setback shall conform with guidelines suitable to terrestrial cliff hazards.

2. If the future estimated Natural Boundary is located 15 m or less seaward of the toe of the bluff, then the setback from the future estimated Natural Boundary will be located at a horizontal distance of at least 3 times the height of the bluff, measured from 15 m landwards from the location of the future estimated Natural Boundary.

In some conditions, setbacks may require site-specific interpretation and could result in the use of a minimum distance measured back from the crest of the bluff. The setback may be modified provided the modification is supported by a report, giving consideration to the coastal erosion that may occur over the life of the project, prepared by a suitably qualified professional.”

DPA 1B has been defined to be consistent with these guidelines, for locations where a steep ocean bluff was mapped (i.e., situation (2), above). As per the guidance cited above, the landward-side boundary of the coastal slopes DPA is defined by a combination of a 15 m horizontal buffer from the existing 5 m contour (a rough proxy for the future natural boundary), and a further horizontal offset of three times the slope height. The ocean-side boundary of the DPA is at the 5 m contour line, based on the level at which the slope setback analysis was developed. Short gaps in the resulting DPA have been linearly interpolated.

Many parts of Twin Creeks OCP area include a large coastal slope DPA. This is due to the steep existing slope geometry and distance required for the 3(H):1(V) to daylight to the bench above. Any development in these areas will likely be technically challenging and engineering investigations of these areas should be carefully considered.

It is envisioned that within the DPA the SCRD may require landslide risk assessment to determine building setbacks and foundation design.

4.3 DPA 2: Creek Hazards Creek hazards include: flooding, debris floods, debris flow and slope instability associated with ravine sidewalls. The DPA mapping follows the Riparian Assessment Regulation (RAR).

Although it is beyond the scope of the current project, it should be noted that flooding at road culvert crossings could occur for a number of reasons, including: debris blockage, culvert failure, or undersized culvert. Depending on how well confined the creek is at the crossing, floodwaters may escape the creek corridor. All culvert or bridge crossing on private property should meet general MOTI criteria outlined in Section 3.4.

Creek-road crossings have been identified on the DPA mapping included in this report. It is envisioned that the SCRD might implement a requirement to review those crossings for Development Permit Applications in close proximity (e.g., 300 m) to creek-road crossings, and that this might be implemented as a Development Approval Information Area - General Condition in the OCP.

79

4-3


December 2014

724.026-300

4.3.1 DPA 2A: Creek/River Corridor DPA 2A has been delineated using a buffer width of 30 m on all streamlines included in the SCRD GIS mapping. On the ground, DPA 2A should be interpreted as extending 30 m from streamside natural boundary, consistent with the Riparian Areas Regulation definitions.

It should be noted that although a 30 m buffer is consistent with RAR, there remains the possibility that further-removed low-lying areas may experience flooding due to localized factors that are difficult to predict (e.g. creek blockages).

Within DPA 2A the SCRD may require riparian, flood, debris flood and debris flow hazard assessments (as appropriate).

4.3.2 DPA 2B: Ravines Ravine areas have been defined using the crest lines mapped in the GIS.

A 30 m setback from ravine crests defines the area that falls within DPA 2B. A 15 m setback line is also indicated.

Based on consideration of stable angles of repose and the typical terrain seen in the Twin Creeks OCP area, the following approach is proposed:

• A minimum

•

15 m setback from ravine crest is suggested for all development.

For ravines that are deeper than 15 m

As mapped, DPA 2B captures all properties within the 30 m setback. However, it is anticipated that property owners, with the help of the SCRD mapping, should be able to establish very quickly what the height of the ravine is adjacent to the property in question (by counting contours measured perpendicularly between the bottom of the ravine and the crest), and thereby determine which setback category is applicable to their property.

, it is suggested that the setback from ravine crest be 30 m, and that an engineering report from an appropriately qualified professional be required to reduce the setback.

Within DPA 2B, it is envisioned that the SCRD would require a landslide assessment for ravine sidewalls.

4.3.3 DPA 2C: Floodpla in Floodplain areas are distinguished from the creek/river corridor based on their spatial extent: the creek/river corridor flood hazard applies to relatively well-confined creeks while DPA 2C applies where there is a large area of low-lying land susceptible to flooding located adjacent to watercourses (not captured in DPA 2A).

4.3.4 DPA 2D: Low Channel Confinement DPA 2D delineates alluvial fans or areas of low channel confinement. Alluvial fans, or areas of low channel confinement, may exist at several locations on a single creek, although typically at the mouth. These areas are either current or former deposition zones that provide opportunities for channel avulsions to occur.

The available orthophotos and contour mapping have been used to identify potential areas of low channel confinement for DPA 2D.

80

4-4


December 2014

724.026-300

Within DPA 2D, it is envisioned that the SCRD might require flood and erosion, and channel avulsion hazard assessment. Creek-road crossings should be considered as part of hazard assessment work.

4.4 DPA 3: S lope Hazards Three sub-categories of slope hazards are identified that are applicable to the Twin Creeks OCP area:

• open slope failures,

• rockfall hazards, and

• seisimic-initated slope hazards.

Open slope failures and rockfall hazard sub-categories are included in a single DPA. It is important to note that this DPA encompasses areas in the OCP where slope hazards have the highest probability to occur. However, slope hazards may occur in other areas not identified here due to changes in land use, land disturbance or extreme precipitation events.

4.4.1 Open S lope Fa ilures Potential for open slope failures in the Twin Creeks OCP have been identified. Slope crest lines, where initiation of a landslide may occur, and potential landslide impact areas were estimated for slopes of 10 m in height or greater. Impact areas were estimated based on the landslide travel angle (see Section 3.5 for details).

Within DPA 3, it is envisioned that the SCRD may require landslide risk assessments.

4.4.2 Rockfa ll Within the Twin Creeks OCP area there are no extensive, tall rock bluff areas that present a significant rockfall hazard. However, there are small, isolated steep areas that consist of low rock hummocks projecting from surficial material cover. These areas pose a low hazard and have not been mapped.

Areas of potential rockfall have been identified by slope scarp topography and aerial photo analysis. Areas of potential rockfall hazard coincide with the open slope failure areas delineated for DPA 3.

4.4.3 Seis mic -In itia ted S lope Hazards Under the current guidelines for assessment of slope hazards developed by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists BC (2008), seismic-initiated slope hazards need to be considered.

No map-based screening tool is currently available to identify seismic slope hazard areas and therefore there is no basis for the development of a DPA for this specific hazard as part of this project.

It is envisioned that the SCRD might implement a “Development Approval Information Area - General Condition” in the Twin Creek OCP to address this hazard.

4.5 Propos ed Revis ed DPAs for Twin Creeks OCP Area Proposed revised DPA zones for the Twin Creeks OCP area are presented in Figure 4-1 through to Figure 4-5 (Sheets 1 to 5).

81

4-5


December 2014

724.026-300

Figure 4-1: Proposed DPAs for Twin Creeks (Sheet 1)

82

4-6


December 2014

724.026-300


83

4-7


December 2014

724.026-300


84

4-8


December 2014

724.026-300


85

4-9


December 2014

724.026-300


86

5-1


December 2014

724.026-300

5. Sugges ted Guide lines for De ve lopment The following section provides suggested guidelines for development that may occur within the identified Twin Creeks DPAs.

The guidelines are intended to provide the SCRD with technical advice on hazard management, and they have been developed based on consideration of SCRD’s existing OCP policies and guidance, as well as professional judgement of the identified hazards and what would constitute appropriate hazard assessments.

All professional assessments pertaining to Development Permit Areas should be consistent with applicable regulations and professional guidelines.

5.1 DPA 1: Ocean Hazards The SCRD may require a Development Permit on lands identified as being within DPA 1 for the following activities:

• Subdivision as defined in the Land Title Act and Strata Property Act;

• Building Permit; and

• Land alteration, which includes, but is not limited to the removal and deposition of soils and aggregates, paving, removal of trees and the installation of septic fields.

As indicated below, different, specific hazards have been identified within the general category of “ocean hazards”. It is suggested that applications for subdivision, Building Permit or land alteration within DPA 1 would include a report from an appropriately qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist that considers all relevant potential ocean hazards.

5.1.1 DPA 1A – Coas ta l Flooding Guide lines Guidelines to address coastal flood hazard and sea level rise recently released by the MFLNRO (Ausenco Sandwell, 2011b) define the coastal flood construction level (FCL) as the sum of a number of components (Table 5-1).

It is anticipated that a coastal flood hazard assessment triggered for DPA 1 will estimate the coastal FCL.

A regional study may be appropriate for the Sunshine Coast to better define tide, local sea level rise and storm surge. However, wave effects are site-specific (varying as the shoreline geometry and composition varies), and likely will require local engineering assessment.

87

5-2


December 2014

724.026-300

Table 5-1: Coastal Flood Construction Level Components based on Ausenco Sandwell (2011). Component Note Allowance

Tide Higher High Water Large Tide. 2.05 m (CGD)

Sea Level Rise

Recommended allowance for Global Sea Level Rise: • 1 m for year 2100, 2 m for year 2200. Should be adjusted for regional ground movement (uplift or subsidence).

2.0 m

Storm Surge Estimated storm surge associated with design storm event. 1.3 m (CGD)

Wave Effects 50% of estimated wave run-up for assumed design storm event. Wave effect varies based on shoreline geometry and composition.

To be determined locally

Freeboard Nominal allowance 0.6 m Flood Construction Level = Sum of all components.

5.1.2 DPA 1B – Coas ta l Slopes Guidelines Within DPA 1B, the SCRD may require a report from an appropriately qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist. If applicable, it is envisioned that the report might include the following:

• Surveyed slope profiles with documentation of the limits of slope instability. Consideration should be given to the limits and types of instability and changes in stability that may be induced by forest clearing. The down-slope impact of forest clearing and land development also should be considered. As well, slope stability assessments should consider potential coastal erosion under conditions of future sea level rise.

• A detailed stability assessment indicating foreseeable slope failure modes and limiting factors of safety, and stability during seismic events.

• An assessment of shallow groundwater conditions and the anticipated effects of septic systems, footing drains, etc. on local slope stability;

• A recommendation of required setbacks based on slope height, erosion susceptibility, and stability from the crest of steep slopes, and a demonstration of suitability for the proposed use.

