Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011

462

Published on

A presentation given to QEPs at the SLIPP Shoreline Care Workshop on November 23, 2011. Topics include Shorelines, Shuswap Restoration, and RAR.

A presentation given to QEPs at the SLIPP Shoreline Care Workshop on November 23, 2011. Topics include Shorelines, Shuswap Restoration, and RAR.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
462
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The alternative regulatory model uses Qualified Environmental Professionals (QEP) hired by proponents to help design development to avoid impact, assess impacts, develop mitigation measures or recommend compensatory strategies.
    The regulation will direct local governments to only Allow development within a 30 meter riparian assessment area if it has been certified by a QEP that no impact to riparian fish habitat would result
    This shifts cost of assessing development to the proponent allowing governments’ to focus on monitoring and enforcement within their respective jurisdictions.
    The model will encourage developers to not just use QEPs to assess their development to determine if is will cause an impact, but to use them and their professional assessment to design development to avoid impact. This reduces the potential for conflict with the QEP and the developer and concerns with accountability of the QEP in providing developer friendly assessments, and should decrease the time and costs for the developer
    Get into the failing of the referral system- catching someone doing something wrong, rather than catching someone doing something right. Recipe for conflict, were seen as an impediment to development. Looked at everything to catch the high risk concerns, was a real time sink, limited our ability to get out and monitor and see if we were being effective.
    Looking for input on the various implementation routes in recognition of the various tools available to local government
  • Transcript

    • 1. Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP) Shoreline Care Workshop for Qualified Environmental Professionals November 23, 2011
    • 2. 2 Workshop Objectives  Building partnership with you to ensure a healthy Shuswap watershed  Share information on process for working near Shuswap Shorelines  Establish a common understanding of expectations when working near shorelines
    • 3. 3 Agenda Shuswap Shoreline Information 15 minutes Shoreline Management Guidelines 1 hour Riparian Area Regulations 30 minutes Update on Okanagan Protocol 10 minutes Question and Answers 35 minutes
    • 4. 4 SLIPP Website: New Shoreline Page www.slippbc.com Observed a shoreline violation? Report it to the RAPP Line
    • 5. 5 The Importance of Shorelines  The shoreline areas of the Shuswap watershed are critical to: – Sustainability and liveability of the region – Economic opportunities – Fish and wildlife populations – Water quality for drinking and recreation  Shorelines are unique ecosystems that have developed over thousands of years  We all share the responsibility for keeping our shorelines healthy
    • 6. 6 Shuswap Restoration Project Strategic shoreline restoration is a key element of SLIPP’s Strategic Approach  What will it achieve? – Restore shorelines – Raise awareness and educate – Deter future shoreline contraventions and promote voluntary compliance  Shoreline sites identified for restoration in 2012, based on: – Impact on high-value habitats – Trespass on Crown Land – No work on private property  Aim for voluntary compliance  2 restoration phases: Spring and Fall 2012
    • 7. 7 Shuswap Restorations BEFO RE BEFO RE
    • 8. 8 Shuswap Restorations AFTER AFTER
    • 9. 9 Shuswap Restorations BEFO RE BEFO RE
    • 10. 10 Shuswap Restorations Achieved voluntary remediation of groomed beach, partially filled foreshore and cleared riparian area on Mara Lake AFTER AFTER BEFO RE BEFO RE
    • 11. 11 Shuswap Restorations – Eagle River Floodplain
    • 12. 12 Shuswap Restorations •Guilty plea by Old Town Bay development •Settlement of $375,000 for illegally altering fish habitat: •$300,000 for restoration •$5000 fine •$70,000 to FBC for SLIPP •Site preparation and fencing complete and planting will be completed in spring 2012 RESULT RESULT
    • 13. 13 Shuswap Restorations BEFO RE BEFO RE
    • 14. 14 Shuswap Restorations: Planned for Spring 2012 AFTER AFTER
    • 15. 15 Working Around Water in the Shuswap: An Overview for Environmental Professionals Presented by: Bruce Runciman Fisheries and Oceans Canada
    • 16. 16 Presentation Objectives Describe the importance of shoreline areas to the Shuswap Lake system Describe the expectations of SLIPP members for work in and near shorelines of the Shuswap Lake system
    • 17. 17 What are shoreline areas? Shoreline areas include: • Foreshore areas between the high water mark and the edge of the littoral zone (approximated by the 6 m depth contour at low water) • Riparian areas within 30 m of the high water mark With rare exceptions, foreshore areas are Crown land and a public resource, not private property Floodplain areas are important for water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and flood control Shoreline areas are the most sensitive and heavily utilized part of the lake
