REPORT - Highlands

REPORT

TO: Loranne Hilton Date: April 24, 2020 Chief Administrative Officer File: DP-11-19 FROM: Laura Beckett Municipal Planner RE: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP-11-19 APPLICATION 4890 Munn Road PURPOSE To present a development permit application to Council for consideration because the proposal requires soil deposition pursuant to the District’s Soil Deposit and Removal Regulation and Fees Bylaw within a development permit area. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is in process of subdividing. As part of that, the applicant seeks to upgrade an old logging road for use as a driveway to the two proposed parcels. While the driveway travels through the majority of the property, only a portion of it falls within the District’s Water and Riparian Areas Development Permit Area (“DPA #2”). The amount of soil noted in Attachment #1 of DP-11-19 is the amount for the entire project and NOT the amount to be deposited within DPA #2. The Site Plan and Enlargements below show where DPA #2 is (orange circle and yellow oval) relative to the site. These images are snapshots from Attachment #1 to DP-11-19. OPTIONS

1. That Council approve DP-11-19. 2. That Council provide alternative direction.

DISCUSSION Bylaw/Regulatory/Intergovernmental

• This development permit is before Council for consideration because the works involve a Soil Deposit Permit application process. Staff does not have the delegated authority to issue these types of development permits.

• DP-11-19 would authorize within DPAs #2 and #6 (“Promotion of Energy and Water Conservation and Reduction of GHGs”):

o Driveway construction involving: Vegetation removal, tree cutting, soil deposit pursuant to the District’s Soil Deposit and Removal Regulation and Fees Bylaw, localized rock chipping and site grading;

o Subdivision of the parcel in accordance with PLA-01-19. • From the Site Plan and Enlargements above, the orange circle shows the 30m assessment area

distant from an isolated wetland on the neighbouring property. This wetland is only applicable to the District’s DPA #2. It is not applicable to the Provincial Riparian Areas Protection Regulation (“RAPR”).

• The 30m assessment area in the yellow oval is applicable to both DPA #2 and the Provincial RAPR. The Assessment Report has been deemed as acceptable by the Province, meaning that local government may proceed with its permitting process. Staff has attached the Assessment Report as DP-11-19 Attachment #3.

To Council May 4, 2020

Development Permit DP-11-19 Application Council - May 4, 2020 Page 2 of 3

• DPA #6 is triggered because DPA #2 is applicable. At this point in time, only the subdivision

aspects of DPA #6 are considered. Once the new lots are registered, successive land owners will be required to respond to DPA #6 for individual house and further site development.

Environmental • The project in both locations meets the guidelines for DPA #2. Please see DP-11-19 Attachment

#2.

Development Permit DP-11-19 Application Council - May 4, 2020 Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION Development Permit DP-11-19 application meets the guidelines for DPAs #2 and #6. RECOMMENDATION That Council approve DP-11-19.

Respectfully submitted, Concurrence

Laura Beckett, MURP, MCIP, RPP Loranne Hilton, Municipal Planner Chief Administrative Officer Attachments:

• Draft DP-11-19 with Attachments

DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. DP-11-19

ISSUED TO: Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni MAILING ADDRESS: 4890 Munn Road Victoria BC V9E 1G7 1. The “Lands” are:

LOT 1, SECTION 78, HIGHLAND DISTRICT, PLAN 20030 PID: 003-670-627 (“4890 Munn Road”)

2. This Development Permit shall be solely to authorize:

Within the lands included in Development Permit Area 2 (Water and Riparian Areas) and Development Permit Area 6 (Energy and Water Conservation and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases): Vegetation removal, tree cutting, soil deposit pursuant to a Soil Deposit Permit, localized rock chipping, and site grading for the purpose of constructing a driveway. All works are pursuant to Preliminary Layout Assessment PLA-01-19 for the purpose of subdivision.

3. The Lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions, and provisions of this permit. This includes specifically: Attachment 1: “Site Plan – Ethan and Natasha Ghidoni,” for 4890 Munn Road, with J.E. Anderson

logo at top left, dated March 16, 2020 Attachment 2: DPA 2 Check Sheets and Explanations for 4890 Munn Road – Isolated Wetland AND

Wetland/Stream, dated March 13, 2020 Attachment 3: Memo from Aqua-Tex, dated March 29, 2020, RE: “Check Sheet DPA #2 and

Isolated Depressional Wetland,” including correspondence from J.E. Anderson to E. Ghidoni, dated March 10, 2020, “Re: 4890 Munn Road – Proposed Subdivision – Driveway Storm Water Management”

Attachment 4: Riparian Areas Protection Regulation Assessment dated March 13, 2020 for “Unnamed Water Course – 4890 Munn Road” NB: Improvements to the existing logging road, to establish an all-weather driveway, shall be done during a dry period (regardless of the season) and any measures necessary to prevent mobilization of sediment during the upgrading of the driveway prism shall be at the direction of the QEP or the Civil Engineer. Given the treed lands adjacent to the existing road alignment the use of silt fencing shall be at the discretion of the QEP to prevent inadvertent harm to tree roots. Other measures to prevent sediment flowing into the wetland shall be implemented under the supervision and monitoring of the QEP.