• A field definition of the setback from the top of a steep slope.

• If required, definition of the site-specific rock fall shadow area, including an indication of the appropriate buffer zone and required protective works.

• Appropriate land use recommendations such as restrictions on tree cutting, surface drainage, filling and excavation.

• If upland areas on the property are below 8 m (CGD), a coastal flood hazard assessment is required, that would include: estimation of coastal flood levels, consideration of future sea level rise and wave run-up effects as outlined in the Provincial Guidelines.

• Areas subject to coastal flooding shall require the definition of a flood construction level (FCL) that addresses the foreseeable coastal flood levels for the life of the development, and shall outline all protective measures required to achieve the FCL (e.g., engineered fill or foundations, coastal bank protection, etc.).

88

5-3


December 2014

724.026-300

5.2 DPA 2: Creek/River Hazards The SCRD may require a Development Permit on lands identified as being within DPA 2 for the following activities:

• Subdivision as defined in the Land Title Act and Strata Property Act;

• Building Permit; and

• Land alteration, which includes, but is not limited to the removal and deposition of soils and aggregates, paving, removal of trees and the installation of septic fields.

5.2.1 DPA 2A/C/D – Creek Corridor / Floodpla in / Low Channe l Confinement Guide lines Within DPA 2A/C/D, the SCRD may require a report from an appropriately qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist. If applicable, it is envisioned that the assessment by the qualified professional might include the following:

• A review of the property and analysis of the land located within the Development Permit Area as well as an analysis of the proposed developments including, but not limited to, building footprint, septic field and land alteration, including tree removal.

• Assessment of flooding and associated creek processes and hydrologic investigation at the time of subdivision or Building Permit or land alteration application. The assessment and investigation should include survey of the natural boundary of the creek, and degree of confinement (e.g., typical cross-sections) and should consider upstream channels and floodways, debris dams, culverts, sources of debris (channels and eroded banks) and related hydrologic features.

• Analysis should include an estimate of the 200-year return period peak flow and corresponding flood elevation. In addition, consideration shall be given to potential for overbank flooding due to blockages in the creek, such as at upstream road crossings, or areas where debris accumulates.

5.2.2 DPA 2A/D – Creek Corridor / Low Channel Confinement Guide lines Within DPA 2A/D, the SCRD may require a report from an appropriately qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist to address potential debris flow and debris flood creek hazard. If applicable, it is envisioned that the assessment by the qualified professional might include the following:

• An analysis of the creek system upland from the subject property may be required if there is foreseeable risk to development to identify flooding and/or debris flood/debris flow potential, including the potential effects on downstream properties.

• Debris flow and flood hazards may require considerations of channel and slope characteristics upstream from the subject property. Associated data may include stream and ravine bank profiles, bank stability assessment, and run out limits of debris within the creeks.

a) Comprehensive developments (i.e., multi-lot subdivisions) near debris flow or debris flood creeks should require a detailed watershed level investigation of watercourse hazards including determination of frequency and magnitude of debris flow or debris flood potential, and development of a risk mitigation approach for the development that does not result in a transfer of risk.

89

5-4


December 2014

724.026-300

b) Single-lot developments may not require a detailed watershed assessment; however, an appropriately qualified professional shall conduct an assessment to state that the site is safe for the use intended and identify any conditions are required to ensure the site will be safe, based on professional guidelines and practice (APEGBC, 2012).

5.2.3 DPA 2B – Ravines Guide lines Within DPA 2B, the SCRD may require a report from an appropriately qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist. If applicable, it is envisioned that the assessment by the qualified professional might include the following:

• A recommendation of required setbacks from the crests and/or toes of ravine or other steep slopes, and a demonstration of suitability for the proposed use.

• A field definition of the required setback from the top of a ravine or other steep slope.

• The report should indicate the required setback to top of bank and recommendations pertaining to construction design requirements for the above development activities, on-site storm water drainage management and other appropriate land use recommendations.

• For proposed development within ravine slope setbacks, it is envisioned that reporting requirements would be consistent with DPA 3 (Slope Hazards).

5.3 DPA 3: S lope Hazards The SCRD may require a Development Permit on lands identified as being within DPA 3 for the following activities:

• Subdivision as defined in the Land Title Act and Strata Property Act; • Building Permit; and • Land alteration, which includes, but is not limited to the removal and deposition of soils and

aggregates, paving, removal of trees and the installation of septic fields.

DPA 3 includes both open slope failures and rockfall hazard. If required by the SCRD, it is envisioned that applications for subdivision, Building Permit or land alteration would include a report from an appropriately qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist that considers all relevant potential steep slope and rockfall hazards.

If applicable, the report may include the following:

• Slope profiles with documentation of the limits of slope instability shall be provided. Consideration should be given to the limits and types of instability and changes in stability that may be induced by forest clearing. The down-slope impact of forest clearing and land development also should be considered.

• A detailed stability assessment indicating foreseeable slope failure modes and limiting factors of safety, and stability during seismic events.

• An assessment of shallow groundwater conditions and the anticipated effects of septic systems, footing drains, etc., on local slope stability.

90

5-5


December 2014

724.026-300

• A recommendation of required setbacks from the crests and/or toes of steep slopes, and a demonstration of suitability for the proposed use.

• A field definition of the required setback from the top of steep slope.

• Appropriate land-use recommendations such as restrictions on tree cutting, surface drainage, filling and excavation.

• If required, definition of the site-specific rockfall ‘shadow’ area, including an indication of the appropriate buffer zone and required protective works.

5.4 Pos s ib le Exemptions The SCRD may choose to grant general exemptions in the following circumstances:

• For “Low Importance” structures, as defined in the BC Building Code: Buildings that represent a low direct or indirect hazard to human life in the event of failure, including: low human-occupancy buildings, where it can be shown that collapse is not likely to cause injury or other serious consequences, or minor storage buildings.

• Where the proposed construction involves a structural change, addition or renovation to existing conforming or lawfully non-conforming buildings or structures, provided that the footprint of the building or structure is not expanded, and provided that it does not involve any alteration of land.

• The planting of native trees, shrubs, or groundcovers for the purpose of enhancing the habitat values and/or soil stability within the development permit area.

• A subdivision where an existing registered covenant or proposed covenant with reference plan based on a qualified professional’s review, relating to the protection of the environment or hazardous conditions outlined in the subject development permit area, is registered on title or its registration secured by a solicitor’s undertaking.

• Immediate threats to life and property provided they are undertaken in accordance with the provincial Water Act and Wildlife Act and the Federal Fisheries Act, and are reported to the Regional District.

• Emergency procedures to prevent, control or reduce erosion, or other immediate threats to life and property provided they are undertaken in accordance with the provincial Water Act and Wildlife Act and the Federal Fisheries Act, and are reported to the Regional District.

• The removal of two trees over 20 centimetre diameter breast height or ten square metres of vegetated area of per calendar year per lot, provided there is replanting of four trees or re-vegetation of the same amount of clearing.

91

5-6


December 2014

724.026-300

5.5 Report Submis s ion Prepared by:

KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD.

Chad Davey, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Fluvial Geomorphologist

Erica Ellis, M.Sc., P.Geo. Project Manager

Reviewed by:

Mike V. Currie, M.Eng., P.Eng. Senior Technical Review

92


December 2014

724.026-300

Sta tement of Limita tions This document has been prepared by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) for the exclusive use and benefit of Sunshine Coast Regional District for the Geotechnical Hazards Report: Twin Creeks. No other party is entitled to rely on any of the conclusions, data, opinions, or any other information contained in this document.

This document represents KWL’s best professional judgement based on the information available at the time of its completion and as appropriate for the project scope of work. Services performed in developing the content of this document have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering profession currently practising under similar conditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made.

Copyright No tice These materials (text, tables, figures and drawings included herein) are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). Sunshine Coast Regional District is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating the Geotechnical Hazards Report: Twin Creeks. Any other use of these materials without the written permission of KWL is prohibited.

Revis ion His tory

Revision # Date Status Revision Author

B December 15, 2014 Draft For client review. CD/EE

A December 1, 2014 Original For internal review. CD/EE

93


December 2014

724.026-300

References

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC (APEGBC). 2012. Professional Practice Guidelines – Legislated Flood Assessments in a Changing Climate in BC. 40 pp + appendices

Ausenco Sandwell. 2011a. Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Use – Sea Dikes Guidelines. Report prepared for Ministry of the Environment. 19 pp + appendices

Ausenco Sandwell. 2011b. Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Use – Guidelines for Management of Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use. Report prepared for Ministry of the Environment. 23 pp + appendices

Ausenco Sandwell. 2011c. Climate Change Adaption Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Use – Draft Policy Discussion Paper. Report prepared for Ministry of the Environment. 45 pp + appendices

Corominas, J. 1996. The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and large landslides. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33: 260-271.

Howes, D. E. and Kenk, E. (1997). Terrain Classification for British Columbia Version 2.0 Fisheries Branch. Report prepared by Fisheries Branch Ministry of Environment, and Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch Ministry of Crown Lands. 81 pp. + appendices.

Meidinger, D. and Pojar, J. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Report prepared by the BC Ministry of Forests. 330 pp. + appendices.

Millard, T.H., D.J. Wilford and M.E. Oden. 2006. Coastal fan destabilization and forest management. Res. Sec., Coast For. Reg., BC Min. For., Nanaimo, BC. Technical Report TR-034/2006.

