infrastructure services committee agenda

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE

Thursday April 4, 2013 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 1:30 pm

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the Agenda.

MINUTES

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

REPORTS

2. Manager of Transportation and Facilities Street Light Policy Change

Annex AP1 – 4

3. Section Secretary Monthly Report for March 2013

Annex BP5 – 7

4. Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 1, 2013

Annex CP8 – 11

5. Public Wharves Advisory Committee (PWAC) meeting minutes of March 4, 2013

Annex DP12 – 14

6. Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee (PMAC) meeting minutes of March 11, 2013

Annex EP15 – 19

7. Senior Planner BURNCO Draft Application Information Requirements

Annex FP20 – 41

COMMUNICATIONS IN CAMERA

THAT the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (k) of the Community Charter “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service...”

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5400 Streets\5400-03 Street Lighting\2013-Feb-7

ISC report Street LIghting policy change.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: March 14, 2013

TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 4, 2013

FROM: Brian Sagman, Manager of Transportation and Facilities

RE: Street Light Policy Change

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Manager of Transportation and Facilities’ report titled “Street Light Policy Change” be received for information; AND THAT the Street Light Policy be amended to remove the reference to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure designation of “Major Street” and substitute with “Arterial/Primary and Collector”. The objective of this report is to revise the SCRD street light policy (attached) that currently refers to the MOTI designation of “Major Street”, a term that is no longer in use. BACKGROUND The Street Light policy in part governs the actions required to install a new street light and the basis for determining if a light should be included in regional lighting or as a separate distinct function. SCRD staff have historically relied on the use of the MOTI’s designation of the “major street” network as one of the criteria for making this determination. However MOTI has moved away from the use of the term “major streets” and now uses Arterial/Primary, Collector/Secondary and Local to define different types of roads. Recent installation of street lights has been minimal. In all cases the requests were related to locations that could not be considered for the exclusive use of specific properties, so the lights were included in the regional lighting function. However the consideration of a light request on Gambier Island led to questions concerning the distinction between regional lighting and a specific service area.

DISCUSSION

The MOTI supplement to the Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide provides for classification of roads as Arterial/Primary, Collector/Secondary or Local.

Arterial/Primary Roads - are primarily for through traffic on a continuous route where direct access to abutting land is not a priority. Highway #101 and the Port Melon Highway would be considered arterial/primary roads.

Collector/Secondary Roads – provide for traffic movement between arterials and local streets with some direct access to adjacent properties. A number of roads on the Sunshine Coast would fit into this category.

ANNEX 'A'

1

Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 2 of 4 Regarding Street Light Policy Change

\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5400 Streets\5400-03 Street Lighting\2013-Feb-7 ISC report Street LIghting policy change.docx

Local Roads – are primarily for access to properties.

Street lights located on Arterial/Primary roads such as Highway #101 would most likely fall under the responsibility of the MOTI rather than the SCRD. However in the event that the SCRD did undertake to install a street light on an arterial/primary corridor, it would logically fall under the regional lighting function.

The Collector/Secondary road designation would appear to coincide with the spirit of designating a street light within the regional lighting function. Lights located along these corridors would be expected to function for the general benefit of the public rather than specific property owners.

Street lights located on local roads that service only properties on that road would be more suited to a separate service area through the establishment of a unique function.

2



Sunshine Coast Regional District

BOARD POLICY MANUAL

Section: Engineering and Public Works 11

Subsection: Streets and Roads 5400

Title: Street Lighting 1

POLICY The general function for street lighting will be used for lights installed on the Sunshine Coast Highway and Port Mellon Highway and other roadways where lighting is deemed to be in the public interest. REASON FOR POLICY To enable the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board to make decisions regarding the installation and funding of street lights. AUTHORITY TO ACT Delegated to Staff. PROCEDURE All requests for street lighting must be in writing. When a request is received, it should be forwarded to the Infrastructure Services Department. Staff will review the request, conducting a site visit in order to clarify the location and note the number of the hydro pole, which will provide the best location for the light. During the site visit, staff will also assess the benefit of the street light based on the following criteria: Is the location on the Sunshine Coast Highway or the Port Mellon Highway? Is the location at a major intersection? Is the location at a bus stop? Will the lighting provide a benefit to the immediate properties only or will it provide a

wider benefit to the community? Is there a history of motor vehicle accidents or other such public safety issue? Is the location on a road or at an intersection of a road that has been designated by

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as a “Major Street”? Staff will also survey neighbours in the area directly affected (in direct view of the light) by the proposed light. Following the preliminary site visit, staff will contact BC Hydro to confirm the cost for the installation of a light at this location.

3



A report outlining the request, the level of benefit and the fiscal implications will then be forwarded to the Infrastructure Services Committee for review. The Committee will make a recommendation to do one of the following:

1. Direct staff to provide a petition to the requester which can be circulated in the area benefiting from the proposed street light and returned to the Regional District requesting the establishment of a Service Area.

2. Direct staff to proceed with the installation under the General Street Lighting

Function. 3. Direct staff to inform the requester that a street light will not be installed

by the Regional District, as there has been an objection from a property owner immediately adjacent to the proposed street light and that other options will need to be pursued by the requester, such as individually owned yard lights or installation of reflective tape on the subject hydro pole.

(Item 1 above will be forwarded to the Legislative Services Division for action. Items 2 and 3 will be completed by the Infrastructure Services Department) BC Hydro is encouraged to install the least invasive type lenses possible and to move toward replacing existing lenses with low light emission technology, in order to create the least possible residual light. If, during the informal survey process, objections are received from any immediately adjacent property owners to the proposed street light location, BC Hydro should be contacted to see if they are able to install the light in such a way as to address the concerns of the objector. For example, a street light can be angled in such a way as to direct the light away from windows and by the use of low light emission technology. Once a review is done of the concerns, staff will submit another report to the Board providing the information necessary for the Board to determine whether or not it is appropriate to proceed with the installation. If a petition for a Local Service is required, staff will prepare the petition and forward it to the requester. If sufficient signatures are received, staff will proceed with the preparation of a Service Establishment Bylaw.

4

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5260 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\5260-20 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\ISC Monthly\2013-MAR IS monthly.doc

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 4, 2013

FROM: Section Secretary, Infrastructure Services

RE: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2013

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Section Secretary, Infrastructure Services’ report entitled “Monthly Report for March 2013” be received. BACKGROUND This report is prepared monthly as information for the Infrastructure Services Committee. UTILITIES DIVISION

WATER TREATMENT PLANT In February the Chapman Water Treatment Plant produced and supplied 277,522 m3, a 8.4% decrease from the five year average.

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 10 water meters were installed.

CAPITAL WORKS The Sherman Road water main replacement project has commenced.

The Pratt Road water main replacement project is in the planning stages.

SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable Services and Finance staff completed and submitted the SCRD’s 2012 CARIP claim and report. The report has been posted to the SCRD website for public information. New requirements in 2012 include reporting on third party contracted emissions (e.g. contractors providing services required to maintain SCRD operations). Some of this information is in place, however additional reporting requirements will need to be incorporated into SCRD contract templates for all service providers in future. Resources to maintain comprehensive annual emissions inventories have not been available and SCRD continues to rely on the 2008 baseline data set for corporate emissions. Regular updates to the inventory will be completed by the Corporate Energy Manager once this position is in place allowing for better management of energy consumption and prioritization of conservation measures. For the 2012 report, SCRD was able to report on preliminary results of the Sechelt Aquatic Centre energy project, which yielded the following annual savings relative to 2011: greenhouse gas reduction of approximately 328 tonne of Carbon Dioxide equivalents approximately 68% reduction in natural gas consumption almost $80,000 reduced cost of natural gas

ANNEX 'B'

5

Infrastructure Services Monthly Report for March 2013 Page 2


The SCRD’s Corporate Energy Manager will be starting April 2. The funding agreement with BC Hydro for this position has been received and signed. BC Hydro will be conducting quarterly progress reviews with the Energy Manager and has advised the SCRD that upon completion of the second progress review there is generally a clear indication of whether the agreement will be renewed for another year, thus enabling the Board to make informed decisions during the budget process. BC Hydro’s primary expectation for the first year of the Energy Manager program is the completion of the SCRD’s corporate energy and emissions inventory and Strategic Energy Management Plan, which includes business casing of proposed energy conservation measures.

REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY SCRD has contracted Enerficiency Consulting to update the SCRD’s Community Energy and Emissions Inventory based on 2010 data from the province and to update forecasted emissions through 2031. The project will commence May 1, 2013 and is expected to be completed in time for the September Infrastructure Services Committee. Costs for this project are within the approved budget.

