DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH · 2007-12-06 · 1. The District of Squamish intent is for the Environmental...

DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH REPORT TO: Council FOR: Strategic Meeting of Council PRESENTED: December 11, 2007 FILE: COMDEV-Enviro SUBJECT: District of Squamish Watercourse Regulations Recommendation: THAT Council endorse the Policy Framework for Determining Riparian Buffers in the District of Squamish and direct staff to pursue completion of the Environmental Development Permit Guidelines and adoption of the OCP Amendment Bylaw at the earliest possible date. 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 2006. 3. Background:

On July 4, 2006 representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Ministry of the Environment and members of the community spoke to Council about the RAR and watercourse protection generally. On July 11, 2006 Council passed the following resolutions giving staff direction on how to proceed with watercourse protection legislation:

(1)THAT Council instructs Staff to continue the Official Community Plan Amendment

L:\WPDocs\COUNCIL\Form.wpd

process to incorporate new Development Permit Area Guidelines for the protection of the natural environment (watercourses) modeled on a hybrid approach between the Riparian Areas Regulation and the Streamside Protection Regulation.

(2)THAT Council instructs Staff to engage individuals from the community representing both interests of Riparian Areas Regulation and the Streamside Protection Regulation and bring forward a recommendation to address concerns.

Staff subsequently entered into a process of consulting with stakeholders and drafting a framework document that would provide the background for an OCP amendment that would create Environmental Development Permit (EDP) Guidelines. In the Fall of 2006 staff took a draft framework document to a meeting of stakeholders including local NGO’s involved in stewardship and conservation as well as the Squamish Land Owners Association and the Urban Development Institute. The group appreciated the document as a step in the right direction with the following concerns expressed:

• The approval process needs to be more transparent to minimize uncertainty. • The watershed approach to buffer decisions needs to be expressed in more detail • If information outside of the RAR methods is requested, Qualified Environmental

Professional QEP may not have the necessary expertise. • Ensure that new and existing trails will be allowed. • Time and complexity should not be added to the review and permitting processes.

Numerous meetings to address these issues have since taken place at a staff level. However staff turnover and workload challenges associated with the Cheakamus Train Derailment and the Westwood Annette Spill have not allowed the focus needed to conclude these issues until recently. 4. Project Information: Attached to this report as Schedule 1 is a new draft of framework document that has attempted to address the issues raised by stakeholders. Because of the time elapsed since watercourse protection was last in front of Council, staff want to have the changes understood and vetted by Council before going into a confirmatory process. In addressing the stakeholders’ concerns the following issues have arisen: I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

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 and more permissive than the former Streamside Protection Regulations (SPR).

c. The District’s regulations will endeavour 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. These are generally understood to be all areas within 30 meters of the top of bank of a watercourse. Since the proposed framework deals with developable lands in different ways depending on whether they occur within an existing neighbourhood, have an existing structure or are subdividable, either the map or text of the bylaw will have to clarify what class parcels of land fall into. In addition in order to use the matrix it will also be necessary to distinguish between:

• Fishbearing and non-fishbearing watercourses; • Natural versus man-made watercourses; and, • Ephemeral or intermittent watercourses.

It is expected that the QEP will determine the type of watercourse rather than this being a mapping issue.

III. 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.

IV. VARIANCE PROCEDURE For larger, subdividable 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 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. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The ERC is understood to be made up of the land owners 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.

VII. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE EDP Because of the technical nature of the subject area, staff believe that the issuance of EDP’s should be delegated to staff under LGA 920, paragraph (12) with a right of appeal to Council.

VIII. 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

application would fall under the Fisheries Act and would require the approval of DFO.

c. Man-made non fishbearing 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 oil-grease 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.