94

Project No. Date

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

D A K O T A C R E E K

L A N G D A L E C R E E K

H U T C H I S O N C R E E K

O U I L L E T C R E E K

T W I N C R E E K S

B E A RC R E E K

Port

Mello

n Hwy

North Rd

Twin

Cree

ks R

d

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Marin

e Dr

Witherby Rd

Poin

t RdCr

ow R

d

Fore

st Se

rvice

Rd

Stew

art R

d

Witherby Beach Rd

Largo Rd

Firbu

rn R

d

Parker Rd

Burns Rd

Gilm

our R

d

Oran

ge R

d

Williamsons Landing Rd

Lehman Rd

North Dako

ta Fsr

Keith

Rd

Bridgeman Rd

Hillside Industrial Park

Malco

lm C

reek

Rd

Lemon R

d (FSR)

Sunshine Coast Hwy

Sunshine Coast HwyHi

llside

Indu

strial

Par

k

724-026

Sunshine Coast Regional DistrictGeotechnical Hazards Report:

Twin Creeks OCP Area

Legend

Path

: O:\0

700-

0799

\724

-026

\430

-GIS

\MX

D-R

P\D

raft\

7240

26_T

win

Crk

s_P

ropo

sedD

PA.m

xd D

ate

Sav

ed: 1

5/12

/201

4 12

:28:

38 P

MAu

thor

: SC

owan

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). SCRD ispermitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to third parties only as required to conductbusiness specifically relating to the Geotechnical Hazards Report: Egmont/Pender Harbour and Twin Creeks.Any other use of these materials without the written permission of KWL is prohibited.

December 2014

© 2014 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Figure 4-1

1:40,000

Reference: Orthophoto sources inlcude ESRI Bing aerial image mapping(inset map) and 2014 imagery supplied by the Sunshine Coast RegionalDistrict.

Proposed DPAs forTwin Creeks OCP Area

(Sheet 1)

#* Creek-Road Crossings

Creeks / Rivers

Parcels

OCP Boundary - Twin Creeks

DPA Zone 1A: Coastal Flooding

DPA Zone 1B: Coastal Slopes

DPA Zone2A: Creek/River Corridor

DPA Zone 2B: Ravines

Ravines: 15 m crest setback line

DPA Zone 2C: Floodplain

DPA Zone 2D: Low Channel Confinement

DPA Zone 3: Slope Hazards

1,000 0 1,000500 Meters

Figure 4-2

Figure 4-1

Figure 4-3

Figure 4-4

Figure 4-5

95

Project No. Date

#*

#*

Mc N A I R

C R E E K

RAI NY

R I V E R

D A K O T A C R E E K

M O H A W K C R E E K

UN

NAM

E DC R K

# 3S T O L T E R F R O

NT

C RE

EKB A I N

C R E E K

U N NA ME D

C R K# 4

U N N AME D

C R K# 5

Port

Mello

n Hwy

North Dakota Fsr

Hillside Industrial Park

Port

Mello

n Hwy Hills

ide In

dustr

ial P

ark

724-026



Legend

Path

: O:\0

700-

0799

\724

-026

\430

-GIS

\MX

D-R

P\D

raft\

7240

26_T

win

Crk

s_P

ropo

sedD

PA.m

xd D

ate

Sav

ed: 1

5/12

/201

4 12

:28:

38 P

MAu

thor

: SC

owan


December 2014


Figure 4-2

1:40,000



(Sheet 2)


Creeks / Rivers

Parcels










1,000 0 1,000500 Meters

Figure 4-2

Figure 4-1

Figure 4-3

Figure 4-4

Figure 4-5

96

Project No. Date

R AI N

YR I

V ER

724-026



Legend

Path

: O:\0

700-

0799

\724

-026

\430

-GIS

\MX

D-R

P\D

raft\

7240

26_T

win

Crk

s_P

ropo

sedD

PA.m

xd D

ate

Sav

ed: 1

5/12

/201

4 12

:28:

38 P

MAu

thor

: SC

owan


December 2014


Figure 4-3

1:40,000



(Sheet 3)


Creeks / Rivers

Parcels










1,000 0 1,000500 Meters

Figure 4-2

Figure 4-1

Figure 4-3

Figure 4-4

Figure 4-5

97

Project No. Date

Mc N AB

C R E E K

P O T LA C HC R E E K

S T O L T E R FR ON

TC R

EE K

B A I NC R EE K

U N N AME D

C R K# 4

U N N AMED

C R K# 5

U N N AME D

C R K # 6

U N N A M E DC R K

# 7

UN

NAM

E DC R

K# 8

H A R L E Q U I N C R E E K

Mc NAB

C R E E K

724-026



Legend

Path

: O:\0

700-

0799

\724

-026

\430

-GIS

\MX

D-R

P\D

raft\

7240

26_T

win

Crk

s_P

ropo

sedD

PA.m

xd D

ate

Sav

ed: 1

5/12

/201

4 12

:28:

38 P

MAu

thor

: SC

owan


December 2014


Figure 4-4

1:40,000



(Sheet 4)


Creeks / Rivers

Parcels










1,000 0 1,000500 Meters

Figure 4-2

Figure 4-1

Figure 4-3

Figure 4-4

Figure 4-5

98

Project No. Date

Mc N AB

C R E E K

P O T LA C HC R E E K

UN N

A ME D

C RK

# 8

Mc N AB

C R E E K

724-026



Legend

Path

: O:\0

700-

0799

\724

-026

\430

-GIS

\MX

D-R

P\D

raft\

7240

26_T

win

Crk

s_P

ropo

sedD

PA.m

xd D

ate

Sav

ed: 1

5/12

/201

4 12

:28:

38 P

MAu

thor

: SC

owan


December 2014


Figure 4-5

1:40,000



(Sheet 5)


Creeks / Rivers

Parcels










1,000 0 1,000500 Meters

Figure 4-2

Figure 4-1

Figure 4-3

Figure 4-4

Figure 4-5

99

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: December 4, 2014

TO: Planning and Development Committee – December 18, 2014

FROM: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development

RE: Planning and Development Department Work Plan 2015

RECOMMENDATION THAT the General Manager, Planning and Development report regarding the Planning and Development Department Work Plan for 2015 be received. BACKGROUND At the Planning and Development Committee meeting of December 18, 2014, the committee made the following recommendation:

The Planning and Development Committee recommended that the General Manager, Planning and Development report dated December 4, 2014 and titled “Planning and Development Department Work Plan for 2015” be received;

AND THAT the Work Plan be amended as follows:

a. to revise the Rural Planning, Work Plan Projects to clarify the specific amendments to be included in the Roberts Creek OCP amendment; and

b. to include under Building Inspection, Other Board Directed Work Items, the following:

5. Prepare a report regarding increasing penalties to a level sufficient to discourage the practice of those who “build now and ask for forgiveness later”;

The attached work plan has been revised (amendments underlined) to incorporate the above recommendation.

ANNEX C

100

Planning & Development Department 2015 Work Plan Page 2 of 10

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Agendas\PDC - Current\2014-12-22 2015 PDC report (revised) re Planning & Development Work Plan.docx

ATTACHMENT A Planning & Development Department Work Plan 2015 Regional Planning [Function 500] Strategic Plan Initiatives

1. To finalize the shíshálh engagement protocol agreement. 2. To initiate a memorandum of understanding on Crown land/rural community

interface issues on the coast (mining, forestry, fishing, drainage, fire concerns, etc.)

3. To agree on the short term priorities from the Regional Integrated Transportation Study and develop an effective lobbying approach to achieve their implementation.

4. To adopt a joint set of sustainable land use principles to guide future development decisions on the Coast

5. To support the increase of locally grown and produced food on the Coast [through implementation of the Agricultural Area Plan].

6. Fringe Area Agreement(s) - Establish a policy framework to identify potential issues with interjurisdictional ramifications - designed to facilitate the resolution of issues both within and outside municipal boundaries, as well as other issues which have not yet been identified, through consultation and collaboration.

Initiatives Completed

7. Agriculture Area Plan

Work Plan Projects

8. Control and Eradication of Invasive Plant Species - Work with community groups to facilitate the formation of a Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Committee. Develop MOU with Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding invasive plants.

9. BURNCO Environmental Assessment (EA) - Participate in the EA working group to (a) advise the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) about issues related to the proposed project’s assessment from a regional and local community perspective and (b) help to assess the adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures.

10. Eagle Mountain-Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment (EA) - This EA is in conjunction with the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility at Woodfibre, Squamish. SCRD participation in the EA working group will be to (a) advise the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) about issues related to the proposed project’s assessment within the SCRD boundary (Hillside); (b) to provide input to the process from a regional and local community perspective and (c) help to assess the adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures.

101



11. Cumulative Effects Framework/ Management Plan for Howe Sound - Participate in the development of a comprehensive management plan for Howe Sound that facilitates a coordinated land and marine use planning process between First Nations, senior and local governments, and other local bodies to ensure ongoing recovery and responsible land use planning within Howe Sound.

12. Local Area Plan for Mt. Elphinstone - Seek alternative funding sources and options, including consideration of First Nations possible funding options. Participate in a Crown-Land planning process to address land use conflicts involving resource uses (forestry, gravel extraction, mushroom harvesting, commercial / industrial water licences), recreation (parks and trails), domestic water licences and First Nations cultural uses.

13. Habitat Conservation Strategy - Identify sources of information (e.g. Ruby Lake Lagoon Society, provincial mapping, etc.) and undertake a scoping exercise in consideration of a region-wide strategy for habitat conservation, with a particular focus on under-recognized habitats.

14. Sechelt Inlet Coastal Strategy Update - Discussions with stakeholders to determine interest and commitment to the project, collection of background information, identification of information gaps and development of a Terms of Reference. Review and update coastal management strategy for Sechelt Inlet.

Other Board Directed Work Items

15. Provide a report regarding a work plan for establishing an Agricultural Area Plan Steering Committee

16. Develop a Protocol Agreement with the Private Managed Forest Land Council for lands in the Regional District.

Collaborative Processes

17. Support the Housing Committee in completing the development of a coast wide affordable housing strategy

18. Support the development of a food sustainability strategy 19. Develop a work plan for an SCRD staff person to be assigned as a liaison to the

Southwest BC Bio-Regional Food System Design Project

102



Rural Planning [Function 504] Strategic Plan Initiatives

1. To produce a an initial draft of the revised Egmont/Pender OCP 2. To complete the review of the Twin Creeks OCP and to include the West Howe

Sound area north of Port Mellon in an OCP 3. To examine the barriers and opportunities to support innovative construction

approaches to housing and to facilitate change where appropriate/achievable.

Initiatives Completed 4. Halfmoon Bay OCP review 5. Comprehensive review of the Egmont/Pender OCP initiated 6. Review of the Twin Creeks OCP, including the area of West Howe Sound north of

Port Mellon, initiated 7. Protocol with MoTI regarding subdivision drainage in place.

