REPORT TO: Council FOR: Regular Meeting of Council

Transcription

1 DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH REPORT TO: Council FOR: Regular Meeting of Council PRESENTED: May 6, 2006 FILE: COMDEV-Enviro SUBJECT: District of Squamish Watercourse Regulations Recommendation: THAT Council endorses the process described in this report for the District of Squamish Watercourse Regulations and directs staff to pursue completion of the Environmental Development Permit Guidelines and adoption of the OCP Amendment Bylaw on or before July 22, CAO Recommendation: THAT the report from Community Development be approved. K. Anema, CAO 1. Purpose: This report is submitted to update Council and to obtain Council s support for the District s proposed Watercourse Regulations in advance of re-engaging the stakeholders and the community. 2. Time Critical: The Watercourse Regulations are a provincially legislated requirement. The Province s Riparian Area Regulation (RAR) was enacted in 2005 and it dictated that local government was to embed the provisions of the RAR or alternate regulations that would meet of exceed the RAR into local legislation in In order to meet the proposed July 22, 2008 target for the adoption of the bylaw it will be necessary for this project to be the number one priority of Environmental Staff and will require a significant effort from Planning and the Director of Community Development. 3. Background: Previously the following process elements have formed part of the ongoing discussion. I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1

2 a. The District s regulations should meet or exceed the RAR as dictated by the Province. b. On average the District s regulations should be more protective than the RAR and more permissive than the former Streamside Protection Regulations (SPR). c. The District s regulations will endeavor to be more protective of higher value habitat and less protective of lower value habitat. d. A watershed approach will be taken to riparian area management. e. The District reserves the right to review QEP reports. It is not the District s intent that every report be reviewed; rather the Environmental Coordinator would screen the reports along the lines of low, medium and high impact. The bulk of review time would be spent on the high potential for impact category. II. MAPPING The regulations will refer to a map that is yet to be prepared. This map will identify the Environmental Development Permit Areas. They are generally understood to be all areas within 30 meters of the top of bank of a watercourse. Since the proposed framework treats developable lands in different ways depending on whether they occur within an existing neighborhood, have an existing structure or are sub dividable, the map and text of the bylaw will have to clarify what category parcels of land fall into. As development occurs the application of the categories will have to be periodically revisited. In order to use the matrix it will also be necessary to distinguish between different types of watercourses, being: Fish bearing or non-fish bearing watercourses; Natural versus man-made watercourses; and, Ephemeral or intermittent watercourses. At this stage we do not expect that these classifications would be included in the map but rather expect that the QEP will determine the type of watercourse. III. IV. MATRIX FOR DETERMINING RIPARIAN BUFFER Council has directed staff to bring forward regulations that will meet or exceed the proscriptions of the RAR. In response to this guiding principle the matrix for determining riparian buffer width that is included in Schedule 1 has established minimum setback requirements that may exceed the RAR Detailed Assessment requirement. VARIANCE PROCEDURE For larger, sub dividable parcels the more restrictive, RAR Simple Assessment would be used for determining buffer width. However, a variance procedure would be available to these parcels and only these parcels, which may allow a reduction in the buffer width or allow a variable width buffer based on a more detailed investigation and assessment to be undertaken by the QEP. The QEP 2

3 report would be reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). V. WATERSHED APPROACH This principle means that the determination of the appropriate riparian buffer on a site is not independent of the riparian circumstances (values and cumulative impacts) in the remainder of the watershed. In order to provide as much clarity as possible to how this will be interpreted the following are some of the considerations, which may be taken into account: a. Water temperature/ shade relationships b. Food and nutrient supply c. Water quality/ chemistry d. Water supply e. Presence of invasive species/ beneficial plants f. Flood control g. Biodiversity h. Recreational values i. Extra-ordinary ecological values VI. VII. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The ERC will be made up of the landowner s representative (QEP); a representative of DFO and the District s Environmental Coordinator or designate. This would be a technical committee that would review QEP reports where a variance requests. The comments of the ERC would be provided to staff in the form of advice similar to what the Advisory Design Panel provides when reviewing Development Permit Applications. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE EDP Following completion of legal and stakeholder reviews, staff will bring this issue to a strategic session of Council. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS a. It is understood that wetlands would assessed in conformance with the RAR b. If a proposal includes the Harmful Alteration or Destruction of Habitat that part of the application would fall under the Fisheries Act and would require the approval of DFO. c. Man-made non fish bearing watercourses may be relocated in accordance with best management practices and may be infilled when outleting to a storm sewer system exceeding 25 meters in length and on the condition that source controls are provided on the development site. Source controls include the infiltration of groundwater to DFO guidelines or bio-filtration of runoff or oilgrease separation as applicable. d. The District will be exempt from the requirements of the regulations with respect to man-made watercourses occurring within municipal road allowances and right-of-ways. 3