5. Department Comments: The following schedule is proposed for the finalization of the regulations:

• Task 1 - Dec 5, 2007 – compete draft framework document. • Task 2 - Dec 11 - Present draft framework to Council for endorsement. • Task 3 - Week of Jan 14, 2008 - Consult with stakeholders. • Task 4 - Week of Jan 21 - Hold Public Info Meeting. • Task 5 – Week of Jan 28 – Refer to agencies for comment. • Task 7 – Week of March 24 – Finalize Bylaw and prepare Report to Council • Task 7 – April 15, 2008 - First two readings. • Task 8 – May 6, 2008 - Public Hearing and Third. • Task 9 – May 20, 2008 - Adoption.

This process will be a collaboration between Community Development and Planning with Planning taking the lead when the OCP amendment bylaw is presented Council.


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. This 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 endorse the Policy Framework for Determining Riparian Buffers in the District of Squamish and direct staff to pursue completion of the Environmental Development Permit Guidelines and adoption of the OCP Amendment Bylaw at the earliest possible date. Implications: Staff will have the direction needed to consult with stakeholders and the community. Alternative 1 Another option directed by Council. ________________________________________ Mick Gottardi, P. Eng. Director of Community Development


Schedule 1

Policy Framework for Determining Riparian Buffers in the District of Squamish


J:\Hall\Comdev\Environmental\EnvCoord\Environ Bylaw\Watercourse\Draft Framework DRAFT December 2007

Determining Riparian Buffers in the District of Squamish

GUIDING PRINCIPLES ............................................................................. 2 MATRIX FOR DETERMINING RIPARIAN BUFFER WIDTH .......... 5 VARIANCE TO RIPARIAN BUFFER...................................................... 7

Variance Procedure: Variable-Width Buffers (SPEAs).................................................. 7 Notes on ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING RIPARIAN BUFFERS ................................................ 11 A SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE PROTECTION IN SEVERAL SELECT MUNICIPALITIES ................................................................... 13

West Vancouver, District of ......................................................................................... 13 Delta, Corporation of .................................................................................................... 13 Port Moody ................................................................................................................... 14 Whistler (RMOW) ........................................................................................................ 14 Langley ......................................................................................................................... 14

SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)......................... 16

1


Determining riparian buffers in the District of Squamish GUIDING PRINCIPLES These principles are included here to give the reader insight into the reasons / rationale for the bylaw approach. They are not intended to be part of the bylaw text, but rather the policy statement that supports the bylaw. 1. The District of Squamish intent is for the Environmental Development Permit

Guidelines to meet or exceed the requirements of the Riparian Areas Regulation. 2. The District of Squamish (DOS) endorses a three-pronged approach to watercourse

protection: • Riparian area protection (e.g. streamside buffers) • Wise land use controls (e.g. limiting ability to develop near watercourses through

zoning, OCP; density bonusing to compensate for larger buffers, etc.) • Stormwater management – maximize infiltration back into the ground to maintain

water flows in summer dry season, limit changes in natural runoff rates, and maintain water quality.

3. The DOS endorses the concept of a variable width riparian buffer, where deemed appropriate.

4. The DOS endorses a watershed approach to riparian areas management. Riparian impacts and values should be reconciled within the subject watershed, not only the site at hand. The watershed approach should be considered by the QEP as well as the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) (as applicable).

Some criteria for watershed approach:

a. How does the project fit within the context of other developments within the watershed

b. Does the project meet District expectations for incorporation of environmental stewardship in site design

c. Water temperature / shade relationships d. Food and nutrient supply e. Water quality / chemistry f. Water supply g. Presence of invasive species / beneficial plants h. Flood control i. Biodiversity j. Recreational values k. Extra-ordinary ecological values

5. Proponents will be encouraged to pursue design alternatives that maximize riparian buffer widths on their property (such as building “up”, instead of “out”). Proponents will also be encouraged to plant beneficial riparian vegetation species in the buffer in order to help compensate for the reduced buffer width.