ZERO WASTE GUIDE FOR ACCOMMODATIONS A new Zero Waste Guide for Accommodations is now available on our website.

The guide is intended to help an accommodations facility work towards becoming a ‘zero waste’ business, where waste is minimized, and reuse, composting and recycling are maximized. The guide includes steps for developing a zero waste strategy, practical zero waste tips that can be implemented throughout the facility and gardens, local examples for inspiration, and resources and links for further information.

The SCRD is working with Sunshine Coast Tourism to share the guide with owners and managers of Bed & Breakfast or other accommodations facilities, and to gather their feedback.

SOLID WASTE SCRD issued a Request for Information (similar to a Request for Expressions of Interest) on March 8, 2013 to identify proponents who are interested and qualified to provide resource recovery facility (RRF) services in the Pender Harbour, Sechelt and Gibsons areas. This is the first step in the Board’s approved process for moving forward with implementation of RRF services in each of the three areas, as detailed in staff’s report to the ISC meeting held December 6, 2012 entitled “Resource Recovery Facility Business Plan Update and Next Steps”. The Request for Information closes March 27, 2013, and results will be brought to the ISC at the earliest opportunity to discuss next steps.

The Sechelt Landfill received 894 tonnes in February, an 8% decrease from February 2012 and a 6% decrease from 2011.

The Pender Harbour Landfill received 87 tonnes in February, a 15% decrease from February 2012 and a 22% decrease from 2011.

TRANSPORTATION AND FACILITIES DIVISION

TRANSIT The second of three stakeholder meetings is being held on March 27th in support of the development of the Transit Future Plan. This will be followed by a second public engagement period between April 19th and April 24th. Staff are currently finalizing the May 16, 2013 schedule that will coincide with the change to BC Ferries to their spring shoulder schedule. This will be followed by the June 26, 2013 schedule that will be in effect until September 2, 2013.

6

Infrastructure Services Monthly Report for March 2013 Page 3


PORTS The installation of new cross bracing at the Hopkins Landing dock and replacement of two short pilings has been completed. This was a carry-over project from the 2012 work plan.

The installation of the new portion of dock for Gambier Harbour is scheduled for the week of March 25, 2013. The installation has been hampered by the need for installation of rub rails and decking as well as delays to avoid winter weather conditions. Staff are undertaking pressure washing of docks in response to slippery conditions and to reduce long term maintenance costs.

The focus for major repairs and projects will be shifting to West Bay where we will be replacing major structural components on the dock approach as well as cross bracing. We also plan to contract for the construction and installation of a low maintenance replacement float at this location that will be consistent with the type of float constructed for Gambier Harbour.

FLEET We expect delivery of three new Arboc buses in late April or early May of this year that will replace our aging fleet of Polar buses that are used primarily for handyDART service.

7

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - JWMAC\2013-Mar-01 JWMAC minutes.docx_

1

JOINT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

March 1, 2013

MINUTES FROM THE JOINT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICE AT 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, B. C. FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013

PRESENT: Sechelt Indian Band: Chief Garry Feschuk Councillor Jordan Louie Councillor Ashley Joe Councillor Christopher August Rights and Title Department Jasmine Paul SCRD: Director, Halfmoon Bay (Area B) Garry Nohr, Chair Director, Pender Harbour (Area A) Frank Mauro Director, Roberts Creek (Area D) Donna Shugar Director, Elphinstone (Area E) Lorne Lewis Director, West Howe Sound (Area F) Lee Turnbull Chief Administrative Officer John France GM Infrastructure Services Bryan Shoji Recording Secretary Susan Hunt Other: Sunshine Coast Community Forest Dave Lasser Sunshine Coast Community Forest Elise Rudland Public – Concerned Citizens Hans Penner Public – Sandy Hook Dave Bebbington CALL TO ORDER 11:00 a.m. AGENDA The agenda for the Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee meeting was adopted as received.

ANNEX 'C'

8


2

Recommendation No. 1 – Minutes Follow-Up Page THAT a follow-up page be attached to the Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee Minutes which includes on-going information that the Board and the Sechelt Indian Band can review. Introductions were made around the table and the guests invited from Sunshine Coast Community Forest (SCCF) were welcomed, Dave Lasser and Elise Rudland. Two members of the public were welcomed as observers. MINUTES The minutes of the Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee Meeting held on September 17, 2012 were received as presented. It was noted that on page 2 of the minutes, under “Other Business” a follow up is needed on the bulleted items i.e. that this information is passed on to the SIB for their information. REPORTS Recommendation No. 2 – 2006 Water Summit The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the report regarding 2006 Water Summit be received. Bryan Shoji reviewed the “Recommended Actions” from of 2006 Water Summit Report. Recommendation No. 3 – Chapman Creek Watershed Source Assessment Response Plan Implementation – Proposed 2013 Work Plan The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the report regarding Chapman Creek Watershed Source Assessment Response Plan Implementation – Proposed 2013 Work Plan be received. Recommendation No. 4 – Sunshine Coast Community Forest Cutblock Spacing Project The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the staff report titled Sunshine Coast Community Forest Cutblock Spacing Project be received. Elise Rudland and Dave Lasser were invited to comment on the Forest Cutblock Spacing Project. The

9


3

following comments were made: The spacing was done as the silviculture obligation from the past that was not completed. This

has resulted in silviculture “slums” due to overplanting. Spacing is needed for healthy trees in watershed which in turn creates a healthy watershed.

The variables that affect tree growth i.e. disease, Christmas tree cutting. And that tree spacing makes a healthy watershed. Sunshine Coast Community Forest (SCCF) has a legal obligation to grow the stand and then the province takes over the stand.

The approximate location is an old inherited Interfor block harvested in late 90s (before the SCCF existed and planted in approximately 1994). A flat area close to the Gun Club, approximately 5.6 hectares spaced with manual labour by crew with small chainsaws to remove small trees. Remove alder, no machine work. Trees are left in place to rot and become part of soil. The size of the trees cut were approximately from 2-3 inches up to 5 inches in width.

SCCF offered an educational afternoon as a walk about in the Community Forest.

The Chair thanked SCCF for coming to answer questions. It was noted that there is a protocol between the SCRD and SIB that the Sechelt Community Projects Inc. (SCPI) is to be made aware of. This is new information that this area was overstocked and needed to be managed. In the interest of good relations it would be advisable any activity in the community watershed that SCCF consult with the SIB and SCRD prior to conducting. Chief Feschuk explained that there is a protocol that was established when District of Sechelt Mayor Reid came to the SCRD Boardroom and was asked to stop work in the forest. The SCCF stopped cutting and the loggers were pulled out. The new SCPI Board must be aware of the protocol that is already established. The Sunshine Coast Community Forest guests left the meeting at 12:15 pm Sechelt Community Project Inc’s Development Plans The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee agreed to remove the topic titled “Sechelt Community Project Inc’s Development Plans” from the agenda. BCTS at McNeill Lake Discussion ensued regarding the McNeill Lake cut block tender and the Committee agreed that the issue has been addressed. Chair Nohr said that a follow up letter was sent to BC Timber Sales, and that BCTS removed the contentious block from the tender.

10


4

Recommendation No. 5 The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the communication protocol with Sunshine Coast Community Forest be reviewed at the next Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee - In Camera at the next meeting.

NEXT MEETING 11:00 a.m. Monday, June 17, 2013 ADJOURNMENT 12:20 pm.

11

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT PUBLIC WHARVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

March 4, 2013 DRAFT MINUTES FROM A PUBLIC WHARVES ADVISORY COMMITEE MEETING HELD AT FRANK WEST HALL, 1224 CHASTER ROAD, GIBSONS, BC. PRESENT PWAC Members Nancy Donaldson, Chair Tony Flynn Kate-Louise Stamford ABSENT Ralph Rutherford Dan Crosby Roger Sayer Bruce Wallis ALSO PRESENT Manager, Transportation and Facilities Brian Sagman Recording Secretary Amanda Walkey CALL TO ORDER 10:38 a.m. AGENDA The Agenda was adopted. MINUTES The minutes of the Public Wharves Advisory Committee meeting of December 3, 2012 were adopted as circulated. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Bollard at Keats Landing Ms. Donaldson commented that the scheduled Saturday May 25, 2013, Town Hall meeting date poses a conflict with work party events the same day. Recommendation No. 1 Town Hall Meeting The Public Wharves Advisory Committee recommended that the Town meeting that is to include discussion of the installation of a bollard at Keats Landing be rescheduled for Sunday May 26, 2013.