4 On December 11 th, 2007 Council directed staff to arrange for a Watercourse Bylaw field review that Council would attend. The purpose of this field review was to visit on the ground examples of the proposed regulatory categories and to help clarify issues that the Watercourse Bylaw presented. On April 14 th, 2008, Council members along with the Director of Community Development Mick Gottardi, Environmental Coordinator Peter Woods, and Environmental Technician, Caroline Ashekian, and a representative from the Ministry of Environment, presented several sites where the Watercourse Bylaw would apply. Examples of the watercourse matrix were applied to on the ground situations. The following comments were expressed: The watershed approach to buffer decisions seems to be a subjective issue. The new bylaw should streamline decision-making and minimize workloads for staff on land/streamside issues. Consideration should be given to distinguishing between simple subdivisions and more elaborate subdivisions in categories three and four. A less restrictive approach should be taken to simple subdivisions. How will this bylaw be applied fairly? For example, one homeowner may not be able to develop within the riparian zone but the homeowner neighboring may have existing encroachment into the riparian buffer. On April 17 th, members of the Squamish Landowners Association attended a Watercourse Protection Bylaw presentation conducted by staff at Municipal Hall. The presentation was well attended and its intent was to inform the association, solicit discussion and clarify issues. The following comments were expressed: What agencies will be involved in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and how will the ERC make decisions based on the watershed approach? Will the ERC s decision be final and binding or will there be an appeal process? What will the appeal process look like? What is the watershed approach and how restrictive will this approach be? Could in-stream habitat restoration works be part of the compensation process when applying for a variance; what are the guidelines for compensation when a variance is requested? On April 22 nd, staff presented to the Stream keepers Society. The presentation was well attended and its intent was to inform the association, solicit discussion and clarify issues. The following comments were expressed: What role will the Environmental Review Committee play in deciding variance results? What type of representation will be involved in the ERC? Will one representative have more power in decision making than another? Will the Fisheries Act still apply to certain decisions? 4

5 The watershed approach is a good approach to take but may require further clarification. How will lands with potential riparian growth be treated? The hired Qualified Environmental Professional may be biased as he/she represents the developer. 4. Project Information: Further consultation is planned prior to bringing a bylaw forward for Council s consideration. This will include but not necessarily be limited to: Squamish River Watershed and Environmental Conservation Societies Urban Development Institute Squamish Liaison Committee Community Consultation in an Open House format During this process the framework document will continue to evolve and the legal review of the bylaw will be completed. Informal discussions with the Squamish Nation and the Agencies will continue. Following consultation and in advance of bringing the bylaw forward, staff expects to bring an updated framework document that will incorporate the matters raised in the consultative process, to a Strategy Session of Council. After first and second readings of the bylaw a referral would be made to the Squamish Nation, DFO, MOE and Howe Sound School District No. 48. Finally, any needed amendments will be made and if acceptable to Council the Bylaw will proceed to Public Hearing, Third Reading and Adoption. 5. Department Comments: The following schedule is proposed for the finalization of the regulations: May 6 th : Report To Council. June 6-24: Completion of legal, map and final stakeholder consultation. June 10 th : Strategic Council Meeting June 12 th or 16 th : Community Open House June 17 th : 1 st and 2 nd Reading. July 8 th : Public Hearing and 3rd Reading. July 22: Adoption. This process will be collaboration between Community Development and Planning, with Planning taking the lead when the OCP amendment bylaw is presented Council. 5

6 6. Policy Implication The Environmental Development Permit Guidelines are a major policy initiative of the District. Other District bylaws that may interact will have to be reviewed for conformity. These include but are not necessarily limited to the Site Alteration Bylaw and the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw. 7. Alternatives to Staff Recommendation: Staff Recommendation: THAT Council endorses the process described in this report for the District of Squamish Watercourse Regulations and directs staff to pursue completion of the Environmental Development Permit Guidelines and adoption of the OCP Amendment Bylaw on or before July 22, Implications: Staff will have the direction needed to consult with stakeholders and the community and prepare the bylaw for readings of Council. Alternative 1 Another option directed by Council. Peter Woods Environmental Coordinator Mick Gottardi, P. Eng. Director of Community Development 6