2


6. The DOS will consider other important riparian functions in the determination of an appropriate buffer width for a given development project. These functions include (but are not limited to): • Reducing deposit of fine sediments into the stream system through floodplain retention, filtering and streambank protection; • Filtering and plant uptake of nutrients and pollutants [There are other important values in riparian areas. However, the watercourse bylaw may not be the most appropriate place to regulate for these values. Pieces of companion legislation could be used, such as the OCP, zoning bylaw, and servicing bylaw.] 7. The District of Squamish maintains the right to review QEP reports, comment and

request changes / alterations in conformance with these principles and EDP guidelines, with appropriate rationale accompanying comments.

It is not the expectation or intent of the District of Squamish that every QEP report would be scrutinized. Rather, reports would be screened along the lines, of low-, medium-, and high-potential for impact. The bulk of our review time would be in the “high-potential for impact” category.

8. The ERC will be comprised of DOS, DFO, and the proponent’s QEP. The ERC

acts as a technical committee that reviews QEP reports where a variance has been requested, and provides comments to DOS staff.

3


PROCESS FOR DETERMINING RIPARIAN BUFFER WIDTHS Step 1a: Distinguish between existing and future neighborhoods (map to be generated) Existing neighborhoods include developed portions of:

• Valleycliffe • Brackendale • Downtown • Hospital Hill and Smoke Bluffs • Garibaldi Highlands • Garibaldi Estates • Dentville • North Yards • University Heights [Boundaries will need to be fine-tuned with Planning staff; GIS staff to prepare map. Final map of Future Neighborhoods should also be based on the Squamish Constraints to Development map. All lands noted as “Developable” should receive the designation of Future Neighborhoods.] [These areas will be designated as Development Permit Areas (via OCP amendment); we can set them up such that any area within 30m of top-of-bank of a watercourse is a DP Area. Development Permits will be required for development of lands that fall within the DP Area.]

Step 1b: Classify project: note, Categories 1-4 apply in Existing Neighborhoods, Category 5 applies to Future Neighborhoods

• Category 1: building or permanent structure on site, but proponent wishes to re-develop. Property cannot be subdivided.

• Category 2:. property cannot be subdivided, but no permanent structures exist • Category 3:. property can be subdivided, and permanent structures exist • Category 4: parcel that can be subdivided, with no permanent structures. • Category 5: can be subdivided Category 5 is meant to designate our large (typically no municipal water / sewer services exist) Greenfield sites. Includes sites that may have been logged, but never “developed”.

Step 2: Determine watercourse type • Permament, natural, fish-bearing • Permamnent, natural, non-fish bearing • Non-permanent, natural, fish-bearing • Non-permanent, natural, non-fish-bearing • Man-made, fish-bearing • Man-made, non-fish-bearing

4


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.

Natural watercourses Man-made watercourses1

Watercourse classification7

Project Classification2

Permanent, fish bearing

Permanent, non-fish bearing

Non-permanent, fish-bearing

Non-permanent, non-fish bearing Fish bearing Non-fish bearing6

Existing Neighborhoods

Category 1: NA, as long as redevelopment takes place in existing footprint, and not closer to the watercourse. Category 1 – Existing Neighborhood RAR detailed

assessment with minimum 15m buffer

RAR detailed assessment with minimum 10m buffer





Category 2 - Existing Neighborhood

RAR detailed assessment with minimum 15 m buffer

RAR detailed assessment, with minimum 10 m buffer




RAR detailed assessment, with minimum 5m buffer

Ephemeral stream3 Intermittent stream4Category 3 - Existing Neighborhood

Buffer determined with RAR Simple Assessment, with variance as needed to accommodate use.






Category 4 - Existing Neighborhood







Future Neighborhoods

Category 5 – Future Neighborhood

Buffer determined with RAR Simple Assessment (15 or 30

Buffer determined with RAR Simple Assessment, with

Buffer determined with RAR Simple Assessment, with

Buffer determined with RAR Simple Assessment, with variance considered based on

Man-made watercourses may or may not be present on greenfield sites – QEP to determine. If present -

5


Assessment (15 or 30 m), with variance considered based on demonstrated hardship.5

Assessment, with variance considered based on demonstrated hardship.