Work Plan Projects

8. Amend the Roberts Creek OCP as follows: a. Revise the Development Permit Area to incorporate the results of the

report titled “Geotechnical Hazards Report: Roberts Creek, (Kerr Wood Leidel, May 2013)”;

b. Establish a set of criteria when subdivision of property in the Agricultural Land Reserve is acceptable;

c. Establish criteria that would allow development within the Village Core that increases density without the need to for a Liquid Waste Management Strategy.

9. Review of Zoning Bylaw 310 with respect to agriculture and the sale of farm

products - Consideration of a new Agriculture zone to clearly identify permitted uses in the ALR and limitations appropriate to farm activity; examine issues such as appropriate setbacks, enclosure siting and appropriate auxiliary agricultural uses to residential use.

10. Comprehensive review and update of 1989 zoning bylaw - Restructuring and technical amendments. Include review of transition house zoning provisions, signs and landscaping provisions.

11. Geotechnical Hazard Assessments – Twin Creeks and Egmont/Pender Harbour OCP areas - To provide improved precision in mapping of lands subject to hazardous conditions - To provide expert technical advice in conjunction with Development Permit guidelines for avoidance and mitigation of potential hazards in

103



DP areas. 12. Review Riparian Area Regulation Policies - Review of regulations and definitions

as amendments to OCP's and Tree Cutting Bylaw 350. Adjust DP language and amend Elphinstone, Egmont-Pender Harbour, Hillside and Twin Creeks OCPs.

104



Projects completed

13. Integrated Storm Water Management - To collaborate with the Ministry of Transportation to implement the Integrated Drainage Report; to update SCRD Servicing Bylaw with respect to drainage; work with Building Department. Prepare amendments to Plumbing and Building Bylaws to include drainage provisions.

Other Board Directed Work Items 14. Review W1 (Water One) zoning in Bylaw 310 for enforcement and protection of

eelgrass forage and shoreline ecological issues. 15. Prepare a report regarding the use of Independent Power Project's (IPPs) Amenity

Funding Agreements including a draft policy for standardizing the development of community amenities funding agreements related to Independent Power Projects (IPPS) in the Regional District.

16. Prepare a report regarding how applications within the SCRD that have a wider multijurisdictional applicability and impact can be handled to ensure full consultation and notice to all parties affected.

17. Develop policies and regulations that would guide the SCRD in wind turbine applications in the future, including bylaw provisions relating to clearances from property lines and potential damage to surrounding properties.

18. Revise the Planning Department webpage to include a section outlining the difference between the Board of Variance process and Development Variance Permit Application process for public information.

19. Prepare a draft Zoning Bylaw Amendment regarding permitting the sale of eggs in Electoral Area B and D only.

20. Report on the process for developing a Special Events Bylaw and what it should contain and report back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.

21. Provide a report regarding “No Parking” signs on Carmen Road. 22. Staff review how lighting control measures could be undertaken by the SCRD in

relation to the revised BURNCO project proposal. 23. Consult with Chief Building Inspector regarding the requirement of building permits

and floor space limitations for portable (shipping) containers and prepare a report to all Electoral Area Advisory Planning Commissions for comment.

Collaborative Processes

24. To acknowledge and work with the shíshálh Land Plan for effective joint planning. 25. To work with the Squamish Nation on their proposed land plan for the Nation’s

Sunshine Coast territory.

105



Economic Development [current activities are under Function 500] Strategic Plan Initiative

To support the development of a coast wide economic development strategy that enhances year round economic activity, increases local employment; encourages investment and reflects the values expressed in the “We Envision” document.

Work Plan Projects

1. Completion of the Regional Economic Development Charter.

Projects Completed

1. Sunshine Coast Economic Development Charter based on discussions at three Regional Economic Development Workshops for elected officials

Other Board Directed Work Items Collaborative Processes

106



Hillside Industrial Park [Function 540] Strategic Plan Initiatives

1. To develop and implement a plan for ocean access which ensures appropriate environmental protection.

2. To attract marine service industry 3. To continue to analyze business opportunities and market the Industrial Park 4. To undertake an analysis of Hillside Industrial Park to create a consolidated

information package on assets, asset ownership agreements and responsibilities, easements, road agreements and SCRD and owner responsibilities

Work Plan Projects Other Board Directed Work Items 5. Report on the progress and status of a Road Use Agreement for access to

properties off the McNair Creek Forest Service Road. 6. Develop a plan to work toward the Hillside debt repayment. 7. Report to the Round One budget meeting with a budget proposal for a consultant

to develop a business plan for Hillside. Collaborative Processes

107



Building Inspection [Function 520] Strategic Plan Initiatives Work Plan Projects Other Board Directed Work Items 1. Investigate the comparable figures for fines, level of activity and other aspects

relating to the implementation of the BEN system in other regional district rural areas.

2. Prepare additional fine amounts related to different offenses and set out where the offences fit on the matrix under the BEN, MTI or alternative system.

3. Develop a Board policy on survey requirements for building permits including an appeal process.

4. Review the applicability of SCRD Noise Control Bylaw No. 597 as it pertains to the revised BURNCO project proposal.

5. Prepare a report regarding increasing penalties to a level sufficient to discourage the practice of “build now (without a permit) and ask for forgiveness later”

Collaborative Processes 6. Update Bylaw No. 687 (Building) to include Sechelt Indian Government District area. Projects completed 7. Building permit process amended to not accept incomplete permit applications

rather than propose amended fee schedule for incomplete applications.

108



Bylaw Compliance [Function 200]/Dog Control [Function 290] Strategic Plan Initiatives Work Plan Projects Other Board Directed Work Items 1. Review the applicability of SCRD Noise Control Bylaw No. 597 as it pertains to the

revised BURNCO project proposal. (Function 200) Collaborative Processes

2. Update Bylaw No. 376 (Dog Regulation and Impounding) to include Sechelt Indian Government District area. (Function 290)

109

N:\Planning & Development\6634 Agricultural Area Plan\6634-02 Board Review\2014-Jan-08 PDC report re Ag Plan Steering Committee work plan.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: December 23, 2014 TO: Planning & Development Committee – 2015 FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner, and Gregory Gebka, Planner - Planning &

Development Division RE: Agricultural Area Plan Implementation Advisory Committee Work Plan RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) THAT the report dated December 23, 2014 and entitled “Agricultural Area Plan

Implementation Advisory Committee Work Plan” be received; (2) AND THAT the SCRD Board set the mandate for the implementation advisory

committee for 2015 to be to recommend prioritized work plan projects for 2016; (3) AND THAT an Agricultural Area Plan Implementation Advisory Committee be

established in 2015: (a) As a sub-committee of the SCRD Agricultural Advisory Committee; (b) Consisting of about 5-7 AAC members; (c) SCRD staff provide technical support and attend committee meetings;

(4) AND THAT a 2015 budget proposal of up to $6000 be brought forward for the Regional Planning Function to provide for:

(a) a contract coordinator with expertise in agricultural issues to manage the implementation advisory committee meetings and provide a report setting out the proposed work plan for 2016; and

(b) contract administrative support for minute taking and agenda distribution; (5) AND THAT a report be brought forward to the Planning and Development

Committee in late 2015 setting out the implementation advisory committee’s transition to take on the longer term scope of work, draft terms of reference and consideration of it having a greater degree of independence rather than being a traditional SCRD advisory committee.

BACKGROUND At its meeting of October 2nd, the Board adopted the following Planning & Development Committee recommendations:

THAT staff provide a report regarding the parameters for establishing an Agricultural Area Plan Steering Committee to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting; AND THAT a work plan for establishing an Agricultural Area Plan Steering Committee be brought forward to the 2015 budget discussions;

Earlier in the year, at its meeting of May 22nd, the Board also adopted the following Planning & Development Committee recommendation:

ANNEX D

110

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (January 8, 2015) Regarding Agricultural Area Plan Implementation Advisory Committee Page 2 of 4


That, as the formation of a subcommittee is within the Agricultural Advisory Committee terms of reference, those Agricultural Advisory Committee members who want to be on the Agricultural Plan Implementation Body steering committee volunteer to do that as a subcommittee of the Agricultural Advisory Committee and invite other stakeholders to be part of the steering committee.

The Ag Plan states: A regional coordinating body needs to form to implement this Plan. Administrated as an Agricultural Advisory Sub-Committee, the coordinating body should act as a regional plan steering committee. The committee could be composed of Agricultural Advisory Committee members, SCRD Planning & Development staff, representatives of the District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, shíshálh Nation, local chambers of commerce, and key community groups and organizations, either on an ‘ongoing’ or ‘as needed’ basis.

This report recommends key parameters for a regional steering committee to advise on implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Area Plan (Ag Plan) including recommending priorities for a 2016 work plan to be considered as part of the 2015 budget discussions. DISCUSSION The Ag Plan sets out a vision for the long term development of agriculture on the Sunshine Coast with seed projects and a comprehensive set of projects/actions to deliver the vision. A steering committee is also proposed as a mechanism for prioritizing the actions and assisting in delivering the vision. The transition to a broader based steering committee that incorporates a longer term scope of work and membership can begin towards the end of 2015. Staff could provide a report to the Planning and Development Committee which includes a draft terms of reference and sets out proposals for the committee to be more independent than a traditional SCRD advisory committee. For 2015, staff recommend that the committee be called the Agricultural Area Plan Implementation Advisory Committee – as its primary purpose will be to advise the regional board on implementation priorities for 2016. Parameters for establishing the Implementation Advisory Committee The key parameters for establishing an Implementation Advisory Committee include clearly defining the committee’s role and purpose; establishing its scope of work (both short and long term); consideration of its composition and size; identification of SCRD responsibilities (both at Board and staff levels); and financing of the committee’s activities. This report focuses on the short term (2015). 1. Committee Role As noted above the committee is envisioned to be a sub-committee of the SCRD’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC). Staff seek direction from the Board as to the steering committee’s mandate; is it to be advisory in nature or have a greater degree of independence as an active coordinating body. Board direction will assist staff in drafting terms of reference. The comparative models are the Advisory Planning Commissions, (which are designed to advise the SCRD on referred items) and the Sunshine Coast Housing Committee (which has a greater degree of independence in that it sets its own agendas, pursues initiatives albeit within a terms of reference, reports back to the SCRD about progress and presents a work plan for the next year).