Attachment 5: Guideline Check Sheet – Development Permit Area 6, Purpose: “Subdivision of land in accordance with Highlands District Official Community Plan,” dated April 15, 2020.

4. This Permit is issued subject to compliance with all the Bylaws of the District applicable thereto, except as

specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. Specifically: Soil Deposit Permit, issued as required Tree Cut Permit, issued as required

5. If the Permit Holder does not substantially start the development permitted by this Permit within 24

months of the date of this Permit, the Permit will lapse.

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF HIGHLANDS THE XX DAY OF XXXX, 2020.

AUTHORIZED THE XX DAY OF XXXX, 2020

Loranne Hilton Chief Administrative Officer

Check Sheet DPA #2 and Isolated, Depressional Wetland – 4890 Munn Road 1/3

390-7th Avenue, 201-3690 Shelbourne St Kimberley, B.C. V1A 2Z7 Victoria, B.C. V8R 4H2 Tel: (250) 427-0260 Tel: (250) 598-0266 Fax: (250) 427-0280 Fax: (250) 598-0263 e-mail: [email protected]

To: Laura Beckett, MURP, MCIP, RPP, Municipal Planner, Deputy Approving Officer, District of Highlands

Cc: Ethan and Natasha Ghidoni, Home owners 4890 Munn Road Ross Tuck, P. Eng., JE Anderson & Associates Ltd. From: Wm. Patrick Lucey, M.Sc., R.P. Bio., CBiol., MRSB, Sr. Aquatic Ecologist Date: March 29th, 2020 Re: Check Sheet DPA #2 and Isolated, Depressional Wetland File: /Users/Patrick/Documents/Projects/4890 Munn Road /2020 Final DP Application Supplements/Memo Check Sheet

Isolated Wetland 200401.docx Dear Laura:

As requested in your email of March 12, 2020, you prescribed the following administrative requirements to complete the DP Application for Subdivision of the property located at 4890 Munn Road.

1. Complete a DPA #2 Check Sheet for the entire property at 4890 Munn Road. This Check Sheet would address the wetland and stream channel for which an RAPR Assessment Report has been prepared and submitted to FLNRORD.

2. Complete a DPA #2 Check Sheet for the isolated, depressional wetland and provide a brief Letter Report describing the development related activities in and about the isolated wetland and whether the RAPR applies to this aquatic landscape feature.

This Memorandum will address each of the above numbered items, addressing each item in the context of the Provincial RAPR’s application to each of the aquatic landscape features.

Item 1 The Check Sheet for the whole property, with a focus on the wetland and stream features that are subject to the RAPR, is Appended. The following are highlights taken from the RAPR Assessment Report.

• An RAPR Assessment report has been completed and submitted to the Province (FLNRORD) for their review. The intent of the RAPR Report was to identify the appropriate SPEA setbacks and that the method used to determine the setbacks was correctly applied, attested to by the FLNRORD review.

• The soil deposit-based upgrades to the existing access road will provide a driveway that meets Municipal standards for an access road to the two Lots at the north end of the property. The engineered driveway prism is appended in a JEA drawing.

• The driveway upgrade will retain the existing culvert crossing the wetland; a minor realignment of the existing access road will pull the upgraded driveway away from the adjacent property and straighten the alignment to provide a driveway standard suitable for emergency vehicles access.

• Runoff from the realigned and upgraded driveway access road, engineering cross section appended, should be routed to the east and away from the wetland.

Aqua-TexScientific Consulting Ltd. (1993)



• The recommended routing of runoff from the gravel driveway is by directing runoff into the adjacent forest floor (Figure1).

• The existing culvert shall be retained in its present configuration.

Item 2 The isolated, depressional wetland has been assessed and the following landscape features verified.

• The isolated wetland is not connected by surface flow/channel to the wetland and stream located north of the wetland. Details of this field-based conclusion are provided in detail in the appended Memorandum.

• The isolated wetland is not subject to the RAPR. • The proposed realignment of the upgraded driveway access (Figure1) provides a 15 m riparian

setback between the wetland’s HWM and the edge of the driveway. • Although not subject to the RAPR, the 15 m riparian setback to the east of the wetland is what would

be required for a wetland under the RAPR. • The proposed removal of the trees (Figure1) will not adversely alter the sunlight reaching the

wetland. • The existing vegetation between the western edge of the driveway and the wetland will be sufficient

to maintain the historical shade canopy that lies adjacent to the wetland to the east. The trees to be removed lie to the north of the wetland and their shadow/shade footprint provides minimal, if any, shade in the wetland during the summer months. See Figures 6 through 10 in the accompanying Letter Report on the ecology of the isolated wetland.

• Runoff from the realigned and upgraded driveway access road, engineering cross section appended, should be routed to the east and away from the wetland.