Assessment, with variance considered based on demonstrated hardship.

variance considered based on demonstrated hardship.

Buffer determined with RAR Simple Assessment, with 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.

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.

6


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

7


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;

8


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.

9

J:\Hall\Comdev\Environmental\

10

EnvCoord\Environ Bylaw\Watercourse\Draft Framework DRAFT December 2007 AA ppoossssiibbllee ssoolluuttiioonn Buffer reduction

Stream channel:

fish-bearing

Average buffer = 30m

Buffer increased to

40m

Buffer reduced to 20m

Default buffer = 30m (as per RAR Simple Assessment)


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

11


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.

12


A SUMMARY OF WATERCOURSE PROTECTION IN SEVERAL SELECT MUNICIPALITIES West Vancouver, District of (amended OCP, June 2005 and amended Watercourse Protection bylaw, July, 2005) West Van differentiates between Existing and Future Neighborhoods. Different riparian protection standards apply to the two neighborhood types. Development in or near watercourse protection areas is regulated via development permits.

• Existing neighborhoods: new developments are to be at least 15m from the top-of-bank of any permanent watercourse or wetland. Where it is not practical to avoid net loss of riparian habitat within 15mof top-of-bank of a watercourse or edge of wetland, the developer must provide compensatory habitat approved by the District of West Van to achieve no net loss of riparian habitat. The District can administer a habitat restoration program (e.g., a compensation “bank”), and the developer can purchase “credits” from this bank.

• Future neighborhoods: new developments are to be at least 30m from the top-of-bank of any permanent watercourse or wetland; 15m for non-permanent watercourses or wetlands. Where it is not practical to avoid net loss of riparian habitat within 30mof top-of-bank of a watercourse or edge of wetland (or 15m, as applicable based on type of watercourse wetland), the developer must provide compensatory habitat approved by the District of West Van to achieve no net loss of riparian habitat. The District can administer a habitat restoration program (e.g., a compensation “bank”), and the developer can purchase “credits” from this bank.

Delta, Corporation of (amended OCP to include watercourses and all lands within 30mof top-of-bank of watercourses as Development Permit areas, requiring DPs, 2005)

• Riparian buffer widths determined through SPR standards • Requires that reports [prepared by a qualified professional] document fish

presence / absence and must be submitted “to a standard of quality that is acceptable to the Corp. of Delta”

• Variances (reduction) to buffers appear to be allowed, but the bylaw is a bit unclear. Sounds like it’s tough to get a variance, and at the discretion of municipal staff. Actual language follows:

The Corp. of Delta may, as part of the DP, allow development within the buffer where it can be demonstrated in a less than desirable existing situation that a “net positive improvement” for fish habitat will result, or, in a more desirable existing situation, that “no net loss” will result, subject to provincial and/or federal agency review and comment.

This sounds to me like a developer could get a buffer variance (reduction) in one of two ways:

13


l. use a buffer-averaging approach, similar to that outlined in this document m. undertake habitat compensation

• Application of bylaw to “Existing Neighborhoods / Re-development ”

If an existing legally constructed building within a buffer is damaged or destroyed, to the extent of 75% or more o fits value above the foundation, it will be considered for a variance to permit to reconstruction on its existing foundation where it can be demonstrated that the reconstruction would result in no impacts to fish and fish habitat.

Port Moody All areas within 30m of top-of-bank of a watercourse are Development Permit Areas. Also, regulates development near watercourses through Zoning bylaw. Classifies their watercourses, with differing levels of protection on each:

• Class A – fish presence, or streams that would support fish if man-made barriers were removed

• Class B – no fish, but watercourse is important food / nutrient source for fish • Class C – drainage / irrigation ditches (no food or nutrient value, and no fish).