ANNEX 'D'

12

Public Wharves Advisory Committee Minutes March 4, 2013 Page 2

Traffic on the Dock at Keats Landing Ms. Donaldson commented that parking on the dock at Keats Landing is still a problem. Mr. Flynn indicated that the parking problem has improved with the exception of one individual. West Bay Dock Mr. Sagman reported that bids have been requested to replace some 4x12 stringers under the decking at West Bay Dock. One bid has been received over the budget and the SCRD is awaiting a second bid or has the option to do the work using staff. Ms. Stamford asked Mr. Sagman to email her regarding the update of attaching the float so that she can keep the people on Gambier Island informed. Mr. Sagman explained that the SCRD Board has asked for a capital works budget in future years based on the approved work plan. New Brighton Dock Divesture Ms. Stamford indicated that she will arrange to meet with MP John Weston to discuss the New Brighton Dock Divesture and her concerns about maintaining access to the dock for the public and the Stormway passenger ferry. Mr. Sagman commented that Transport Canada has not provided any information to the SCRD based on their negotiations with the Squamish Nation. Discussion ensued regarding growth and the need of an expansion plan for New Brighton Dock. Tire Breakwater at Eastbourne Discussion developed regarding the feasibility of a breakwater at Eastbourne and the future growth and importance of the wharves and docks. Action: Mr. Sagman stated that staff will bring a draft Strategic Plan for Ports report from the SCRD Board to the next meeting on June 3, 2013 that will include consideration to these kinds of improvements. The comments from PWAC will then help to finalize the report for submission to the Infrastructure Services Committee in the fall of 2013. NEW BUSINESS Camp Artaban on Gambier Island Mr. Sagman explained that Camp Artaban’s floats are attached to the SCRD docks. He also explained that there is not a current signed lease. He noted that Camp Artaban has indicated that they do not think they should pay for the lease because they do maintenance. Mr. Sagman explained that one option is for the camp to remove the floats if they do not wish to pay the lease costs.

13

Public Wharves Advisory Committee Minutes March 4, 2013 Page 3

Wrapping Pilings for Herring Ms. Stamford explained that Howe Sound Community Forum for Island Trust have been wrapping the creosoted-coated pilings with a thin, low-toxic plastic-high density polyethylene to protect the herring eggs. She wondered if this is something that should be done on other docks and wharves. Mr. Sagman responded that we have not undertaken wrapping existing piles but will investigate that option when installing new piles. Communities wishing to hang herring roe nets from the SCRD docks should notify the SCRD in advance. Gambier Island Webinar It was noted that March 20, 2013 Gambier Island is having a Webinar called Greening Our Shores Workshop Program. ROUND TABLE Ms. Donaldson stated that the Keats Landing Dock was still very slippery from the algae. Mr. Sagman replied that power washing may help to remove the algae. He explained that it needs to be done every two to three years and that Keats Island Dock would be pressure washed in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Flynn noted that the lights at Eastbourne are needed for safety. Mr. Flynn questioned if in general he could arrange to have the wharf repairs done by a private individual. Mr. Sagman indicated that such arrangements fit within our program but staff should be advised and provide approval for cost in advance. Mr. Flynn also stated that Eastbourne may become a safety issue soon because of 6 foot and 8 foot drops. Mr. Sagman replied that in the case of the repair work on Eastbourne that is union work that the SCRD can plan and budget so it was unlikely that the repairs could be done by a private individual. Mr. Sagman informed that the person responsible for the damage to the Eastbourne Wharf should be advised to agree to pay for the damages or have to deal with the RCMP. Mr. Flynn commended Jessie for his professional attitude and good work. It was noted that the June 3, 2013 meeting date may have to be changed due to a schedule conflict. NEXT MEETING June 3, 2013 ADJOURNMENT 11:40 pm

14

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT SOLID WASTE PLAN MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

March 11, 2013

DRAFT MINUTES OF MEETING #9 OF THE PLAN MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM AT 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, B.C

PRESENT: Chair B. Sadler F. Diamond J. Collins K. Jasim F. Mauro E. Lands J. Harrison ALSO PRESENT: Manager of Sustainable Services D. Whyte Zero Waste Coordinator J. Valeriote Infrastructure Secretary S. MacKenzie Media 0 Public 0

ABSENT WITH REGRETS: K. Tang G. Foss ABSENT: Ministry of Environment D. O’Malley

CALL TO ORDER: 2:02pm

Adoption of Agenda Adopted.

ANNEX 'E'

15

N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - PMAC\2013-MAR-11 PMAC MINUTES.doc Page | 2

Minutes from February 13, 2013 – Meeting #8

An intention of these minutes was to incorporate the recommendations from Meeting #7, but this did not occur. The recommendations were printed out separately for the ISC for discussion and review at their March 7, 2013 meeting, with wording taken directly from the Meeting #7 minutes. Status of these recommendations is noted below.

Adopted.

Business arising from the Minutes a. PMAC membership recruitment Member recruitment continues. An application to PMAC from a resident of Area B is going to Board on March 14, 2013 for final approval. Conversely, the Chair reported that a potential applicant from Area E has withdrawn their interest and will not apply. b. Status of Recommendations from Meeting #7 Recommendation #1: that the ISC consider and clarify that PMAC have an educational and

awareness visit to HSPP to be briefed upon and observe the ultimate process at that facility; and, that a visit to the intermediate 'chipping' operation at Coastland be included within this field trip by PMAC.

ISC: No official recommendation required. Recommendation #2: that the ISC seriously, favourably and expeditiously consider the application

for PMAC membership recently submitted by Erich Schwartz of Greenomics; and, that the Delegates from Areas B and E solicit applications from residents within their communities during the Christmas 'break'; including the possible recant of his previous resignation from PMAC, by Louis Legal of Area E.

ISC: Application was denied due to perceived conflict of interest. Recommendation #3: that the ISC note/approve the amended schedule for PMAC meetings to

occur on the second Monday of a given month, from 2 to 4 pm; that the ISC note/approve that all Delegates and/or their Alternates are welcome to 'stand in' for an otherwise occupied Board Liaison, and/or attend within the gallery of a PMAC meeting; and, that the ISC note/approve the amendment to the PMAC standard Agenda such that an “Inquiries” period of 10 minutes be included for gallery attendees prior to the adjournment of said PMAC meeting.

ISC: No official recommendation required. Recommendation #4: that the ISC approve the inclusion of a semi-annual Delegation from PMAC

such that PMAC can provide a brief 'situation report' and solicit advice / guidance /direction from the ISC. It is suggested that worthwhile timings for these Delegations would be early in the new year and immediately prior to the summer break.

ISC: Recommendation approved by the ISC.

16


Recommendation #5: that the ISC consider the future role of PMAC within the context of the staff paper “We Envision – next steps” and the proposed creation of the “Roundtable”; and, that the ISC advise PMAC of its decision(s), including any changes to PMAC's Terms of Reference deemed desirable or necessary.

ISC: No official recommendation required. Recommendation #6: that the ISC consider including representative attendance by PMAC at

future discussions of the MMBC Draft 'Plan', for the specific purpose of enhancing PMAC's education and awareness of externally generated issues facing the SCRD.

ISC: No official recommendation required. c. Visits to remaining solid waste sites within the SCRD The Chair requested that K.Jasim provide him with some potential dates for a tour of Howe Sound Pulp & Paper Corp., so the tour can be arranged. The remaining site visits will be scheduled after this visit is confirmed, to avoid conflict. d. ‘Zero Waste Hierarchy’ vs. ‘Pollution Prevention Hierarchy’ The Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIA) definition of ‘Zero Waste’ is adopted in the current Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). If the definition becomes a part of how the SWMP is implemented, PMAC can voice their opinion of the various definitions via the Annual PMAC Report that is submitted to MOE. When the final version of the Zero Waste Hierarchy is released (currently in draft form), then this topic will be re-addressed. e. Treated wood waste “Staff suggested that PMAC draft resolutions to be forwarded to the ISC for submission to AVICC and UBCM, requesting that specific items be included in future stewardship programs.”

ISC adopted the following PMAC recommendation: THAT the SCRD Board draft a recommendation to be submitted to AVICC, UBCM and copied to CCME that indicates endorsement by the SCRD to include household hazardous waste and hazardous building materials under an Extended Producer Responsibility Program.