    • 18. 18 What makes for a healthy shoreline? Features of Healthy, Sustainable Shorelines • Functional riparian areas • Functional wetland and floodplain areas • Functional fish and wildlife habitats • Safe drinking water intakes • Effective waste and storm water management versus
    • 19. 19 What do fish and wildlife need? Shoreline Fish and Wildlife Habitats • Spawning Areas (both shore and stream) • Juvenile Rearing /Food Supply Areas • Migration Corridors • Nesting / Mating / Wintering Areas • Clean, cool water • Functional, interconnected riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains versus
    • 20. 20 Development in Shoreline Areas
    • 21. 21 Extent of Shoreline Development 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 High Moderate Low None Level of Impact ShoreLength(m) Shuswap Lake Level of Impact km % High 174 43 Moderate 71 17 Low 128 31 None 33 8
    • 22. 22 Extent of Shoreline Development Level of Impact km % High 8.3 10 Moderate 4.8 5 Low 24.5 30 None 44.4 55
    • 23. 23 Types of Shoreline Development 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Agriculture Commercial Conservation Forestry Institutional Multi Family Natural Area Park Recreation Rural Single Family Urban Park Transportation Inudustrial LandUseType Shorelength (m) Natural Shoreline Disturbed Shoreline Shuswap Lake
    • 24. 24 Rate of Shoreline Development and Cumulative Effects Rate of Change: 0.5 - 2.0% per year Likely similar in other areas experiencing rapid high rates of development May exceed capacity of fish species and populations to adapt, posing risk of significant habitat-related harm Okanagan Lake Residential Development – Shuswap Lake
    • 25. DFO Integrated Land Management Bureau - MFLNRO Interior Health Environmental Protection - MFLNRO Water Stewardship - MFLNRO Dept of Transportation – Marine Safety – Navigable Waters Protection Who’s Managing Shoreline Areas? How Are They Doing It? How Are They Perceived to be Doing It? Fish & Wildlife - MFLNRO Front Counter BC Environmental Stewardship - MFLNRO Ministry of Transportation Dept of Transportation – Marine - Office of Boating Safety South Shuswap Parks Commission TNRD CSRD NORD Incorporated Areas RCMP Environment Canada BC Parks First Nations Dept. of Aboriginal Affairs & N. Development
    • 26. 26 Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process
    • 27. 27 SLIPP Foreshore Development Work Stream Foreshore Inventory and Mapping, Aquatic Habitat Index and Shoreline Management Guidelines • Support the SLIPP foreshore development goal of development that respects the environment as well as economic and social interests • Support SLIPP foreshore development strategies of: •comprehensive foreshore area site sensitivity mapping •managing cross-agency development applications and lake issues •improving the development application review process •creating a model for assessing cumulative impact • Integrate regulation and policy requirements for protection of fish habitat with best available habitat information
    • 28. 28 Planning a Project near Shuswap Shorelines? versus Key Steps to Follow: • Contact your Local Government and Front Counter BC • Consult a Qualified Environmental Professional • Follow the Shoreline Management Guidelines
    • 29. 29 Shoreline Management Process for BC Lakes versus Step 1 Foreshore Inventory and Mapping: Provides a biophysical and habitat modification inventory of the shoreline Step 2 Aquatic Habitat Index: Provides an environmental sensitivity analysis of the shoreline, using existing biological data (e.g., shore spawning locations) and the FIM database Step 3 Shoreline Management Guidelines: Provide design and assessment standards for development activities based on the level of risk they pose to natural shoreline features
    • 30. 30 FIM and the AHI are a Spatial Inventory versus
    • 31. 31 Shoreline Management Guidelines versus What are they? • Guidance to proponents, professionals, contractors, agencies and other stakeholders regarding design and assessment standards for development activities that may affect fish habitat • A tool for inter-agency planning and streamlining of development applications What are the benefits? • Allow low risk development activities to proceed without fish habitat review provided best practices are applied. • Allow moderate risk development activities to proceed without fish habitat review provided a qualified professional certifies no harm to fish habitat • Provide a coherent and predictable process for planning and undertaking works that may affect fish habitat on the Shuswap Lake system
    • 32. 32 Key Steps in Shoreline Management Guidelines versus Step 1 Identify the “Aquatic Habitat Index” and any “Sensitive Site Types” for the property Step 3 Step 2 Identify the “Activity Risk Rating” for the proposed activity Identify design, assessment and review process for the proposed activity Step 4 Follow process outlined through SMG. Questions? Ask FrontCounter BC or your QEP
    • 33. 33 Shoreline Management Guidelines: Maps versus