7 Schedule 1 Policy Framework for determining Riparian Buffers in the District of Squamish 7

8 MATRIX FOR DETERMINING RIPARIAN BUFFER WIDTH Buffer width is shown in cells, and width is a function of watercourse classification, project type and project location. Project Classification 2 Watercourse classification 7 Permanent, fish bearing Permanent, non-fish bearing Natural watercourses Man-made watercourses 1 Non-permanent, fishbearing Existing Neighborhoods Non-permanent, non-fish bearing Category 1 Category 1: NA, as long as redevelopment takes place in existing footprint, and not closer to the watercourse. Existing Neighborhood RAR detailed RAR detailed RAR detailed RAR detailed assessment RAR detailed assessment with assessment with assessment with with minimum 5m buffer assessment with minimum 15m minimum 10m minimum 15m minimum 10m buffer buffer buffer buffer Category 2 - Existing Neighborhood RAR detailed assessment with minimum 15 m buffer RAR detailed minimum 10 m buffer RAR detailed assessment with minimum 15m buffer RAR detailed assessment with minimum 5m buffer Fish bearing Non-fish bearing 6 RAR detailed minimum 10 m buffer RAR detailed assessment with minimum 5m buffer RAR detailed minimum 5m buffer Category 3 - Existing Neighborhood variance as needed to accommodate use. variance as needed to accommodate use. Ephemeral stream 3 Intermittent stream 4 RAR detailed minimum 15 m buffer RAR detailed minimum 5m buffer RAR detailed minimum 10m buffer RAR detailed minimum 5m buffer Category 4 - Existing Neighborhood variance as needed to accommodate use. variance as needed to accommodate use. variance as needed to accommodate use. with RAR Simple Assessment, with variance as needed to accommodate use. RAR detailed minimum 10m buffer RAR detailed minimum 5m buffer Future Neighborhoods Category 5 Future Neighborhood Assessment (15 or 30 m), with variance considered based on demonstrated hardship. 5 variance considered based on demonstrated hardship. variance considered based on demonstrated hardship. with RAR Simple Assessment, with variance considered based on demonstrated hardship. Man-made watercourses may or may not be present on greenfield sites QEP to determine. If present - variance considered based on demonstrated hardship. RAR detailed assessment with minimum 5m buffer. 1. Man made watercourses are limited to those made for drainage purposes (e.g., ditches). Does not include constructed fish habitat compensation/restoration channels. 8

9 2. Project classification - Category 1: Existing neighborhood, property cannot be subdivided, existing permanent structure, application is for re-development. Category 2: Existing neighborhood, property cannot be subdivided, no permanent structures exist. Category 3Existing neighborhood, can subdivide property, existing permanent structure. Category 4: Existing neighborhood, can subdivide property, no existing permanent structures. Category 5: Future neighborhood, can subdivide property, (large parcel, typically no municipal sewer and water) Final boundaries for neighborhood designations are policy decisions for Council. 3. Ephemeral stream flows 6 months/year, but has prolonged periods of continuous flow: QEP makes determination 4. Intermittent stream flows only during periods of very heavy rainfall; could be described as flashy : QEP makes determination 5. Hardship can include: biophysical conditions (e.g., slopes, ravines); parcel size; existing roads, services, utility rights-of-way; proposed roads and services needed to service the lands. 6. (a) Relocation of non-fish-bearing man-made watercourses to suit proposed development will be permitted. (b) Infill of non-fish-bearing man-made watercourses will be considered if outlet is to a storm sewer exceeding 25 m in length and source controls such as infiltration, biofiltration or oil-grease separation are provided on site. 7. It is understood that wetlands will be assessed in conformance with the RAR. 9