111



2. Scope of Work The nature of the committee’s activity is likely to change over time. Its 2015 scope of work would focus on recommending priorities for the Ag Plan’s actions and proposing a work plan for 2016. Initial work to establish the committee and develop the 2016 work plan recommendations is likely to require monthly meetings. As the steering committee transitions to a longer term role then the meetings could be less frequent, such as quarterly. 3 Committee Composition The Ag Plan generally sets out the terms for a broad-based steering committee established around a core group of Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) members. As noted above the original vision is for the steering committee to be a sub-committee of the AAC. This may be sufficient for delivering the 2016 work plan. However as the committee takes on a broader role its composition could be expanded. Staff suggest that for 2015 the committee could consist of about 5-7 members of the AAC plus SCRD and municipal staff and administrative support. This will allow the committee to be established quickly with members who are familiar with the Ag Plan. As the role of the committee evolves the membership could be amended for 2016 to include:

• Three Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) members • One staff representative each from the SCRD, District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons,

shíshálh Nation and School District No. 46 • One representative of a Coastal farmers institute (if and when established) • Up to three representatives food sector businesses • Up to three representatives of local non-government organizations having

experience in agriculture, food systems, economic or social development Potential maximum 15 members. There may also be scope to include provincial representation such as the Provincial Agrologist who covers the Coast and a staff representative from the Agricultural Land Commission. 4 SCRD Responsibilities For 2015, the committee could be supported by SCRD staff who would serve as a resource by:

• assisting organizing meeting logistics (e.g. location, room, supplies, equipment); • assisting preparing and administering committee meeting agendas; • distributing committee meeting minutes to committee members, the District of

Sechelt, the Town of Gibsons, Sechelt Indian Government District, and any other organization as may be specified;

• liaising with the committee chair between meetings to prepare meeting agendas, reports or to review and verify committee meeting minutes;

• preparing a yearly progress report for committee review and input; and • providing professional planning advice as required.

Staff recommend that consideration be given to retaining a contractor with expertise in agricultural issues to manage the first year of the steering committee. There is an advantage to this as staff resources are heavily committed to other projects. Retention of a contractor would allow progress on other SCRD work plan initiatives. The contractor would be responsible for preparing the proposed work plan for 2016 and drafting a report for the Board’s consideration.

112



5 Financial Items The cost of establishing the committee would be determined by the number of meetings. The current charge for a contracted minute taker is $110 per meeting with some travel expenses. Staff costs would vary depending on the agenda for each meeting which drives the need to prepare reports, conduct research and so on. However it is likely that 6 hours of staff per meeting (to allow for preparation of material and attending the meeting) is not excessive. The following work plan anticipates 4 meetings, with time for a fifth if needed, thus the contracted administrative costs would be in the neighbourhood of $600. Staff time could be 25 to 30 hours (in kind) for the meetings. A new Ag Plan implementation advisory committee will also marginally increase demand for adequate meeting facilities, paper supplies, photocopying, equipment, light snacks and refreshments. Again, if the Ag Plan Implementation Advisory Committee 2015 work plan is supported, as identified, additional budget should be included under Regional Planning meeting expenses. Based on the work plan below, staff consider that a budget of up to $5000 would be required to retain a contractor. Therefore, including a minor amount for contingencies, staff recommend a total budget of $6000 for the committee’s activities in 2015. Work Plan for Establishing the Implementation Advisory Committee A work plan is necessary to establish the Ag Plan implementation advisory committee, recruit and orientate members, determine procedures, develop a meeting schedule and other logistics. These efforts will require both professional and clerical support, in addition to a regular meeting place (or places). It is noted that there is a hard deadline for the committee’s 2015 deliverables set by the SCRD budget process. Potential 2016 projects that require budget proposals are considered at the staff level in October/November and budget proposals are presented to the Board at budget meetings in January. On this basis, staff propose the following timeline for 2015 and meeting goals:

January Report to SCRD Board and approval of work plan and mandate February If required, invitations and any advertising for the committee

members, terms of reference presented to SCRD Board for approval.

Alternative is for the Board to appoint about five to seven AAC members to form the committee for 2015

March If required, SCRD Board appointment of members SCRD Budget approved, retain contractor. April to July Monthly meetings to include orientation; selecting a long list of

projects for 2016;refining this to a short list; create a pro-forma project plan to structure analysis, provide brief details of budget, potential partners, timeline and so on); complete pro forma for each short listed project.

August Contractor deliver report which includes the project pro forma. August/September SCRD staff review report and present report to PDC for approval

of short list and work plan for 2016 October/November SCRD staff prepare report for deliberations of work plan/budget

projects.

113

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Planning and Development Committee – January 08, 2015

FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planning Technician

RE: Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled “Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy” and dated December 5, 2014 be received;

2. AND THAT the draft Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy be

amended as follows: a. under “POLICY” delete the 2nd paragraph. b. under “POLICY” revise the 3rd paragraph to delete the 1st sentence,

“Pesticides and herbicides shall not be used for nuisance weeds.” c. under “SCOPE” revise 1st sentence - “This policy is applied to all Sunshine

Coast Regional District property and...” d. under “EXEMPTIONS” delete the 2nd paragraph. e. under “EXEMPTIONS” include the following paragraph after the 1st

paragraph: “Pesticide use is only acceptable when:

a) noxious weeds or invasive species pose significant risk to the environment, economy, or public health;

b) defensible, appropriate scientific study does not support the success of alternative methods of control or eradication; and

c) the pesticide proposed for use is effective in the control of the target species and is registered in Canada for the use proposed.”

f. under “PROCEDURE” delete the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 8th procedures. g. under “PROCEDURE” revise the 3rd procedure so that it reads “Necessary

provincial and/or federal permits for the pesticide must be obtained.” h. under “PROCEDURE” revise the 6th procedure to include, “unless provincial

or federal authorities determine it an effective treatment for the invasive species” after “and will not be used on SCRD property”;

3. AND THAT the Board Policy on Pesticides and Herbicides adopted on February

24, 1983 be repealed;

4. AND FURTHER THAT the revised Pesticides Use and Invasive Species Management Policy be adopted, as amended.

ANNEX E

114

Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee – January 8, 2015 Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy Page 2 of 12

\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5280 Environmental Management\5280-16 Invasive Species\2015-Jan-08 Pesticide Policy report to PDC.docx

BACKGROUND

At its regular meeting on October 23, 2014, the following Board resolution was adopted: 523/14 Recommendation No. 9 Pesticide Use and Invasive Species

Management Policy

THAT the staff report dated October 8, 2014 titled “Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy” be received;

AND THAT the revised Pesticides Use and Invasive Species Management Policy be amended as follows:

Policy:

Revise 1st Paragraph - “The use of pesticides and herbicides for cosmetic purposes is discouraged and will not be used on SCRD Property.”

Revise 2nd Paragraph - “…posing significant risk to the environment, economy or public health and where experience and statistical data exists to confirm that alternative means...”

Procedure:

1. Add – “…pesticide use is generally discouraged” and “and will not be used on SCRD Property” to the end of the first sentence

2. Change – “…where experience and statistical data exists to confirm that alternative means...”

3. Necessary provincial permits must be obtained.

6. Add – “…herbicide applications are generally discouraged” and “and will not be used on SCRD Property” to the end of the first sentence

8. Add – “…neonicotinoids is strongly discouraged due to...”

Item 8. be also added to the POLICY section after the sentence – “Pesticides and herbicides shall not be used for nuisance weeds.”

ADD Item 9. “Extra caution should be exercised in riparian areas, waterways and ecologically sensitive areas including the use of appropriate setbacks.”

AND THAT the revised Pesticides Use and Invasive Species Management Policy as amended be referred for comment to the following groups:

115



• shíshálh Nation; • Heritage Protocol Advisory Committee; • All Electoral Area Advisory Planning Commissions; • Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee; • Ruby Lake Lagoon Society (and biodiversity groups); • Sunshine Coast Conservation Association; • Halfmoon Bay Community Association; • Squamish Nation; • Town of Gibsons; • District of Sechelt;

AND FURTHER THAT the revised Pesticides Use and Invasive Species

Management Policy be brought back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.

DISCUSSION

The amendments as noted above have been incorporated into the revised Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management policy, included for reference as Attachments A and B. Attachment A shows the revisions. Please note that the bold represents comments the Board has recommended including. The underline represents what staff have included/moved, and the strikethrough represents what staff recommend deleting. Attachment B is the same draft policy, without the mark up so that it is easier to read. In October and November 2014, the draft policy with the above Board revisions was referred to the above groups as well as the Natural History Society and Recreation and Parks Services Advisory Committee for comment. To date the following organizations have provided comments which staff have summarized in Table 1 below. Over all, most referrals support the policy, however a general comment is that a policy isn’t enough (a management plan or bylaw would be stronger). Table 1: Referral comments on SCRD proposed Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management policy

Organization Comment

shíshálh Nation Supports the SCRD’s adoption of this policy.

• The statement, “where experience and statistical data exists to confirm that alternative means…” is problematic. It should be reworded to say, “Options should be considered when defensible, appropriate scientific study supports the success of alternate methods.”

• This policy is an improvement over existing SCRD policies

• In cases of invasive species resulting in the loss of native vegetation, and/or loss of diversity and stability in native ecosystems, herbicide use on those invasive species should be deemed acceptable.

116




Roberts Creek OCPC Does not support policy, but if adopted recommend some changes:

• neonictonoids and foliar sprays should be banned

• “extra caution exercised in riparian areas” should be more explicit

• SCRD should define “appropriate setbacks” in riparian areas

MOTION: Given that the SCRD doesn’t have the authority to prohibit or place a total ban on pesticide applications we would ask the SCRD to investigate from the Province the possibility of granting authority to the SCRD to enact a total ban on cosmetic pesticide application.

Area A APC MOTION: Supports the proposed amendments to the pesticide use and invasive species management policy.

Area B APC • We have Knotweed because of the ‘no herbicide pesticide’ rules of the 1980’s.