    • 34. 34 Shoreline Management Guidelines: SWARM Boat Launches Construction of new hard surface boat launch or repair/upgrade of existing hard surface boat launch without land tenure VH VH VH H H H Docks Design and Assessment Flow Chart for Private Moorage on the System5 Water Withdrawal and Use Waterline - directional drilling H H M DFO Pacific : Directional Drilling2 Waterline - open excavation VH VH VH H M L6 Activity Activity Risk by Spawning Location and Rank1 Known Char or Sockeye Spawning (9.6% of total shore length, 2.6% in Moderate and Low ) 1 Very High (13% of total shore length High (34% of total shore length) Moderate (38% of total shore length) Low (14% of total shore length) Very Low (0.7% of total shore length) SWARM = Shuswap Watershed Activity Risk Matrix
    • 35. 35 Shoreline Management Guidelines: SWARM Low Risk Activities • Pose low risk of harm to fish habitat. • Harm to fish habitat can usually be prevented if experienced contractors complete works following endorsed best management practices. • Supervision of works by a qualified environmental professional is recommended to ensure harm to fish habitat does not occur. • DFO review is not required if works follow endorsed best management practices referenced in activity- specific footnotes to Table 1. • Project proponents are responsible for ensuring that they comply with fish habitat protection provisions of Fisheries Act. section 35(1) (see http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/index.html). • Notify DFO 10 working days before starting works by submission of a completed Project Review Application Form to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Notification to DFO” in (see http://dev- public.rhq.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form- formulaire-eng.pdf). Include a cover letter describing how it was determined that works could proceed without DFO review, specifically referencing Table 1, as applicable. Moderate Risk Activities • Pose moderate risk of harm to fish habitat. • Some works will require authorization under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to legally proceed. • Harm to fish or fish habitat can usually be prevented if appropriate relocation, redesign and mitigation measures are implemented. • Professional planning and assessment is required; costs to the proponent may be high. • Mitigation and compensation costs to the proponent may be high. • DFO review is not required if a qualified environmental professional certifies and documents that harm to fish habitat will not occur if works proceed as planned; notify DFO 10 working days before starting your work by submission of a completed Project Review Application Form to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Notification to DFO” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire-eng.pdf) and including certification of no harm to fish habitat by a qualified environmental professional. • DFO review is required if a qualified environmental professional cannot certify and document that harm to fish habitat will not occur if works proceed as planned: submit a completed Project Review Application Form and Aquatic Effects Assessment to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo- mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Request for Project Review” or “Request for a Fisheries Act Authorization” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire-eng.pdf).
    • 36. 36 Shoreline Management Guidelines: SWARM High Risk Activities • Pose high risk of harm to fish habitat. • Many works will require authorization under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to legally proceed. • Include significant challenges to prevention of harm through relocation, redesign and mitigation measures or to compensation for fish habitat losses that may occur. • Professional planning and assessment is required; costs to the proponent may be high. • Mitigation and compensation costs to the proponent may be high. • DFO review is required: submit a completed Project Review Application Form and Aquatic Effects Assessment to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Request for Project Review” or “Request for a Fisheries Act Authorization” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire- eng.pdf). Very High Risk Activities • Pose very high risk of harm to fish habitat. • Most works will require authorization under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to legally proceed. • Include significant challenges to prevention of harm through relocation, redesign and mitigation measures or to compensation for fish habitat losses that may occur. • Professional planning and assessment is required; costs to the proponent may be high. • Mitigation and compensation costs to the proponent may be high. • DFO review is required: submit a completed Project Review Application Form and Aquatic Effects Assessment to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Request for Project Review” or “Request for a Fisheries Act Authorization” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form- formulaire-eng.pdf). • DFO may determine the risk of harm to fish habitat is unacceptable and not grant Fisheries Act, section 35(2) authorization.