10 VARIANCE TO RIPARIAN BUFFER Variance Procedure: Variable-Width Buffers (SPEAs) The District of Squamish acknowledges that occasionally the existence of obstacles on a parcel may impair the ability to designate streamside protection and enhancement areas in accordance with the default streamside buffers prescribed above. Such obstacles may include, but are not limited to: (i) biophysical conditions; (ii) existing parcel sizes; (iii) Existing roads, works or services; (iv) Proposed roads, works and services needed to provide access or services to otherwise developable land; (v) the existence of artificial controls on the high water mark or water level of a stream. The purpose of this variance procedure is to provide some flexibility in the determination of appropriate buffers, or Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas (SPEAs) 1. This method uses the Environmental Review Committee, made up of the District, Department of Fisheries and Oceans if available, and the proponent s QEP. The DOS representative will take ERC comments and information into account when rendering a decision on the variance. Justification for the Variable-width buffer (SPEA) The proponent must provide technical justification for the reason a buffer reduction is requested on certain sections of the affected riparian zone. In general, the technical argument must be presented in an environmental / riparian assessment report prepared by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP), such as a Registered Professional Biologist. Determining the Variable-width buffer (SPEA) The method shall be as follows: 1 Density Credits could be an option offered by the DOS 10

11 1. Determine the applicable riparian buffer as per the default method RAR Simple Assessment. QEP must determine fish presence or absence. In addition, the proponent may be required to submit additional information beyond that required under the RAR assessment procedure. The report must be prepared to a level of quality acceptable to the District of Squamish. 2. Conduct environmental site assessment by a Qualified Environmental Professional to determine ecologically suitable areas for buffer width reduction. 3. Indicate on a plan view drawing the area of proposed buffer width reduction. Buffers can be reduced in accordance with the following conditions: (a) The average buffer width for the development site shall be equal to or greater than the default buffer width as calculated per RAR Simple Assessment standards. (b) The maximum allowable buffer width reduction shall be a 10 metres reduction on a default buffer of 30 metres ( 20m), and a 5 metres reduction on a default buffer of 15 metres ( 10m). (c) The length and width of the buffer reduction in one portion of the land parcel shall be equal to the length and width of the buffer addition in another portion of the land parcel. (d) Buffer widening shall take place on the same side of the channel as the proposed buffer reduction unless increased buffer width can be secured by covenant on opposing side of same channel and delivers greater environmental or ecosystem benefits. (e) ERC to review buffer width reduction and make recommendations to DOS. The ERC will consider the results of the QEP assessment report. In its deliberation, the ERC will ensure that the outcome of the proposed variance will provide an equivalent or enhanced level of protection, compared with the simple assessment. In this regard, the District of Squamish recognizes that other variables, factors, and values may be, and quite often are, considered by local government or an ERC in making a variance decision, and hence the level of protection afforded by the results of the detailed QEP assessment may not address those other values. The District of Squamish recognizes that protection levels in excess of the detailed assessment may be considered to address the other values including fish habitat. Other values can include, but are not limited to: a) floodplain and flood risk management, including channel migration considerations; b) slope stability and erosion concerns; c) tree stand integrity and hazard tree management; d) drainage considerations; 11

12 e) high value / productivity fish habitat f) riparian corridor connectivity: near continuous corridors are especially important along small headwater, low-order streams and their tributaries. 12

13 A possible solution Average buffer = 30m Buffer reduced to 20m Buffer increased to 40m Buffer reduction Stream channel: fishbearing Default buffer = 30m (as per RAR Simple Assessment) 13

14 Notes on ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING RIPARIAN BUFFERS Stream classification Differentiate between permanent and ephemeral streams, plus add another classification: Permanent stream flows year-round Ephemeral stream flows 6 months/year Intermittent streams that only flow during periods of heavy precipitation. They are generally flashy, and for ease of defining, we could say that they flow for < 30 days/year (consecutive). Annual flow patterns are a consideration in determining appropriate buffer width. For example, a reduced buffer (5-10m) may be warranted on an intermittent system if good stormwater management practices accompany the development project design. Low-order / headwater streams typically require a larger buffer Meighan Little Stawamus Horse Creek Dryden Creek Hop Ranch Creek Finch Creek Loggers Lane Creek Newport Creek (?) Cottonwood Creek These streams and their tribs come to mind as those being most vulnerable to development pressures. Large rivers / streams: we pretty much know these - Mamquam Cheakamus Cheekeye Squamish Stawamus For those [portions] rivers that are diked, there s not much we can say about a buffer. But, for those portions that are not diked, buffer width is arguably less important for these bigger systems (except maybe Stawamus). However, important considerations for 14

15 development near these systems is flood protection and wildlife habitat / wildlife movement corridors. Man-made drainage ditches, non-fish bearing: these justify a fairly minimal level of protection, although water quality considerations are still important. 15