• Learned that the small new shoots of Knotweed are too small for the injector gun and can’t be injected but have to be sprayed.

• Flupyradifurone is a new chemical that the Federal Government is trying to approve and we should not support it.

• Support the concern regarding chemical use and when possible use mechanical methods for invasive species control.

• No one here has the expertise to manage invasive species and we don’t have confidence that the SCRD has the expertise either. The APC would like a comprehensive invasive species management plan. If invasive species are outside the jurisdiction of the SCRD, we must integrate with all levels of government and also recommend public education.

• The APC wants a plan not just a policy.

Area D APC • The APC would like to know what is being done in Area D to control invasive species.

• Invasive species management should also address invasive insects, (e.g. fire ants, gypsy moths, spotted wing drosophila), because they constitute a threat to agriculture on the Sunshine Coast.

MOTION: The APC supports SCRD's existing invasive species management policy.

117




Area E APC • concern about property owners transplanting invasive plants onto their property;

• the owner’s duty to contain invasive plants if they are on their property, and application of trespass law;

• need for significant education for the public on the problems of weeds;

• can the SCRD add a pamphlet on invasive species for information with the annual utility bill mail out?

Area F APC Agrees with the proposed policy to discourage use of pesticides and herbicides.

Halfmoon Bay Citizens Association

• policy should list noxious weeds and invasive species

• policy should require development of an invasive species management plan

Town of Gibsons Nuisance weeds may need to be defined. Procedure #6 (foliar/sprays discouraged) sounds good but on large tracts of land may not be practical.

Halfmoon Bay Resident

Does not support policy. Is poorly written, should start fresh.

Recreation and Parks Services Advisory Committee

RPSAC supports the recommendation of eradication of invasive species on SCRD property through the Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy and to work with other partners to achieve that goal.

CHANGES TO THE LATEST DRAFT POLICY After considering the referral comments, staff have made some additions and rearranged the policy so that it reads more clearly. The following section outlines the changes that have been made. Re-wording the Exemption clause There are three sections in the policy (Policy, Exemptions, and Procedures) that spoke to pesticide use only being acceptable under certain conditions. Staff recommend removing this from the Policy and Procedures section, and placing the following text under the Exemptions section as follows:

Pesticide use is only acceptable when: a) noxious weeds or invasive species pose significant risk to the environment, economy,

or public health; b) defensible, appropriate scientific study does not support the success of alternative

methods of control or eradication; and c) the pesticide proposed for use is effective in the control of the target species and is

registered in Canada for the use proposed.

118



Note that b) above has been reworded from “experience and statistical data exists to confirm that alternative means of eradication or control are not viable” to “defensible, appropriate scientific study does not support the success of alternative methods of control or eradication” as recommended by the shíshálh Nation. This ensures that the policy is obvious – it states that:

The use of pesticides and herbicides for cosmetic purposes is discouraged and will not be used on SCRD property.

The use of the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids is strongly discouraged due to the unacceptably high risk neonicotinoids pose to bees and other pollinators.

Policy (Nuisance Weeds) Staff recommend deleting the sentence, “Pesticides and herbicides shall not be used for nuisance weeds” because this complicates the policy and does not strengthen it. The policy is that pesticides are discouraged for cosmetic purposes, on any plant, pest, fungi, etc. The exemption speaks to permitting pesticides IF there is a significant risk, there are scientific studies that confirm that alternative methods of control are not viable, and the pesticide is registered in Canada. So excluding “nuisance weeds” (dandelions, clover, etc) from the list of plants that the pesticide should not be used on is arbitrary. It does not exclude nuisance pests (such as mosquitos), or nuisance animals (such as elk or deer), as this is a given if it is not identified as “invasive”. The policy speaks to pesticides being discouraged on any of these species, unless the exemption applies. Scope Staff recommend including the wording that the policy applies to “all Sunshine Coast Regional District property” (in addition to all Electoral Areas) because some SCRD parks are in the municipalities. This would ensure that the policy is applied to all SCRD property, and not just SCRD property located within Electoral Areas. Procedure Staff re-organized the procedure steps so they speak only to the procedure required, rather than the exemption or policy itself. Additional information was also added, such as following federal and provincial standards (Procedures 1 and 3). In October, the Roberts Creek OCPC suggested including the following procedure:

“Extra caution should be exercised in riparian areas, waterways and ecologically sensitive areas including the use of appropriate setbacks.”

Then in November, the RCOCPC suggested that “extra caution exercised in riparian areas” and “appropriate setbacks” should be more explicit and defined. Staff recommend not making this statement more explicit because it may vary depending on the pesticide being proposed and the scale of invasion. Planning staff do not have the expertise to determine what “extra caution” or “appropriate setbacks” look like without seeking professional advice. Thus, the procedure item is left as is, without the recommended change that the RCOCPC suggested. This means that, in a case where pesticide application is required near a riparian area, waterway or ecologically sensitive area, extra caution should be exercised and received from a Qualified Environmental Professional.

119



Enforcement It is important to note that a Board policy can be applied to Crown land, SCRD land, and private property; however a Board policy cannot be enforced on Crown or private land. For example, the policy can be used while commenting on external referrals, or can be applied to SCRD property, but neither the Crown nor property owners are bound by the policy. The Town of Gibsons and the District of Sechelt have “Pesticide Use” bylaws, which give the municipalities the authority to enforce its bylaws. However, without an enforceable bylaw, a Board policy can just outline a clear position on where the SCRD stands with respect to the use of pesticides and herbicides. The proposed policy discourages the cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides. It accepts pesticide use for the management of noxious weeds or invasive species posing significant risk to the environment, economy, or public health subject to certain conditions. The policy speaks to “discouraging” specific uses and other uses being “acceptable” because using terms such as “prohibit” or “permit” implies that it is enforceable. As noted above, a Board policy is not enforceable on Crown land or private property. SUMMARY Staff recommend that the policy on Pesticides and Herbicides adopted on February 24, 1983 be repealed, and that the revised policy on Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management be adopted.

________________________

Lesley-Ann Staats, MCIP, RPP Planning Technician Attachments 2:

Attachment A – DRAFT Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy showing mark-up

Attachment B – Draft Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management Policy without mark-up

120



ATTACHMENT A

Sunshine Coast Regional District

BOARD POLICY MANUAL

DRAFT – December 3, 2014 – v5 (showing mark-up) Section: Administration 1

Subsection: Plans and Programs 0620

Title: Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management 3 POLICY


Pesticide use is only acceptable for the management of noxious weeds or invasive species posing significant risk to the environment, or economy, or public health and where scientific experience and statistical data exists to confirm that alternative means of control are not viable. [MOVED TO EXEMPTIONS] Pesticides and herbicides shall not be used for nuisance weeds. The use of the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids is strongly discouraged due to the unacceptably high risk neonicotinoids pose to bees and other pollinators. DEFINITIONS “invasive species” means highly competitive plants and animals which spread aggressively into environments where they are not normally found and whole introduction does or is likely to cause environmental or economic harm, or harm to human health. “noxious weeds” means plant species that are capable of inflicting agricultural loss or ill health on people, or are designated by regulation to be a noxious weed, and includes the seeds of the noxious weed; “pesticide” means any substance designed to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate injurious, noxious, or troublesome living organisms. The term “pesticide” encompasses the more specific terms such as insecticides (for insects), herbicides (for plants) and fungicides (for fungal diseases). SCOPE This policy is applied to all Sunshine Coast Regional District property and all Electoral Areas within the Sunshine Coast Regional District.

121



REASON FOR POLICY The risks associated with the use of pesticides include impacts to human health, non-target plants and animals (including pets), pollution of watercourses, and long-term contamination of soil and groundwater. Research has demonstrated links between pesticide exposure and several types of cancer, as well as hormone disruption. Young children are at greater risk from the effects of pesticides due to their undeveloped immune systems, more permeable skin, and behaviours (e.g. playing on lawns, putting objects in their mouths). The Canadian Cancer Society has documented a growing body of evidence showing a link between the use of pesticides and an increased risk of cancer. Pesticide use contributes to the cumulative chemical impact on the natural environment. These chemicals are not easily confined to a single location, and as they move through the air, water, and land, there can be many unforeseen impacts to plants and animals throughout those ecosystems. The Sunshine Coast Regional District supports the “precautionary principle” regarding pesticides, thus being pro-active in reducing possible threats to human health and the natural environment.

EXEMPTIONS The spread of invasive species (both plants and animals) has become a major concern for residents, ecologists, naturalists and land and water managers across BC. The spread of invasive species is second only to habitat loss, as the major cause of declining biodiversity. The Sunshine Coast Regional District is committed to preventing new invasive species from becoming established and controlling those of major concern for human health and the health of natural ecosystems. Several new invasive species that may warrant rapid response to contain their spread come to our attention each year. Pesticides may be used to treat invasive species if no alternative method is successful or viable. [ADDED FROM POLICY AND PROCEDURE] Pesticide use is only acceptable when:

a) noxious weeds or invasive species pose significant risk to the environment, economy, or public health; and

b) where experience and statistical data exists to confirm that alternative means of eradication or control are not viable;

c) defensible, appropriate scientific study does not support the success of alternative methods of control or eradication; and

d) the pesticide proposed for use is effective in the control of the target species and is registered in Canada for the use proposed.

AUTHORITY TO ACT Retained by the Board

122



PROCEDURE

1. Pesticide use is generally discouraged if a viable alternative means of control exists other than the pesticide being proposed and will not be used on SCRD property. [MOVED TO EXEMPTION]

2. Pesticide use is only acceptable for the management of noxious weeds or invasive species posing significant risk to the environment or economy, and where scientific experience and statistical data exists to confirm that alternative means of control are not viable. [MOVED TO EXEMPTION AND REWORDED]

3. Necessary provincial and/or federal permits for the pesticide must be obtained.

4. Industry best-practices, and all federal and provincial standards and regulations shall be met with respect to the pesticide proposed for use, including transportation, storage, application, personnel safety and training, public safety, and environmental protection.

5. Pesticide use is only acceptable if the pesticide proposed for use is effective in the

control of the target species and is registered in Canada for the use proposed. [MOVED TO EXEMPTION]

6. Foliar or sprays of herbicide applications are generally discouraged and will not be used on SCRD property unless provincial or federal authorities determine it an effective treatment for the invasive species. The preferred methods are stem injection, stump cut, basal bark, hack and squirt treatments or similar application methods.