    • 37. 37 Shoreline Management Guidelines: Figure 1 versus
    • 38. 38 Important Considerations • Operational Statements and Best Management Practices rely on proven mitigative measures and/or professional oversight to prevent harm to fish habitat • As an engineer or geoscientist, you are to ensure that your designs consider fish and fish habitat values at the work location. If in doubt, include a QEP on the project team • As a QEP, you are expected to have working knowledge of fish and fish habitat values, environmental impact assessment standards and mitigation practices and to certify that proposed works will not cause harm to fish or fish habitat unless a Fisheries Act authorization will be sought • Important Considerations • Have you considered important fish and fish habitats identified in the FIM? • Have you met minimum information standards for the various SLIPP agency’s notification, review or authorization?
    • 39. 39 Example 1 – Open Excavation Waterline in a Very Low Habitat Value Area Subject Property
    • 40. 40 Example 1 – Open Excavation Waterline in a Very Low Habitat Value Area Water Withdrawal and Use Waterline - directional drilling H H M DFO Pacific : Directional Drilling2 Waterline - open excavation VH VH VH H M L6 Activity Activity Risk by Spawning Location and Rank1 Known Char or Sockeye Spawning (9.6% of total shore length, 2.6% in Moderate and Low ) 1 Very High (13% of total shore length High (34% of total shore length) Moderate (38% of total shore length) Low (14% of total shore length) Very Low (0.7% of total shore length) 6. DFO supports installation of waterlines by experienced contractors using open excavation (i.e. trenching) techniques in shoreline segments of Very Low AHI rank because harm to fish habitat can be avoided in these areas by following Operational Best Practices detailed in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Installation and Maintenance of Water Line Intakes (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPIntakes_WorkingDraft.pdf).
    • 41. 41 Example 1 – Open Excavation Waterline in a Very Low Habitat Value Area
    • 42. 42 Example 2 – Joint-planted Rock Retaining Wall in a Moderate Habitat Value Area Subject Property
    • 43. 43 Example 2 – Joint-planted Rock Retaining Wall in a Moderate Habitat Value Area Erosion Control and Foreshore Sediment Control Structures New groyne construction or maintenance of existing groyne VH VH VH VH H H Erosion control (e.g. concrete, rip rap, vegetation, etc.) Design and Assessment Flow Chart for Lakeshore Erosion Control on the System5 Activity Activity Risk by Spawning Location and Rank1 Known Char or Sockeye Spawning (9.6% of total shore length, 2.6% in Moderate and Low ) 1 Very High (13% of total shore length High (34% of total shore length) Moderate (38% of total shore length) Low (14% of total shore length) Very Low (0.7% of total shore length)
    • 44. 44 Example 2 – Joint-planted Rock Retaining Wall in a Moderate Habitat Value Area
    • 45. 45 Example 2 – Joint-planted Rock Retaining Wall in a Moderate Habitat Value Area
    • 46. 46 Example 2 – Joint-planted Rock Retaining Wall in a Moderate Habitat Value Area 1 Indicators of lakeshore erosion include large areas of bare soil and steep, high banks at the high water mark (HWM), noticeable recession of the HWM over a period of time, leaning or downed trees with exposed roots at the HWM, large patches of muddy water at the lake margin during high water and large deposits of eroded soil on the lakeshore following high water. 2 Erosion-related risks include loss of property and damage or loss of nearshore structures. 3 Maintenance of an existing work is limited to replacement of less that one half of an existing erosion control structure on its existing foundation and must not include any lakeward extension of the existing structure or backfill. 4 On Shuswap Lake, the 1-in-5 year flood level has been calculated to correspond with an elevation of 348.7 m GSC. For Little Shuswap and Mara Lakes, the 1-in-5 year flood level has been extrapolated as 348.0 m GSC and 348.8 m GSC, respectively.
    • 47. 47 Example 2 – Joint-planted Rock Retaining Wall in a Moderate Habitat Value Area 5 Many lakeshore erosion protection options are available, including planting of native trees and shrubs, planting of native trees and shrubs through a biodegradable erosion control blanket, planting of native trees and shrubs within the joints of a rock matrix and hard armouring techniques. Additional information is provided in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Lakeshore Stabilization (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPLakeshoreStabilization_WorkingDraft.pdf) 6 Applicable Operational Best Practices are detailed in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Lakeshore Stabilization (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPLakeshoreStabilization_WorkingDraft.pdf) 7 Known shore spawning locations are illustrated in Attachment I and on the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca).