J. Collins and J. Valeriote will collaborate to craft a list of building materials of particular concern (eg. Treated wood, pre-1980 drywall mud) which may result in additional recommendations. This will be on the next PMAC agenda. Members would like to see some positive incentive for customers built in to the recommendations if possible. Submission deadline for the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Conference is early/mid June. f. PMAC Terms of Reference PMAC members are appointed by the Board, and PMAC may provide suggestions or support for applications. Upon receiving an email from The Manager of Sustainable Services, indicating that a particular PMAC Application had been rejected by the Board due to a ‘conflict of interest’, the Chair emailed the PMAC Board Representative, Director Mauro, to find out why the Board felt that the applicant had a ‘conflict of interest’. The Chair has had no response to date.

17


Director Mauro indicated that discussions regarding a member of the public are required to be In Camera, according to the Community Charter. The Board cannot discuss details of In Camera meetings outside of the meeting, so further details on the reasons for in camera decisions cannot be provided. PMAC 2013 Work Plan – deferred from Meeting #8 These documents were sent to members via email on March 4, 2013. a. 2012 Work plan status report Discussion deferred to next meeting. b. 2013 Work plan The two first projects listed on this work plan are very large projects for the SCRD for 2013. Discussion deferred to next meeting. Hard copies were provided by staff during the meeting. c. Summary of 2013 Budget Proposals Round 3 is complete, so J. Valeriote will email an updated summary to members. d. Update on Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) implementation process A request for Information (RFI) has been put out to the public, to solicit expressions of interest for operation of three facilities in Gibsons, Sechelt and Pender Harbour areas. The RFI closes on March 27, 2013. Direction has been given to staff to apply for applicable grants for these facilities. e. Multi-Material BC (MMBC) Printed Paper & Packaging (PPP) stewardship plan update Members would like to have clarification regarding the Pender Harbour area, as the delegate from MMBC at the Special ISC Meeting on February 25, 2013 indicated that the depot system in that area will be funded. This information appeared to conflict with a staff report to the ISC by J. Valeriote. Clarification was given that the report was only targeted to curbside collection, and does not address the Pender Harbour depot situation specifically. Indications from representatives of MMBC are that their organization will adjust to the needs of the particular area. f. Timing for 2012 PMAC Report

Intention is to submit the Annual PMAC Report for MOE to the ISC prior to summer break, so that the end of August deadline for MOE can be met. Staff offered to provide required data and template for a partial draft this report, and have it as an item on the next PMAC agenda for review & discussion. April 18, May 16, June 20 are the ISC agenda deadlines that would need to be met for inclusion of PMAC comments.

NEW BUSINESS: Special ISC Minutes of February 25, 2013 on MMBC Packaging and Printed Paper Draft Stewardship Plan Indications are that a market clearing price will be offered to existing recycling depots, with respect to printed paper and packaging. The Chair indicated that the MMBC Plan does not include glass, with the exception of recycling depots.

18


Report to March 7, 2013 Infrastructure Services Committee:

Residential Waste Collection – 2014 Tender Options Staff received preliminary direction from the ISC to coordinate with partner municipalities on curbside collection options for contract renewal in February 2014. Concerns were raised regarding single-stream vs. multi-stream collection. This will be a standing PMAC agenda item until completion, so that staff can update the group on the developments of the situation and solicit input. Direction has been given to staff to apply for applicable grants for this project. Backyard composting education campaign The SCRD is actively addressing this SWMP initiative. The District of Sechelt is planning to offer a composter rebate, and the SCRD will provide educational and outreach support for backyard composting, including brochure, website and advertising promotion, with a composting workshop this year or in 2014. This project is still in the preliminary stage. Members pointed out issues such as rodents, wildlife, lack of outdoor space, education, and composter quality. Ideas of Issues from Members deserving consideration by PMAC Garbage incineration in the Lower Mainland is a controversial topic at the moment, as there are plans in place to burn waste, but the Fraser Valley will have significant air quality problems if this project goes forward. Waste to Energy educational articles are welcomed by the Chair, for distribution to members. Questions submitted from the Gallery No gallery in attendance. ADJOURNMENT: 3:59pm NEXT MEETING: April 8, 2013

19

SCRD STAFF REPORT


TO: Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013)

FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: BURNCO DRAFT APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled “BURNCO Draft Application Information Requirements” be received;

2. AND THAT the following comments be forwarded to the Environmental Assessment Officer:

a) Environmental impact on key species such as eel-grass, forage fish and cetaceans (especially from increased barge movement) needs to be emphasized and appropriate studies provided;

b) Consideration should be given to making improvements to the foreshore area, that may have suffered from the impacts of previous forestry and industrial activity, in light of the proposed loading and barge facility;

c) There is a gap relating to assessing the potential impact on economic activity such as tourism, resulting from the mine;

d) Include a section on the environmental recovery of Howe Sound, including estimated investment to date that achieved the current improvements and any proposed reclamation projects, the objective is to assess what impact the mine (including barge activity and potential accidents) could have on the on-going recovery of Howe Sound;

e) As mitigation/benefit the air should include a review of improvements such as new trails, kayak landing near or on the site.

3. AND THAT the draft Application Information Requirements is forwarded for information to:

• West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission,

• Natural Resources Advisory Committee,

• West Howe Sound Community Association,

• Howe Sound Community Forum, and

• Future of Howe Sound Society;

4. AND THAT the final draft be referred to the above for comment when the Environmental Assessment Office starts the public consultation period;

5. AND FINALY THAT staff provide a report to the Planning and Development Committee prior to the completion of the public consultation period to allow for additional comments to be provided from the SCRD Board.

ANNEX 'F'

20

Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013) Regarding BURNCO draft AIR Page 2 of 6

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.147\2013-Apr-04 ISC report re BURNCO draft AIR.docx

BACKGROUND

The BURNCO gravel mine proposal is currently undergoing an environmental assessment. At this stage, the proponent has prepared a document setting out the draft application information requirements (dAIR). The dAIR was recently sent to the SCRD and the Environmental Assessment Officer (EAO) requested comments by April 15, 2013. A copy of the full document was placed in the Directors’ Reading Room, is available from staff and is posted on the SCRD website at

http://www.scrd.ca/BURNCO-Aggregate-Mine

The EA website notes that the process for developing the application information requirements as follows:

• The proponent prepares a draft (the document under review in this report);

• EAO seeks feedback from the working group, First Nations and the public. Public input is obtained through posting the draft application information requirements on the ePic (BC’s EA project information centre) web site, issuing an RSS feed1 to interested parties, specifying a period and process for public written input, and directing the proponent to hold a public open house in one or more locations near the project; and

• EAO approves and formally issues the application information requirements document when it is satisfied that the document is complete and appropriate for the assessment to be undertaken.

The draft application information requirements is the first formal stage in the environmental assessment process where the public provides input on the project.

It is important to ensure that the AIR includes all the issues and sets out the information required to address the issues. If the AIR fails to include an item then it is very unlikely that the EAO will require BURNCO to address it in the application stage.

The SCRD has received many letters from local residents, residents of Howe Sound and people who visit/recreate in the area. Copies of the letters are available on the SCRD website and in the SCRD Directors’ Reading Room. Concerns regarding the gravel mine include:

1. Noise

2. Visual impact

3. Dust and Air Quality

4. Impact on Health arising from issues such as noise, dust and so on

5. Impact on Freshwater Fish Habitat

6. Impact on Boating and Navigation

7. Impact on Martine Habitat and Species, especially cetaceans

8. Impact on Foreshore Habitat and Species, especially eel grass and forage fish breeding areas including loss of alluvial fan

9. Impact on wildlife

10. Impact on the Environmental Revival of Howe Sound thus wasting significant investment

1 RSS Rich Site Summary (originally RDF Site Summary, often dubbed Really Simple Syndication) is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video—in a standardized format. An RSS document (which is called a "feed", "web feed",] or "channel") includes full or summarized text, plus metadata such as publishing dates and authorship. (Source: Wikipedia)

21

http://www.scrd.ca/BURNCO-Aggregate-Mine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS#cite_note-GuardWF-3



11. Impact on Property Values especially of the McNab Strata and properties on Gambier Island

12. Impact on Viability of existing yacht/boat clubs and youth camps in the area

13. Impact on the area as a recreation and tourism destination

14. Reclamation of the mine and potential clean up costs

15. Loss of economic potential (tourism, filming, fisheries, closing of camps and boat clubs, loss of property value and tax) outweighs economic benefit of the mine (few jobs, property tax gain)

The dAIR is broken into topics and most chapters will include:

a) baseline information,

b) studies to be carried out,

c) regulatory/policy requirements (including links to legislation and agencies),

d) effects assessments,

e) cumulative impacts and

f) mitigation measures.