7. Pesticide use will be undertaken to minimize potential environmental risks through use of the lowest effective toxicity, the smallest effective amounts, and the most conservative methods of application timed to optimize effects on the target species.

8. The use of the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids is strongly discouraged due to the unacceptably high risk neonicotinoids pose to bees and other pollinators. [REPEAT -ALREADY STATED IN POLICY]

9. Extra caution should be exercised in riparian areas, waterways and ecologically sensitive areas including the use of appropriate setbacks.

123



ATTACHMENT B Sunshine Coast Regional District

BOARD POLICY MANUAL

DRAFT – December 3, 2014 – v5

Section: Administration 1

Subsection: Plans and Programs 0620

Title: Pesticide Use and Invasive Species Management 3 POLICY


The use of the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids is strongly discouraged due to the unacceptably high risk neonicotinoids pose to bees and other pollinators. DEFINITIONS “invasive species” means highly competitive plants and animals which spread aggressively into environments where they are not normally found and whole introduction does or is likely to cause environmental or economic harm, or harm to human health. “noxious weeds” means plant species that are capable of inflicting agricultural loss or ill health on people, or are designated by regulation to be a noxious weed, and includes the seeds of the noxious weed; “pesticide” means any substance designed to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate injurious, noxious, or troublesome living organisms. The term “pesticide” encompasses the more specific terms such as insecticides (for insects), herbicides (for plants) and fungicides (for fungal diseases). SCOPE This policy is applied to all Sunshine Coast Regional District property and all Electoral Areas within the Sunshine Coast Regional District. REASON FOR POLICY The risks associated with the use of pesticides include impacts to human health, non-target plants and animals (including pets), pollution of watercourses, and long-term contamination of soil and groundwater. Research has demonstrated links between pesticide exposure and several types of cancer, as well as hormone disruption. Young children are at greater risk from the effects of pesticides due to their undeveloped immune systems, more permeable skin, and behaviours (e.g. playing on lawns, putting objects in their mouths). The Canadian Cancer

124



Society has documented a growing body of evidence showing a link between the use of pesticides and an increased risk of cancer. Pesticide use contributes to the cumulative chemical impact on the natural environment. These chemicals are not easily confined to a single location, and as they move through the air, water, and land, there can be many unforeseen impacts to plants and animals throughout those ecosystems. The Sunshine Coast Regional District supports the “precautionary principle” regarding pesticides, thus being pro-active in reducing possible threats to human health and the natural environment.

EXEMPTIONS The spread of invasive species (both plants and animals) has become a major concern for residents, ecologists, naturalists and land and water managers across BC. The spread of invasive species is second only to habitat loss, as the major cause of declining biodiversity. The Sunshine Coast Regional District is committed to preventing new invasive species from becoming established and controlling those of major concern for human health and the health of natural ecosystems. Several new invasive species that may warrant rapid response to contain their spread come to our attention each year. Pesticide use is only acceptable when:

a) noxious weeds or invasive species pose significant risk to the environment, economy, or public health; and

b) defensible, appropriate scientific study does not support the success of alternative methods of control or eradication; and

c) the pesticide proposed for use is effective in the control of the target species and is registered in Canada for the use proposed.

AUTHORITY TO ACT Retained by the Board PROCEDURE

1. Necessary provincial and/or federal permits for the pesticide must be obtained.

2. Industry best-practices, and all federal and provincial standards and regulations shall be met with respect to the pesticide proposed for use, including transportation, storage, application, personnel safety and training, public safety, and environmental protection.

3. Foliar or sprays of herbicide applications are generally discouraged and will not be used

on SCRD property unless provincial or federal authorities determine it an effective treatment for the invasive species. The preferred methods are stem injection, stump cut, basal bark, hack and squirt treatments or similar application methods.

4. Pesticide use will be undertaken to minimize potential environmental risks through use of the lowest effective toxicity, the smallest effective amounts, and the most conservative methods of application timed to optimize effects on the target species.

5. Extra caution should be exercised in riparian areas, waterways and ecologically sensitive areas including the use of appropriate setbacks.

125

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Planning and Development Committee – January 8, 2015

FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planning Technician

RE: Invasive Species Technical Working Group and Advisory Committee Terms

of References – Areas A-F

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled “Invasive Species Technical Working Group and Advisory Committee Terms of References – Areas A-F” and dated December 4, 2014 be received;

2. AND THAT staff organize the first Invasive Species Technical Working Group

meeting;

3. AND THAT the SCRD Board endorse the Terms of Reference for the Invasive Species Technical Working Group;

4. AND THAT the Terms of Reference for the Invasive Species Technical Working Group be reviewed at the first Invasive Species Technical Working Group meeting, and amended as required;

5. AND FURTHER THAT a proposal for the 2015 Budget be prepared outlining

funding options on invasive species management.

BACKGROUND

At its regular meeting on October 23, 2014, the following Board resolution was adopted: 523/14 Recommendation No. 4 Invasive Species Advisory Committee

THAT the staff report dated October 3, 2014 titled “Invasive Species Advisory Committee” be received;

AND THAT staff send an invitation to the Coastal Invasive Species Committee to participate as a member on the Invasive Species Technical Working Group;

AND THAT the Terms of Reference be revised and brought back to a future Planning and Development Committee with the following revisions:

ANNEX F

126

Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee – January 8, 2015 Regarding Invasive Species TWG & Advisory Committee TOR Page 2 of 11

N:\Administration\0400 Cooperation & Liaison - General\0400-65 Intergovernmental Meetings\Invasive Species Technical Working Group\2015-Jan-08 Invasive Species Technical Working Group and Advisory Committee Terms of Reference Report to PDC.docx

a) Change the name of group to Invasive Species Technical Working Group;

b) Put the Terms of Reference in the revised SCRD template; c) Elaborate on purpose of “list of invasive species”;

AND THAT staff prepare a draft Terms of Reference for an Invasive Species Public Advisory Committee, consisting of community members, which may serve as a sub-committee to the Invasive Species Technical working Group;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back with an organizational chart of the invasive species groups and their relationship with Boards and Councils to understand the direction of these groups.

DISCUSSION

Terms of Reference The revised Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Invasive Species Technical Working Group (TWG) are included as Attachment A. A draft TOR for the Invasive Species Public Advisory Committee (AC) is included as Attachment B. Note that the difference between the TWG and the AC is that the TWG is comprised of government-level land managers (with the exception of the Coastal Invasive Species Committee representative), whereas the AC is comprised of community members. In a previous report, staff made the recommendation to start with a TWG only, which could eventually be expanded to include community members from each electoral area. The idea behind this was to collaborate at a land-manager level, to identify priority areas and priority invasive species that should be targeted, working with multiple jurisdictions to determine a way to move forward. Once a plan is established, there is room in the TOR to include community members on this working group to reflect the local area such as a member representing each Electoral Area, or stakeholders that regularly deal with invasive species such as BC Hydro and Fortis BC. This could be helpful in understanding how each Electoral Area is managing invasive species, and in education and outreach coordination. Should members of the public join, individuals shall have an interest and/or expertise in one or more of the following: invasive species, agriculture, garden nurseries, education, and biodiversity. Community groups are currently working in their own communities, trying to control invasive species. Table 1 (included as Attachment C) summarizes what some of the community groups are doing in each Electoral Area. Staff recommend that the SCRD Board endorse the Terms of Reference for the TWG. Staff further recommend that the TOR are reviewed at the first TWG meeting, and amended as required by the group. Because this is not only an SCRD working group, it would be up to the other organizations to add terms if they require.

127



Relationship of Invasive Species groups and the SCRD Board Organizational Chart of Invasive Species Groups Figure 1: Invasive Species Technical Working Group made up of land managers

The Technical Working Group will be made up of staff representatives from the above governments and First Nations. This group will be made up of land managers, with the exception of the Coastal Invasive Species Committee. As mentioned above, there is room in the TOR to include community members on this working group to reflect their local areas. School District 46 has declined the offer to sit on the working group due to limited resources, however, a place is held in the TOR for them should resources become available.

Invasive Species

Technical Working Group

SCRD

Town of Gibsons

District of Sechelt

shíshálh Nation

Squamish Nation MOTI

Vancouver Coastal Health

Coastal Invasive Species

Committee

School District 46

SCRD Board

Planning & Development Committee

Community Services Committee

Invasive Species Advisory Committee (community members)

Invasive Species Technical Working Group (land managers)

128



Figure 2: Invasive Species Advisory Committee made up of community members

The Invasive Species Advisory Committee will ideally be made up of community volunteers from each Electoral Area, municipality, and First Nations. A representative of the Technical Working Group could sit on the Advisory Committee as well, and that representative would attend based on the agenda items being discussed. An SCRD staff liaison may attend as the TWG representative, or on a case by case basis. Fiscal Implications Both the TWG and the AC will have small fiscal implications to the SCRD, as the SCRD would provide administrative assistance. Additional staff support will be needed to assist the committee. Invasive Species Technical Working Group The TWG would likely meet during the day, on a quarterly basis. A minute taker costs $110 per meeting, and would be required for each meeting (total of 4 meetings) at an annual cost of $440. Staff time would be required for prep work, attending the meeting, and follow up. As this would be during regular working hours, this would be minimal. Invasive Species Advisory Committee The Advisory Committee would likely meet during evenings, also on a quarterly basis. A minute taker costs $110 per meeting, and would be required for each meeting (total of 4 meetings) at an annual cost of $440. Staff time would be required for prep work and follow up, and sometimes for attending the meetings, depending on the agenda items. As these meetings will be in the evening, overtime would be required. Staff recommend that a proposal for the 2015 Budget be prepared outlining funding options on invasive species management that align with work plan priorities.

SCRD Invasive Species

Advisory Committee

TWG rep

Area A

Area B

Area D

Area E

Area F

Town of Gibsons

District of

Sechelt

Squamish Nation

shíshálh Naition

129



ATTACHMENT A

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

INVASIVE SPECIES TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of the Invasive Species Technical Working Group is to:

a. Provide a collaborative approach to invasive species management on the Sunshine

Coast. b. Raise awareness of the need to manage invasive species. c. Bring together different levels of government, First Nations, and stakeholders with

unique mandates and different jurisdictions on the Sunshine Coast.