    • 48. 48 Example 3 – Private Floating Dock Outside Mapped Sensitive Site Types Subject Property
    • 49. 49 Example 3 – Private Floating Dock Outside Mapped Sensitive Site Types Docks Design and Assessment Flow Chart for Private Moorage on the System5 Activity Activity Risk by Spawning Location and Rank1 Known Char or Sockeye Spawning (9.6% of total shore length, 2.6% in Moderate and Low ) 1 Very High (13% of total shore length High (34% of total shore length) Moderate (38% of total shore length) Low (14% of total shore length) Very Low (0.7% of total shore length)
    • 50. 50 Example 3 – Private Floating Dock Outside Mapped Sensitive Site Types
    • 51. 51 Example 3 – Private Floating Dock Outside Mapped Sensitive Site Types
    • 52. 52 Example 3 – Private Floating Dock Outside Mapped Sensitive Site Types 1 Sensitive site types include mapped: (a) shore spawning sites, (b) high-value rearing sites, (c) vegetated foreshore areas, and/or (d) stream deltas (see Attachment I or the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca)). Floating Dock: Less than 24 square meters in total surface area. Less than 3 meters wide. Decking constructed or spaced to allow light penetration to foreshore areas under the dock. Floats discontinuous and spaced at least 1-meter apart so at least one-third of the dock is free of floats. Maintained in water depth of 1.5 meters or greater at all times. If annually removed from the water, this must be completed without disturbance of the lake foreshore. No permanent physical link to shore (e.g. piles or decks); retractable walkways acceptable. Floating Dock: Less than 24 square meters in total surface area. Less than 3 meters wide. Decking constructed or spaced to allow light penetration to foreshore areas under the dock. Floats discontinuous and spaced at least 1-meter apart so at least one-third of the dock is free of floats. Maintained in water depth of 1.5 meters or greater at all times. If annually removed from the water, this must be completed without disturbance of the lake foreshore. No permanent physical link to shore (e.g. piles or decks); retractable walkways acceptable.
    • 53. 53 Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area
    • 54. 54 Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area Marinas Design and Assessment Flow Chart for Commercial and Strata Moorage on the Shuswap Lake System5 Activity Activity Risk by Spawning Location and Rank1 Known Char or Sockeye Spawning (9.6% of total shore length, 2.6% in Moderate and Low ) 1 Very High (13% of total shore length High (34% of total shore length) Moderate (38% of total shore length) Low (14% of total shore length) Very Low (0.7% of total shore length)
    • 55. 55 Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area
    • 56. 56 Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area
    • 57. 57 Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area 1 Wave attenuation structures include standalone breakwaters as well as over- wide outer docks and other structures intended to modify wave conditions in the moorage area and/or near- shore environment. 2 Sensitive site types include mapped: (a) shore spawning sites, (b) high-value rearing sites, (c) vegetated foreshore areas, and/or (d) stream deltas; see Attachment I or the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca). 3 Draft Integrated Land Management Bureau Thompson Okanagan Strata - Commercial Moorage Guidelines include the following walkout/dock dimensions and shoreline proximity standards: o Floating portions of the dock must be located offshore of the 6 meter depth contour at mean annual low water. o Access to floating portions of the dock must be achieved by a single elevated fixed deck and ramp that must not exceed 1.5 meters in width. At a minimum, the base of the elevated fixed deck must be located at least 1 meter above the lake 1-in 5 year flood level. The remainder of the dock surface must not exceed 3 meters in width for any other portion of the dock. o Supported dock structures must use widely spaced wooden or steel piles that are made of non-toxic materials (solid core docks will not be allowed). Do not use pressure treated wood.