Typically next to roadsides. Also, differentiates between redevelopment areas and small parcels (i.e., “Existing neighborhoods) and areas of new development (i.e., “Future Neighborhoods). Riparian buffers are proposed at: 15m from top-of-bank for all permanent watercourses in existing neighborhoods, and 30m from top-of-bank in future neighborhoods. Whistler (RMOW)

Whistler has adopted the RAR as a companion piece to their larger Protected Areas Network Land Use Policy. The RMOW is in the process of adopting the PAN as an OCP amendment. The PAN designates all riparian areas as PAN2 (Conservation); permitted uses include: minimal disturbance for nature education purposes, non-motorized trails, fire access roads, and limited transportation and utility crossings. Riparian areas for PAN2 are: 30m from top-of-bank for permanent streams, 15m from top-of-bank for non-permanent streams. The RAR is intended to provide regulatory procedures for channels that do not meet the definition of fish-bearing or food-and-nutrient streams (e.g., RMOW has concerns about protecting man-made drainage ditches with big buffers). Langley (amended OCP to include watercourses as Development Permit Areas, 2006) • Considerations in buffer width determination: fish presence, wildlife, trees, water

resources, soils, recreation, and archeological values

14


• Majority of their watercourses and drainage ditches are mapped on the “Watershed classification Map”: forms the basis of their buffer requirements

a) CLASS A watercourses - All fish bearing watercourses in greenfields (Future

Neighborhoods): 30m buffer required. Stream permanence (ephemeral, flowing year round, etc) require the same buffer width. Proponent may vary down to a 25m, and must provide habitat compensation at a ratio of 2:1 (habitat created or enhanced to habitat lost)

b) CLASS B watercourses – All non-fish streams that are important food and

nutrient source: 20m buffer, that could be reduced down to a minimum of 15m (with compensation). May include drainage ditches if they are permanently wetted.

With both CLASS A and B watercourses: if you reduce the buffer in one area, you have to increase in another area such that the average buffer for the whole site is equal to the default buffer.

c) CLASS C watercourse – insignificant food / nutrient value, no fish. These are

typically the man-made roadside drainage ditches, and they are not wetted year-round. These ditches have no buffer requirements. Further defined as “constructed watercourse” – man-made waterway for the purposes of draining or irrigating land.

15


16

SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

1. What are riparian buffers supposed to do? Riparian buffers are not the same as the natural riparian zone; they are determined via considerations of ecological functions and values, development needs, and social / community values. They are intended to enable the continued healthy functions of riparian zones as a watershed develops.

2. Are existing single family properties protected in any way from potential requirements for a large riparian buffer?

In simplest terms, Yes. We are not interested in heavily regulating existing single family (and duplex) homeowners who are looking to re-develop their homesite or make additions to an existing house. Redevelopment within an existing footprint is allowable. Also, additional encroachments into a riparian area will be considered where common sense dictates, and additional plantings, etc are planned to help compensate for a reduced buffer width.

3. What does the science really say about appropriate buffer widths?

Here is a quick summary of current scientific, peer-reviewed literature on appropriate buffer widths, as broken down by protection of specific important functions of the riparian area.

RIPARIAN AREA FUNCTION

SAMPLE SIZE (NUMBER OF STUDIES)

AVERAGE RECOMMENDED BUFFER

AVERAGE, WITH REMOVAL OF HIGHEST

AND LOWEST RECOMMENDED BUFFER

WIDTH

Maintaining cool stream temperature

13 31m 28m

Microclimate regulation (cooling in summer, warming in

winter)

7 106m 111m

Removal of fine sediments1

32 47m 41m

Pollutant removal 26 43m 35m

Large woody debris recruitment2

11 55m 43m

Wildlife habitat / movement corridors

31 77m 75m

1 Fine sediment particles can be very bad for aquatic life, as they can cover salmon eggs and bottom-dwelling insects, thereby cutting off oxygen supply to these organisms.

2 Recruitment of large woody debris (LWD) from the surrounding forest is considered by many biologists to be the most important function of the riparian area, with respect to fish.

DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH · 2007-12-06 · 1. The District of Squamish intent is for the Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH · 2007-12-06 · 1. The District of Squamish intent is for the Environmental...