2. Duties 2.1 The Invasive Species Technical Working Group will:

a. Advise the land managers on all matters relating to invasive species and invasive species control;

b. Collaborate with different jurisdictions on invasive species management c. Compile a list of Sunshine Coast priority invasive species and a plan on how to

manage these species; d. Assist in the organization and administration of invasive species management

programs; e. Provide education to the public and land managers on invasive species; f. Provide land managers assistance with planning invasive species management; g. Provide regional direction on invasive species management; h. Conduct research pertaining to invasive species management; i. Submit an annual report to the Boards, Councils and Committees involved; and j. Perform other duties the Boards, Councils and Committees prescribe.

2.2 The Invasive Species Technical Working Group exists at the pleasure of the Board and

may be reconstituted annually as required.

3. Membership

3.1 The Invasive Species Technical Working Group is comprised of the following members:

a. Staff representative of the Sunshine Coast Regional District b. Staff representative of the Town of Gibsons c. Staff representative of the District of Sechelt d. Staff representative of the shíshálh Nation e. Staff representative of the Squamish Nation f. Staff representative of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure g. Staff representative of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority

130



h. Staff representative of School District 46 i. Staff representative of the Coastal Invasive Species Committee Additional members may be included for geographic representation. Should members of the public join, individuals shall have an interest and/or expertise in one or more of the following: invasive species, agriculture, garden nurseries, education, and biodiversity. An effort will be made to ensure that a wide range of interests and expertise are represented on the technical working group.

3.2 Members shall be appointed for a term of one (1) year. 3.3 The Chair and Vice Chair will be elected by members of the Invasive Species Technical

Working Group. 3.4 Any member having a potential conflict of interest should identify such circumstances to

the Chair.

4. Operations 4.1 Quorum will consist of four (4) members on the Invasive Species Technical Working

Group.

4.2 Decisions of the Invasive Species Technical Working Group shall be by consensus where possible and, where not possible, undertake, follow and abide a majority vote.

4.3 The Technical Working Group will establish a process for meetings, recommendations and decisions and the “Terms of Reference” may be amended as required to incorporate these processes.

4.4 The Invasive Species Technical Working Group will meet quarterly (times and location of meetings - TBC).

4.5 The Technical Working Group shall provide meeting notes to each of the members for each meeting it holds.

4.6 Meeting notes of the Technical Working Group shall be recorded and made available to the public. Meeting notes shall be taken by a recording secretary.

4.7 The authority of the technical working group is limited as follows:

a. The Invasive Species Technical Working Group does not have the authority to bind the local governments in any way, nor engage or otherwise contact third parties, consultants, organizations or authorities in a manner which may appear to be officially representing the local governments.

b. The Invasive Species Technical Working Group may communicate with external organizations and agencies to collect information and make inquiries.

4.8 Members of the Invasive Species Technical Working Group are encouraged to:

131



a. attend and participate in meetings; b. share experiences and ideas while maintaining an open mind to others’ perspectives; c. report back to the local government/organization; d. provide items/topics/documents for the meeting agenda through the Chair;

4.10 In carrying out its mandate, the Group will work towards conducting operations in a way that:

a. improves the economic, environmental and social well-being for present and future generations;

b. encourages and fosters community involvement; c. enhances the friendly, caring character of the community; d. maintains an open, accountable and effective operation; e. preserves and enhances the unique mix of natural ecosystems and green spaces on

the Sunshine Coast; 4.11 The SCRD will provide a recording secretary whose duties will include:

a. preparing meeting agendas and distributing them to the Group members in advance of the meeting;

b. preparing minutes of all meetings using SCRD standard practices; c. forwarding the minutes to the Group Chair for review prior to submitting to the

appropriate Steering Committee or local government; d. forwarding the approved minutes to the Invasive Species Technical Working Group

for further consideration and approval. 4.12 Group members must respect and maintain the confidentiality of the issues brought before

them.

Last Modified: December 1, 2014

132



ATTACHMENT B DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

SCRD INVASIVE SPECIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

5. Purpose 1.2 The purpose of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee is to:

a. Make recommendations on issues pertaining to invasive species management

referred to the committee by the Regional District, Town of Gibsons, or District of Sechelt.

b. Provide land managers assistance with planning invasive species management

6. Duties 2.1 The Invasive Species Advisory Committee will:

a. Advise the SCRD Board on all matters relating to invasive species and invasive species control;

b. Raise awareness of the need to manage invasive species; c. Provide education to the public and land managers on invasive species; d. Assist in the organization and administration of invasive species management

programs; e. Conduct research pertaining to invasive species management; f. Perform other duties the Boards, Councils and Committees prescribe;

2.2 The Invasive Species Advisory Committee exists at the pleasure of the Board and may

be reconstituted as required.

7. Membership 3.1 The Invasive Species Advisory Committee is comprised of the following members:

a. Ten (10) members, with an interest and/or expertise in one or more of the following: invasive species, agriculture, garden nurseries, education, and biodiversity.

b. An effort will be made to ensure that a wide range of interests and expertise are represented on the advisory committee.

c. Unless sufficient members cannot be found, there shall be at least one member from the Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt, each Electoral Area, and the Invasive Species Technical Working Group.

d. Members shall be appointed by the Regional District Board of Directors for a term of two (2) years.

3.5 Regional District staff may be assigned to serve in a liaison capacity. The role of the staff

liaison may include:

133



a. providing information and professional advice; b. facilitating and/or co-chairing meetings; c. assisting the committee secretary in writing recommendations to the Board as

requested by the committee; d. bringing such matters to the committee's attention as are appropriate for it to

consider in support of Regional District Board direction; e. serving as one of the communication channels to and from the Board; and f. providing advice to the Board that is at variance to a committee recommendation.

3.6 The Chair and Vice Chair will be appointed by members of the Invasive Species

Advisory Committee. 3.7 Any member having a potential conflict of interest should identify such circumstances to

the Chair.

8. Operations 4.1 A majority of the voting members of the committee, as listed in section 3 will constitute a

quorum. 4.2 The Invasive Species Advisory Committee will meet quarterly. (times and location of

meetings TBC) 4.3 All Committee meetings must be open to the public except where the committee resolves to

close a portion of it pursuant to Section 90 of the Community Charter. 4.4 The authority of the Committee is limited as follows:

a. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee does not have the authority to bind the SCRD in any way, nor engage or otherwise contact third parties, consultants, organizations or authorities in a manner which may appear to be officially representing the SCRD.

b. The Invasive Species Advisory Committee may communicate with external organizations and agencies to collect information and make inquiries.

c. Where the Invasive Species Advisory Committee wishes to express opinions or make recommendations to external organizations and agencies, it must first obtain authorization from the SCRD Board.

4.5 Committee members are encouraged to:

a. attend and participate in meetings of the Committee; b. share experiences and ideas while maintaining an open mind to others’ perspectives; c. report back to the appropriate Standing Committee and Regional District staff;

4.6 Members who are absent for four consecutive regularly scheduled meetings will be deemed

to have resigned their position unless the absence is because of illness or injury or is with the leave of the SCRD Board.

4.7 In carrying out its mandate, the Committee will work towards conducting operations in a way

that:

134



a. improves the economic, environmental and social well-being for present and future

generations; b. encourages and fosters community involvement; c. enhances the friendly, caring character of the community; d. maintains an open, accountable and effective operation; e. preserves and enhances the unique mix of natural ecosystems and green spaces in

the SCRD; f. is consistent with the goals and objectives of the SCRD’s strategic plan; and g. recognizes advisory committees are one of many channels that the Regional Board

may utilize to obtain opinions and advice when making decisions. 4.8 The SCRD will provide a recording secretary whose duties will include:

a. preparing meeting agendas and distributing them to the Committee members in advance of the meeting;

b. preparing minutes of all meetings using SCRD standard practices; c. forwarding the minutes to the Committee Chair for review prior to submitting to the

appropriate Standing Committee; d. forwarding the approved minutes to the appropriate Standing Committee for further

consideration and approval. 4.9 Unless otherwise provided for, meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the rules

of procedure set out in the Board Procedure Bylaw.

4.10 Committee members are subject to the Conflict of Interest legislation outlined in Section 100 – 109 of the Community Charter. The terms “Council” and “Committee” shall be interchangeable for the purpose of interpretation of these sections.

4.11 Committee members must respect and maintain the confidentiality of the issues brought

before them.

4.12 Committee members serve without remuneration but may be eligible to have reasonable expenses reimbursed in accordance with the SCRD Policy on Committee Volunteer Meeting Expenses.

9. Reference Documents 5.1 SCRD Procedure Bylaw No. 474 5.2 Community Charter, Section 100 – 109 – Conflict of Interest 5.3 Community Charter, Section 90 – Open/Closed Meetings

Last Modified: December 1, 2014

135



ATTACHMENT C Table 1: Summary of invasive species management at the community level

Area A The Pender Harbour Hiking Group have voluntarily removed Scotch Broom in various areas in Pender Harbour, including Crown land, and MOTI roads.

Area B The Halfmoon Bay Citizens Association, the Sargeants Bay Society, and the Broom Busters have taken it in their own hands to distribute information on invasive species to their community. They purchased a stem injection gun to tackle Japanese Knotweed on private property. They have also manually removed Scotch Broom in many areas (including eradicating it from the parks on Thromanby Island).

Area D The Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee (RC OCPC) has chosen the Henderson Beach access area as an area where they would like to control Japanese Knotweed. The RC OCPC is planning to do this manually, without the use of pesticides, and are willing to use the site as a pilot project to see how it works. The SCRD Parks Department is supporting them, as this is an area where the SCRD would like to eventually turn into a park (however this can’t tale place until the Knotweed is eradicated, as per MOTI requirements).

Area E The Ocean Beach Esplanade Committee were involved in cutting and covering Japanese Knotweed on Crown land adjacent to Chaster Park.

Area F West Howe Sound Community Association is involved in educating their community on invasive species on private property, and notifying the Ministry of Transportation of invasive species on roads.

136