    • 58. 58 Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area 5 DFO supports proponents receiving term and tenure-type considerations from ILMB where a fish or fish habitat review is not required for proposed works or where an applicant has received a letter of advice from DFO related to proposed moorage works. To ensure protection of fish habitat and meet present-day best practice standards, all new, renewal and replacement tenures for commercial and strata moorages will be subject to this flow chart process. 4 Follow Operational Best Practices detailed in the BC Ministry of Environment document “Best Management Practices for Small Boat Moorage on Lakes” (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPSmallBoatMoora ge_WorkingDraft.pdf)
    • 59. 59 Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area
    • 60. 60 Shoreline Management Guidelines versus Where can I get more information? • SLIPP: www.slippbc.com • Request information from Front Counter BC
    • 61. Riparian Areas Regulation
    • 62. ObjectiveObjective  RAR processRAR process  Yanke decisionYanke decision  Next stepsNext steps
    • 63. What is the RAR?What is the RAR?  a regulation enacted through Section 12 of thea regulation enacted through Section 12 of the Fish Protection ActFish Protection Act  an approach to protecting fish habitat duringan approach to protecting fish habitat during residential, commercial, and industrialresidential, commercial, and industrial developmentdevelopment  a results based regulation that focuses ona results based regulation that focuses on prescribed setbacks from stream banksprescribed setbacks from stream banks
    • 64. When does the RAR apply?When does the RAR apply?  The Riparian Areas Regulation applies to riparianThe Riparian Areas Regulation applies to riparian fish habitat, and only in association with newfish habitat, and only in association with new residential, commercial and industrialresidential, commercial and industrial development on land under local governmentdevelopment on land under local government jurisdictionjurisdiction
    • 65. ProcessProcess Development Proposed inDevelopment Proposed in Riparian Assessment AreaRiparian Assessment Area Local Government bylawsLocal Government bylaws exceed Riparian Areasexceed Riparian Areas Regulation?Regulation? HADD avoided byHADD avoided by assessment resultsassessment results LocalLocal GovernmentGovernment MayMay AuthorizeAuthorize DevelopmentDevelopment Subject toSubject to ConditionsConditions ConsiderConsider DevelopmentDevelopment OpportunitiesOpportunities Outside ofOutside of RiparianRiparian AssessmentAssessment AreaArea Site Assessment by Qualified Environmental Professional no yes yesno
    • 66. Yanke DecisionYanke Decision  Salmon Arm residential property affectedSalmon Arm residential property affected by RARby RAR  Owner challenged that RAR didnOwner challenged that RAR didn’’t applyt apply  Lower court ruled in favour of propertyLower court ruled in favour of property ownerowner  Decision overturned by appeal, howeverDecision overturned by appeal, however the Appeal Court decision has implicationsthe Appeal Court decision has implications for RAR implementationfor RAR implementation
    • 67. Ruling affects:Ruling affects:  Variances, bending and flexingVariances, bending and flexing  HADD determinationHADD determination  DFO authorityDFO authority
    • 68. VariancesVariances  ““There is no provision allowing anyThere is no provision allowing any governmental body to vary the extent ofgovernmental body to vary the extent of the streamside protection andthe streamside protection and enhancement area.enhancement area.””
    • 69. HADD determinationHADD determination  ... (LG approval) will depend on whether it is anticipated... (LG approval) will depend on whether it is anticipated that it will cause athat it will cause a ““harmful alteration, disruption orharmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions and conditionsdestruction of natural features, functions and conditions that support fish life processes in the riparianthat support fish life processes in the riparian assessment areaassessment area”” (commonly referred to as a(commonly referred to as a ““HADDHADD””).).  development can occur within a streamside protectiondevelopment can occur within a streamside protection and enhancement area if the assessment report certifiesand enhancement area if the assessment report certifies that the development will not result in a HADDthat the development will not result in a HADD
    • 70. DFO authorityDFO authority  ........ ““there is nothing in s. 4 of thethere is nothing in s. 4 of the Riparian AreasRiparian Areas Regulation that allows the Department of Fisheries andRegulation that allows the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to veto a development proposal that is before aOceans to veto a development proposal that is before a local government where the qualifiedlocal government where the qualified environmentalenvironmental professional has given an opinion that the proposedprofessional has given an opinion that the proposed development will not result in a HADDdevelopment will not result in a HADD””..  ““the City could authorize the construction in thethe City could authorize the construction in the circumstances of this case without the approval of thecircumstances of this case without the approval of the Department of Fisheries and OceansDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans””
    • 71. SummarySummary  No provision for variance from legislatedNo provision for variance from legislated requirementrequirement  QEP determines HADDQEP determines HADD  Within RAR model, DFO authority isWithin RAR model, DFO authority is limitedlimited  Provided the reporting requirements areProvided the reporting requirements are met, LG approval process is independentmet, LG approval process is independent of senior governmentof senior government
    • 72. Now what?Now what?  Province is evaluating implications and willProvince is evaluating implications and will pursue appropriate legislative changes. Inpursue appropriate legislative changes. In the meantime, RAR still applies.the meantime, RAR still applies.  The intent of RAR still applies. WhereThe intent of RAR still applies. Where setbacks deviate from methodology,setbacks deviate from methodology, recommend that QEPs seek LOA fromrecommend that QEPs seek LOA from DFO.DFO.  Courts will decide due diligenceCourts will decide due diligence
    • 73. 73 Okanagan Protocol Update Jason Ladyman, BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
    • 74. 74 Questions and Answers

    ×