DISCUSSION

Application Information Requirements

The following is information provided by the EAO.

Proponents are responsible for preparing the draft AIR which specifies the information that must be included in their Application for an EA Certificate (Application). Agencies and First Nations are responsible for identifying the information they require in the AIR. The EAO is responsible for incorporating comments received from agencies and First Nations and determining whether to approve the AIR or require additional information.

Each agency is responsible for identifying the information it requires so that is can be included in the AIR. This information may include:

• Identifying environmental, heritage, health and socio-economic valued components (VC) in a proposed project area;

• Specifying that potential effects on these VCs be examined;

• Commenting on the criteria that the proponent plans to use to determine the significance of any adverse effects;

• Commenting on the appropriateness of study areas; and

• Requiring any other information needed so that the Application can be properly assessed in terms of potential impacts, proposed mitigation measures and significance of any residual effects.

The AIR should focus on information that must be included in the Application. Detailed comments relating to baseline studies should be conveyed to proponents before these studies proceed or in a separate comment to the proponent. Comments on the AIR should focus on the level of information required for an Application rather than the more detailed information that is typically required during the permitting stage.

The public will have an opportunity to comment on the document during EAO’s Public Comment Period after the working group has provided feedback.

22



Contents of the Draft AIR

A copy of the table of contents is attached to show the breadth of the information that BURNCO is proposing to provide with the application (Attachment A).

The dAIR sets out information about the proposed project including the processing facility and marine loading and barge facility. Another section sets out the range f permits and approvals that are required in addition to an environmental assessment certificate; these can be applied for and issued concurrently to the certificate (this is the concurrent review).

Exceptions will be the chapters on project description, EA process, and assessment methods which are descriptive in nature.

An important section regards identifying the Valued Components; these are the key indicators for environment, social, economic, heritage and health impacts/issues. BURNCO included a list of these in the dAIR (Attachment B).

The dAIR proposes to examine impacts on terrestrial wildlife and vegetation; fisheries and aquatic habitat (freshwater and marine); geotechnical/natural hazards; surface and groundwater; air quality and the impact of climate change. Specific species mentioned include marbled murlets, and a focus will be on red/blue listed species. Baseline studies, including literature reviews, will establish the current conditions and identify sites of specific concern (such as raptor nests). Mitigation measures and environmental management strategies will be set out.

Information regarding noise, dust, visual impact and light pollution will be presented.

Information will be provided regarding economic impact along with a mitigation strategy, however the focus is on potential benefits. The dAIR may not deliver the information needed to assess broader negative impacts that were raised in correspondence with the SCRD. BURNCO has been advised of the correspondence and informed where to find copies on the SCRD website. The public review of the dAIR is an opportunity for concerns to be raised by individuals or groups regarding this under the heading of Regional Economic Development – Potential Effects. As this is likely to be one focus during the public review BURNCO should include reference to the overall balance of economic impact (potential benefits such as economic gain due to the project vs potential negatives such as impact on tourism) in the next version of the dAIR.

Under Social Effects issues such as marine transportation and non-traditional land use (including recreation and tourism) are covered. There is scope to consider improvements to recreation in the area. For example BURNCO should examine establishing a public trail around the site to allow access to the Crown lands beyond. To assist trail use, there is scope to establish a small boat/canoe/kayak moorage/landing facility either on the site or on Crown land nearby (to be at the head of the trail).

Health Effects include impact on water, air quality, and noise

There is a section on Heritage and another on First Nations Information Requirements. The Squamish Nation is included in the consultation regarding the dAIR and the environmental assessment as a whole.

A description of the federal EA process will also be provided along with information about how this process is integrated.

23



Next Steps – Environmental Assessment

The EAO will organize a working group meeting in late April to discuss the dAIR. In addition to the SCRD, the working group is made up of provincial & federal agencies/ ministries (can be issue based reps such as the Grizzly Bear expert, and so on) and First Nation(s) are also invited (sometimes they will met separately with EAO as well as or instead of participating on the working group). It is not clear if the EAO is inviting other local governments. The EAO is not inviting community groups – they will be able to make their views known during the public consultation process.

Staff will confirm the dates for public consultation period for the dAIR.

BURNCO will then conduct the field work and produce the reports and documents required by the AIR. Once this is done there will be a period where the application is reviewed for completeness (has BURNCO provided all the information required by the AIR). Then the application is complete and can be submitted; everything up to this point is part of the pre-application stage.

The application then undergoes a public consultation period where the actual information is examined for accuracy. When this period is finished the EAO reviews the comments and can ask BURNCO to provide additional information or move the application forward to the Ministers responsible for approving or refusing the environmental certificate; the Ministers may also ask for additional information.

Next Steps – Rezoning Application

The Board resolved to place Bylaw 310.147 on hold pending receipt of the Application Information Requirements. When the AIR is approved then staff will provide a report updating the Directors and seeking direction with respect to Bylaw 310.147 (BURNCO rezoning application to allow for processing). Updates will also be posted on the SCRD website.

SUMMARY

It appears that the breadth of information that will be provided covers the natural environment and physical aspects of the project. No obvious gaps appear. However the headings and sub-headings are broad. Thus it is useful to note the concerns expressed regarding specific issues.

The following comments should be provided to the Environmental Assessment Officer as items that the SCRD wishes to see included or emphasized in the final AIR:

a) Environmental impact on key species such as eel-grass, forage fish and cetaceans (especially from increased barge movement) needs to be emphasized and appropriate studies provided;

b) Consideration should be given to making improvements to the foreshore area, that may have suffered from the impacts of previous forestry and industrial activity, in light of the proposed loading and barge facility;

c) There is a gap relating to assessing the potential impact on economic activity such as tourism, resulting from the mine;

d) Include a section on the environmental recovery of Howe Sound, including estimated investment to date that achieved the current improvements and any proposed reclamation projects, the objective is to assess what impact the mine (including barge activity and potential accidents) could have on the on-going recovery of Howe Sound;

e) As mitigation/benefit the air should include a review of improvements such as new trails, kayak landing near or on the site.

24



The dAIR should be forwarded to interested groups for information and these groups should also be notified when the public consultation period starts in order for them to provide comments, either directly to the EAO or through the SCRD. The list of groups should be:

• West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission,

• Natural Resources Advisory Committee,

• West Howe Sound Community Association,

• Howe Sound Community Forum, and

• Future of Howe Sound Society;

The SCRD can also provide additional comments during the public consultation period. Staff will provide a report to set out any additional comments during this period.

_________________________

David Rafael, Senior Planner

25

DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT

Tab’e of Contents

PREFACE TO THE AIR/EIS GUIDELINES ii

TABLE OF CONCORDANCE iii

PREFACE TO THE EAC APPLICATION / EIS iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii

PART A — INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND I

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE EAC APPLICATIONIEIS I

2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT OVERVIEW 2

2.1 Proponent Description 2

2.2 Proposed Project Description ...., 3

2.2.1 Project Location 4

2.2.1.1 Site History 4

222 Project Background 5

2.2.3 Project Components 6

2.2.3.1 Aggregate Pit Development 7

2.2.3.2 Processing 7

2.2.3.3 Marine Loading Facility and Barging 8

2.2.3.4 Other Facilities and Infrastructure and Alternatives 9

2.2.4 Project Emissions, Discharges and Waste 10

2.2.5 Reclamation, Closure and Monitoring 10

2.2.6 Labour 11

2.2.7 Costs 11

2.3 Provincial Scope of Proposed Project 11

2.4 Federal Scope of Proposed Project 11

2.5 Alternate Means of Undertaking the Proposed Project 12

2.6 Proposed Project Land Use 12

2.7 Proposed Project Benefits 12

2.8 Applicable Permits and Approvals 13

DRAFT ix

ATTACHMENT A

26


3.0 EA REVIEW PROCESS 15

3.1 Provincial EA Review Process 15

3.2 Federal Review 15

3.3 First Nations Information Distribution and Consultation 16

3.3.1 Pre-Application 16

3.3.2 Consultation Planned During EAC Application/EIS Review 16

3.4 Public and Agency Information Distribution and Consultation 16

3.4.1 Pre-Application Consultation 16

3.4.2 Consultation Planned during EAC Application/EIS Review 16

PART B — ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUALEFFECTS 17

4.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS 17

4.1 General 17

4.2 Valued Component Selection 17

4.3 Spatial Boundaries 23

4.4 Temporal Boundaries 23

4.5 Compilation of Relevant Background Information 24

4.6 Assessment of Effects 24

4.6.1 Interactions with the Biophysical and Human Environment 24

4 6 2 Consideration of Proposed Mitigation Measures 24

4.6.3 Determination of Significance of Residual Effects 24

4.6.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment 25

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 30

5.1 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat 30

5.1.1 Introduction 30

5.1.2 Regulatory/Policy Selling 30

5.1.3 Assessment Methodology 30

5.1.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 30

5.1.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 31

5.1.3.3 Assessment Methods 31

5.1.4 Baseline Conditions 32

DRAFT x

27


5.1.5 Effects Assessment 34

5.1.6 Mitigation 34

5.1.7 Prediction and Assessment of Residual and Cumulative Effects 35

5.1.8 Conclusions 35

5.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation 35


5.2.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 35



5 2 3 2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 36




5.2.6 Mitigation 39

5.2.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 39


5.3 Geotechnical and Natural Hazards 40









5.3.6 Mitigation 42



5.4 Surface Water Resources 43



DRAFT xi

28








5 4 6 Mitigation 46



5.5 Groundwater Resources 46







5 5 4 Baseline Conditions 48


5.5.6 Mitigation 50



5.6 Air Quality 50









5.6.6 Mitigation Measures 53

DRAFT xii

29




5.7 Climate Change 53








5 7 5 Effects Assessment 55

5.7.6 Mitigation 55


5 7 8 Conclusions 55

5.8 Summary of Environmental Effects 55

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS 57

6.1 Sustainable Economy 57









6.1.6 Mitigation 60



6.2 Summary of Economic Effects 60

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL EFFECTS 62

7.1 Social Conditions 62

DRAFT xiii

30









7.1.5 Effects Assessment

7.1.6 Mitigation 64



7.2 Marine Transportation 65




7.2.3.1 Value Component (VC) ldentifcation 65


7.2.3.3 Assessment Methods :. 66



7.2.6 Mitigation 67



7.3 Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use 67








DRAFT xiv

31



7.3.6 Mitigation 70



7.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 71


7 4 2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 71







7.4.6 Mitigation 73



7.5 Summary of Social Effects 74

8.0 ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE EFFECTS 75

8.1 Heritage Resources 75









8.1.6 Mitigation 77



8.2 Summary of Heritage Effects 78

DRAFT xv

32

DRAFT AIR1EIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT

9.0 ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH EFFECTS 79

9.1 Public Health 79








9 1 5 Effects Assessment 81

9.1.6 Mitigation 81



9.2 Noise 82


9 2 2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 82







9.2.6 Mitigation 85



9.3 Summary of Health Effects 86

PART C — FIRST NATIONS INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 87

10.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 87

10.1 Aboriginal Rights 87

10.2 Other Aboriginal Interests 87

10.3 Aboriginal Consultation 87

DRAFT xvi

33


10.4 Summary 88

PART D — FEDERAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 89

11.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 89

PART E — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND FOLLOW-UP 91

12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 91

12.1 Construction Environmental Management Programme 91

12.2 Operational Environmental Management Programme 92

13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP PROGRAMS 93

PART F — CONCLUSIONS AND COMMITMENTS 94

14.0 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS 94

15.0 SUMMARY OF COMMITMENTS AND ASSURANCES 95

16.0 CONCLUSION 96

PART G — REFERENCES AND APPENDICES .97

17.0 REFERENCES 97

18.0 APPENDICES 98

TABLES

Table 1: Table of Concordance between the Approved AIR/EIS Guidelines and the EAC Application/EIS for theProposed BURNCO Aggregate Project iii

Table 2: Preliminary List of Required Permits and Approvals 13

Table 3: Valued Components (VCs) and Selection Criteria 19

Table 4: Cumulative Projects and Activities under Consideration 28

Table 5: Summary of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects 56

Table 6: Economic Effects Assessment Spatial Boundaries by VC 58

Table 7: Summary of Predicted Residual Economic Effects 61

Table 8: Social Condition Effects Assessment Spatial Boundaries by VC 63

Table 9: Summary of Predicted Residual Social Effects 74

Table 10: Summary of Predicted Residual Heritage Effects 78

Table 11: Summary of Predicted Residual Health Effects 86

Table 12: Summary of Potential Effects on Aboriginal Rights/Interests and Accommodation Measures 88

Table 13: Summary of Predicted Residual Effects 94

Table 14: BURNCO’s Commitments for the BURNCO Aggregate Project 95

DRAFT xvii

34


FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Site and Surrounding Area Plan

Figure 3: Proposed Conceptual Site Layout

Figure 4: Proposed and Existing Barge Shipping Routes

Figure 5: Socioeconomic Study Area

Figure 6: Marine, Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation RSA

Figure 7 Marine Fish Wildlife and Vegetation LSA

Figure 8 BCEAO Cumulative Assessment Process

DRAFT xviii

35


PART B - ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION ANDSIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS

4.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS

41 General

The EAC Application/EIS will provide a clear description of the methods used to conduct the assessment and will

specifically include the following information:

• Scope of the environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health effects assessments;

• A description of the agencies, First Nations, and stakeholders that reviewed and commented on the draft

AIR / EIS Guidelines

• A description of how consultations with the public, stakeholders, First Nations, and government agencies on

the scoping and identification of issues to be addressed in the assessment;

a A list of the guidance documents provided by agencies used to develop the assessment methodology;

• Methods used for assessing potential effects of the Proposed Project, including identification of the criteria

used to characterise effects in support of the evaluation of the sigruficance of effects (i.e., magnitude,

geographic extent, duration and frequency, reversibility,context and probability) for construction, operation,

and reclamation and closure phases of the Proposed Project;4

• Description/reference for each standard used in baseline studies and assessment analyses; and

a List of applicable best management practices, and guidance documents that will be implemented.

4.2 Vahied Component Section

The EAC Application/EIS will describe the general methodology used to identify the valued components (VCs)

for each discipline specific study used in the effect assessment. VCs are the key indicators of the environmental,

social, economic, heritage c- health environment that are considered important by the Proponent, public, First

Nations, scientist and government agencies involved in the assessment of potential effects during the

construction, operation and reclamation and closure phases of the Proposed Project.

VCs are selected through development of the AIR/EIS Guidelines and reflect regulatory issues and guidelines,

potential First Nations concerns, issues identified by government agencies, stakeholders, professional judgment

and key sensitive resources, species or social and heritage values. VCs for the biophysical environment are

typically major components, such as wildlife or vegetation, or are aspects of the physical and biological

environment that are widely recognized as important for ecological resources. Representative VCs for the

socio-cultural and economic environment are aspects of the human environment that include such components

as economy, employment and business, land use, communities or community life, and traditional land and

resource access and use.

DRAFT 17

ATTACHMENT B

36


VCs will be scoped and identified based on the following criteria:

• Focus and identification of the issues of greatest concern and relevance to the Proposed Project associatedwith the biophysical conditions and culturaVsocioeconomic (human) resources of the Project area;

• Identification of measurable parameters to assess Project-specific effects and cumulative effects for eachVC;

• Regulatory requirements and issues raised by First Nations, the public and interested stakeholders;

a Assessment of spatial and temporal boundaries; and

• Integration of the cumulative effects assessment into the overall assessment of Project-related residualenvironmental effects.

Table 3 presents a preliminary list of VCs for inclusion in the EAC Application/EIS and provides a rationale forthe selection of each VC. VCs that have been identified are based on currently available information, includingongoing studies and experience in the site and region. VCs may be revised or updated based on consultationand additional information.

VCs will inblude measurement endpoints which will be used in the assesment to represent properties of theenvironment or a population, that when changed, could result in or contribute to a project-related effect whichmay alter an endpoint. Measurement endpoints may be quantitative (e.g., concentrations of chemical in tissuesof representative VC species, species density levels, and noise levels) or qualitative (e.g., distribution,movement and behaviour of wildlife from disturbance to travel corridors). Measurement endpoints are a valueused to assess whether there is an effect on a VC (e.g., population persistence for a VC species). Measurementendpoints represent an ecological, economic or social basis for evaluation of the significance of residual effects.

DRAFT 18

37

DR

AFT

AIR

IEIS

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

(RE

V,

tO)-

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

RN

CO

AG

GR

EG

AT

EP

RO

JEC

T

Tab

le3:

Val

ued

Com

ponen

ts(V

Cs)

and

Sel

ecti

on

Cri

teri

a

Dis

cipl

inel

The

me

IV

alue

dC

om

ponen

t(s)

Def

init

ion

and!o

rS

up

po

rtin

gR

atio

nal

e

Envir

onm

ent

Ana

drom

ous

chum

,co

hosa

lmon

and

Cut

thro

attr

out

spec

ies

and

thei

rha

bita

ts

Fish

spec

ies

are

appr

opri

ate

“sen

tinel

s”ch

uman

dco

hosa

lmon

and

trou

tar

1,ro

1.so

me

mar

ine

fish

habi

tats

and

i”ir1

che

Pro

jfi

shsp

ecie

sw

ere

iden

tifie

d.s

ent

with

inth

for

chum

and

coho

salm

c.i

Cut

thro

attr

out.

hev

alua

teal

lfis

hsp

ed.

VC

s(H

illet

a!.

2006

).i-

rank

edth

ehi

ghes

t thr

o,sc

reen

in’

“th

efo

lIow

in

•D

istr

ibut

ion

with

inth

eje

r’

•R

egu

stat

us(s

pec.

risk)

;

•S

elec

tv

‘bita

tre

qui

‘ent

s;•

Posi

tior,

the

hai

n;

Mar

ine

Ben

thic

com

mun

ities

(fau

naan

dfl

ora)

___________

aila

bilit

y•i

form

atio

n.

oat

trou

ti

‘sid

ent f

ish

spec

ies

inst

ream

sw

ithin

the

Proj

ect

area

and

isan

:..fe

indi

c.r

ofth

eye

ar-r

ound

habi

tat

use

and

cond

ition

s.C

utth

roat

trou

tis

..iist

ribt.a

“n.n

ysi

mila

rfr

eshw

ater

syst

ems

inth

ere

gion

and

has

recr

eatio

nal

econ

omic

rst

Nat

ions

impo

rtan

ceC

utth

roat

trou

tis

posi

tione

dhi

ghin

the

aqua

tic

‘ood

chai

n,an

dha

ssp

ecif

icha

bita

tre

quir

emen

ts.

qual

ityof

mar

ine

sedi

men

taf

fect

sth

equ

ality

ofha

bita

tfor

bent

hic

com

mun

ities

,as

vas

the

qual

ityof

over

layi

ngw

ater

colu

mn.

The

qual

ityof

this

VC

may

beaf

fect

edby

hist

oric

alor

curr

ent

oper

atio

nsan

dac

tiviti

es,

and/

orfu

ture

activ

ities

orop

erat

ions

asso

ciat

edw

ithPr

ojec

tdu

ring

both

the

cons

truc

tion

and

oper

atio

nph

ases

.S

edim

ent

qual

itym

aybe

affe

cted

thro

ugh

sedi

men

tre

susp

ensi

on,

silta

tion

orac

cide

ntal

rele

ase

ofch

emic

als.

The

VC

mea

sure

men

ten

dpoi

nts

are

phys

ical

(par

ticle

size

com

posi

tion)

and

chem

ical

(e.g

.,m

etal

san

dco

ntam

inan

tco

ncen

trat

ions

)co

mpo

sitio

n.

Impa

cts

can

resu

ltfr

omth

ein

stal

latio

nof

mar

ine

faci

litie

s(h

abita

tlo

ss),

chan

ges

inw

ater

and

sedi

men

tqu

ality

,in

crea

sed

navi

gatio

n,an

dac

cide

ntal

rele

ase

ofto

xic

subs

tanc

es.

Abu

ndan

ce,

taxo

nom

icco

mpo

sitio

n,an

ddi

vers

ityof

bent

hic

com

mun

ities

are

good

indi

cato

rsof

the

qual

ityof

the

mar

ine

habi

tat.

Fis

heri

esan

dA

quat

icH

abit

at

‘eov

eral

laq

uati

csy

stem

.A

nadr

omou

se

indi

cato

rsof

seas

onal

fres

hwat

eran

dar

ea.

Ato

tal

ofsi

xsa

lmon

and

trou

toj

ecta

rea

and

are

pref

erre

dha

bita

ts‘o

tpr

actic

alto

iden

tify

and

b-se

tof

VC

sw

asse

lect

edth

at‘r

ibut

es:

a U

Fre

shw

ater

resi

dent

trou

tan

t..ir

Ci’

habi

tats

(Cut

thro

attr

out)

Com

mer

Iand

P‘I

cim

nce;

crea

tio

‘.

irst

r..

‘im

port

ance

;an

d

Mar

ine

Seo.

‘nt

DR

AFT

.19

38

CD

RA

FT

AIR

IEIS

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

(RE

V.

1.0

)-

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

RN

CO

AG

GR

EG

AT

EP

RO

JEC

T

Mig

rato

ryM

arin

eB

irds

,T

axa

liste

dun

der

the

fede

ral

Spe

cies

atR

isk

Act

(SA

RA

);an

dR

ed(e

ndan

gere

dor

thre

aten

ed)

orB

lue-

list

ed(s

peci

alco

ncer

n)sp

ecie

s;.

Mig

rato

ryse

abir

dsw

hose

know

nra

nge

over

laps

the

Pro

ject

stud

yar

ea;

and

.T

hes

egr

oups

may

beaf

fect

edby

chan

ges

inno

ise

cond

itio

ns(d

urin

gco

nstr

ucti

on),

light

cond

itio

ns,

wat

eran

dse

dim

ent

qual

ity,

phys

ical

pre

sence

ofm

arin

efa

cili

ties

and

incr

ease

dna

viga

tion

.M

arin

eM

amm

als

•T

axa

list

edun

der

the

fede

ral

Spe

cies

atR

isk

Act

(SA

RA

);an

dR

ed(e

ndan

gere

dor

thre

aten

ed)

orB

lue-

list

ed(s

peci

alco

ncer

n)sp

ecie

s(e

.g.,

Ste

ller

Sea

Lio

n,G

rey

Wha

le,

Sou

ther

nK

iller

Wha

le,

Har

bour

Por

pois

e)T

erre

stri

alW

ildlif

ean

dT

erre

stri

alS

peci

esat

Ris

kan

dth

eir

•Pr

ovin

cial

lyR

ed(e

ndan

gere

dor

thre

aten

ed)

orB

lue-

list

ed(s

peci

alco

ncer

n)ta

xa;

Veg

etat

ion

habi

tat:

•T

axa

liste

dun

der

the

prov

inci

alIn

tegr

ated

Wild

life

Man

agem

ent

Str

ateg

y(I

WM

S);

aA

mph

ibia

nsp

ecie

sat

risk

•T

axa

list

edun

der

the

fede

ral

Spe

cies

atR

isk

Act

(SA

RA

);•

Wes

tern

scre

ech

owl

aR

egio

nall

yIm

port

ant W

ildlif

e;•

Com

mon

nigh

thaw

k•

Mig

rato

rybi

rds

who

sekn

own

rang

eov

erla

psth

eP

roje

ctst

udy

area

;•

Nor

ther

nG

osha

wk

•Pr

ovin

cial

ly(r

ed!

blue

)lis

ted

orse

nsit

ive/

uniq

ueec

osy

stem

sw

hich

may

occu

rat

ora

Ban

d-ta

iled

pige

onad

jace

ntto

the

Pro

pose

dpr

ojec

tco

uld

beaf

fect

edby

chan

ges

toar

eaco

ndit

ions

aM

arbl

edm

urre

let

incl

udin

gcl

eari

ngof

vege

tati

onor

chan

ges

tohy

drol

ogic

alre

gim

es;

aR

oose

velt

Elk

•T

axa

orsu

btax

aof

prov

inci

ally

(red

!bl

ue-l

iste

d)an

d/or

fede

rall

y(u

nder

Sch

edul

eI

aG

rizz

lybea

rof

SAR

A)

desi

gnat

edpl

ant

spec

ies

whi

chm

ayoc

cur

with

inth

eP

ropo

sed

proj

ect

area

coul

dbe

affe

cted

byal

tera

tion

sor

loss

ofha

bita

t;an

d

Veg

etat

ion:

•S

peci

esor

spec

ies

grou

pskn

own

tooc

cur

ator

adja

cent

toth

eP

ropo

sed

proj

ect

area

.C

hang

esto

nois

eor

light

regi

mes

coul

daf

fect

norm

alsp

ecie

sbe

havi

our

aE

nvir

onm

enta

lly

Sen

siti

vesu

chas

nest

ing

orfo

ragi

ng.

Eco

syst

ems

•R

are

plan

ts

Geo

tech

nica

lan

dT

erra

inst

abili

tyan

dea

rthq

uake

sa

Roa

dan

dsi

teco

nstr

ucti

onan

dcl

eari

ngca

nin

crea

seth

ech

ance

sof

land

slid

esan

dN

atur

alH

azar

dsgr

ound

stab

ility

;

Sno

wav

alan

ches

•C

ould

indu

ceea

rthq

uake

driv

eli

quef

acti

on,

and

faul

tru

ptur

es;

Cli

mat

ea

Min

eop

erat

ion

may

crea

tene

wav

alan

che

trig

ger

zone

s;an

da

May

incr

ease

stor

mev

ent

freq

uenc

y,se

asu

rge.

DR

AFT

20

39

DR

AF

TA

IR

IE

IS

GU

ID

EL

IN

ES

(R

EV

.1

.0

)-

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

RN

CO

AG

GR

EG

AT

EP

RO

JE

CT

Sur

face

Wat

erW

ater

quan

tity:

base

flow

,hi

ghflo

w•

Min

eop

erat

ion

may

alte

rco

ntri

butio

nto

base

flow

sin

wat

erco

urse

s;an

d

Res

ourc

es•

Min

eop

erat

ion

may

alte

rru

noff

;

Wat

erqu

ality

:su

spen

ded

sedi

men

ts,

•In

crea

sein

TSS

IT

DS

may

alte

rcl

arity

and

qual

ityof

runo

ffan

dba

seflo

w;

and

chem

ical

qual

ity•

Acc

iden

tal

rele

ase

ofch

emic

als

may

alte

rcl

arity

and

qual

ityof

runo

ffan

dba

seflo

w.

Gro

undw

ater

Gro

undw

ater

regi

me

and

Res

ourc

esgr

ound

wat

erqu

ality

•M

ine

oper

atio

nm

ayal

ter

loca

lgr

ound

wat

erre

gim

eby

low

erin

gw

ater

leve

ls,

redu

cein

filtra

tion

rate

sfr

oman

dto

adja

cent

river

san

dcr

eeks

;an

d

•M

ine

oper

atio

nm

ayal

low

mar

ine

wat

erin

filtra

tion

into

the

aggr

egat

epi

t.

Air

Qua

lity

Air

Qua

lity

BC

Am

bien

tAir

Qua

lity

Obj

ectiv

es(A

AQ

O)

and

Nat

iona

lA

mbi

entA

irQ

ualit

yO

bjec

tives

(NA

AQ

O)

forS

O2,

NO2,

Dus

tFa

Il,P

M10,

PM2.5.

Com

pari

son

with

back

grou

ndan

dba

seli

neco

nditi

ons

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Gre

enH

ouse

Gas

esC

ompa

riso

nw

ithto

tals

acro

ssC

anad

ain

clud

ing

BC

,Alb

erta

and

allt

erri

tori

es.

Eco

nom

ic

Sus

tain

able

Eco

nom

yR

egio

nal

econ

omic

deve

lopm

ent

•Pr

ojec

tw

illof

fer

new

cont

ract

ing

oppo

rtun

ities

,w

hich

may

resu

ltin

dive

rsif

icat

ion

Lab

our

mar

ket

and

expa

nsio

nof

the

loca

lec

onom

y;

Loc

algo

vern

men

tre

venu

e•

Proj

ect

labo

urde

man

ddu

ring

cons

truc

tion

and

oper

atio

nph

ases

will

draw

upon

RI

labo

ursu

pply

inth

evi

cini

tyof

the

Proj

ect

and

effe

cts

wou

ldbe

adve

rse

orbe

nefi

cial

eaes

tate

depe

ndin

gon

cond

ition

sth

atpr

evai

lat

the

time

this

dem

and

ente

rsth

em

arke

t;

!•Po

tent

ial

chan

gein

loca

lgo

vern

men

tex

pend

itur

ean

dre

venu

est

ream

s;an

d

Pre

senc

eof

Proj

ect

cons

truc

tion,

infr

astr

uctu

rean

d/or

oper

atio

nsm

ayaf

fect

loca

l

prop

erty

valu

esan

dth

elo

cal

owne

rs’

use

ofth

eir

real

esta

te.

Soc

ial

Soc

ial

Con

diti

ons

Hou

sing

and

Acc

omm

odat

ion

•T

empo

rary

infl

uxof

Pro

ject

cons

truc

tion

wor

kers

may

lead

topre

ssure

son

Em

erge

ncy

Ser

vice

sac

com

mod

atio

nav

aila

bilit

yan

dco

stan

din

crea

sed

dem

and

for

acco

mm

odat

ion

has

the

pote

ntia

lto

gen

erat

ein

crem

enta

lre

venu

esfo

rlo

cal

prov

ider

s;an

d

aPr

ojec

tco

nstr

uctio

nan

dop

erat

ion

ina

rem

ote

loca

tion

coul

daf

fect

emer

genc

yre

spon

se_a

bilit

ies

and

cost

ofem

erge

ncy_

serv

ices

.

Mar

ine

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Mar

ine

Nav

igat

ion

•C

hang

ein

vess

eltr

affi

c

aP

hysi

cal

inte

rfer

ence

DR

AFT

21

.Q

40

CD

RA

FT

AIR

IEIS

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

(RE

V.

1.0

)-

PR

OP

OS

ED

BU

RN

CO

AG

GR

EG

AT

EP

RO

JE

CT

Non

-Tra

diti

onal

Lan

dF

ores

try

•C

onve

rsio

nof

fore

sted

priv

ate

land

sto

non-

fore

stry

use

san

dpo

tent

ial

chan

gein

Use

Har

vest

ing

fish

and

wild

life

acce

ssto

Cro

wn

fore

sted

land

san

das

soci

ated

chan

gein

tim

ber

harv

esti

ngan

d

Rec

reat

ion

and

tour

ism

woo

dpr

oces

sing

..

Pro

ject

may

affe

ctre

side

ntan

dto

uris

tac

cess

toan

duse

ofou

tdoo

rre

crea

tion

Min

eral

san

dA

ggre

gate

sar

eas

and

reso

urc

esad

jace

ntto

and

inth

eP

roje

ctac

tivity

zones

.;•

Pro

ject

may

affe

ctac

cess

toan

dus

eof

tenu

red

guid

eou

tfitt

ing

and

trap

ping

area

s;•

The

Pro

ject

may

chan

geen

viro

nmen

tal

sett

ing,

fish

and

wild

life

popu

lati

ons

and

oppo

rtun

itie

sto

trap

,hu

ntan

dfi

sh;

and

•T

heP

roje

ctw

illaf

fect

acce

ssto

and

deve

lopm

ent

ofm

iner

alan

dag

gre

gat

ete

nure

san

d_de

posi

ts.

Vis

ual

and

Aes

thet

icV

isua

lQ

ualit

y•

Vis

ual

qual

ityof

the

surr

ound

ing

land

scap

eco

uld

pote

ntia

lly

bead

vers

ely

affe

cted

Res

ou

rces

byth

epre

sence

ofag

gre

gat

epi

tan

dpr

oces

sing

infr

astr

uctu

re,

mar

ine

barg

elo

adin

gpr

oces

sing

and

barg

elo

adin

gfa

cili

ties

light

ing

and

barg

esh

ippi

ng.

Her

itag

eH

erit

age

Res

ourc

esP

aleo

ntol

ogic

alre

sourc

esC

onst

ruct

ion

and

oper

atio

nof

the

Pro

pose

dP

roje

ctco

uld

dire

ctly

orin

dire

ctly

affe

ctA

rcha

eolo

gica

lre

sourc

esj

heri

tage

reso

urce

sn

the

Poj

ect A

rea

Hea

lthPu

blic

Hea

lthW

ater

qual

ity•P

ubli

che

alth

issu

esin

clud

ing

chan

geto

wat

erqu

ality

and

air

qual

itywi

llbe

Air

qual

ityin

teqr

ated

acro

ssal

ldi

scip

lines

ina

sing

lere

port

asa

who

leto

addr

ess

accu

mul

atio

not

man

ypo

tent

ial

issu

esho

listic

ally

rath

erth

anin

divi

dual

lyw

ithin

disc

iplin

esp

ecif

icre

port

sN

oise

Noi

sele

vels

Pote

ntia

lno

ise

effe

cts

ofth

ePr

opos

edPr

ojec

ton

seas

onal

sem

i-pe

rman

ent

and

perm

anen

tre

side

nts

inpr

oxim

ity.

DR

AFT

22

41

infrastructure services committee agenda

Documents