• All driveway realignment upgrades are outside the RAPR SPEA (Figure 1). • The recommended routing of runoff from the gravel driveway is by directing runoff into the adjacent

forest floor (Figure1). • Construction of the driveway upgrade is recommended to occur during the dry summer months to

minimize the potential for runoff of sediment and/or turbid water. • BMPs for protecting forest floor soils and plants, adjacent to the driveway alignment, shall be

implemented and supervised by either the consulting civil engineer or a QEP. • Given the thin forest soils and bedrock on which the existing access road sits, installing silt fencing is

likely to be impossible or will create more harm that it would prevent during construction of the driveway upgrade. Site specific erosion and sediment control measures shall be adopted at the discretion and under the supervision and monitoring of the consulting civil engineer or a QEP.

• Equipment used in constructing the driveway upgrade shall NOT be permitted, for any reason, to drive onto the adjacent forest floor. All driveway upgrade works shall be constrained to operate within the road prism as defined in the JEA construction drawing (appended).

• Disturbances of the forest floor adjacent to the realigned driveway prism shall be restored and replanted to return the soils to a functional condition.

• There shall be a zero tolerance for any sediment or runoff entering any watercourse during construction.


Figure 1. Close up of the realigned driveway access road showing the isolated wetland (green arrow) and the trees to be removed to permit a straightened driveway alignment. Note that these proposed driveway upgrades are all outside the RAPR SPEA. The dashed blue line indicates the recommended routing of runoff from the gravel driveway, directing runoff into the adjacent forest floor.

LEGAL SURVEYS

MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING

LAND DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTING

☐ 1A – 3411 Shenton Road ☒ 4212 Glanford Avenue ☒ #203 – 177 Weld St., PO Box 247 ☒ Unit E – 1250 Cedar St.

Nanaimo, BC, V9T 2H1 Victoria, BC V8Z 4B7 Parksville, BC V9P 2G4 Campbell River, BC V9W 2W5

Phone 250-758-4631 Phone 250-727-2214 Phone 250-248-5755 Phone 250-287-4865

Fax 250-758-4660 Fax 250-727-3395

March 10 2020

File No. 31777

Ethan Ghidoni 4890 Munn Road Victoria BC V9E 1G7 VIA Email

Re: 4890 Munn Road - Proposed Subdivision Driveway Storm Water Management

It is JEA’s understanding that the client is in the process of subdividing the above-noted address and the District of Highlands (DoH) have requested a stormwater management plan for the proposed driveway which meets the requirements of Section D of their Subdivision Bylaw.

The proposed lots have an average lot area which is greater than 2 ha and therefore it is understood that the requirement for a comprehensive storm water management plan (SWMP) has been waived as per Section D2.2 of the Subdivision Bylaw.

With respect to the driveway, JEA has reviewed the site and concludes that the existing driveway is capable of draining to two existing water courses which are in close proximity. It is JEA’s recommendation that the proposed driveway is constructed in general conformance to the attached detail.

With the proposed ditches discharging to these existing water courses, there is no need for additional stormwater management features. It is JEA’s opinion that the existing water courses will naturally detain the runoff from limited driveway catchment and meet the requirements of Section D1.1 of the Subdivision Bylaw.

Please note that the location of the proposed ditch and connection to the existing water courses should reviewed in the field by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) prior to construction.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this report.

Yours truly,

J.E. Anderson and Associates

Ross Tuck, P.Eng Principal

DRIVEWAY SECTION

NTS

CUT

FILL

SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS

J E ANDERSON &

ASSOCIATES

Unnamed Watercourse

4890 Munn Road

Riparian Areas Protection Regulation Assessment

Prepared for: Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni (Revision of October 3, 2019 report) Prepared by: Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P. Bio., CBiol, MRSB Jordana Herron, A.Sc., GradTech, Trainee(RBTech)

March 11, 2020



Riparian Areas Protection Regulation - Qualified Environmental Professional - Assessment Report

Page 2 of 63

Riparian Areas Protection Regulation: Assessment Report

Date March 11, 2020 I. Primary QEP Information

First Name William Middle Name Patrick Last Name Lucey

Designation R.P. Bio Company: Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd. Registration # 1467 Email: [email protected]

Address 390 7th Avenue City Kimberley Postal/Zip V1A 2Z7 Phone # 250-427-5906

Prov/state BC Country Canada

II. Secondary QEP InformationFirst Name Middle Name Last Name

Designation Company: Registration # Email:

Address City Postal/Zip Phone #

Prov/state Country

First Name Middle Name Last Name

Designation Company: Registration # Email:

Address City Postal Phone #

Prov/state Country

III. Developer InformationFirst Name Ethan & Natasha Middle Name Last Name Ghidoni Company

Address 4890 Munn Road City Victoria Postal/Zip V9E 1G7

Prov/state BC Country Canada

IV. Development InformationDevelopment Type Subdivision

Area of Development (ha) 0.16 Riparian Length (m) 118 Lot Area (ha) 6.1 Nature of Development New

Proposed Start Date January 1,2020

Proposed End Date January 1, 2021


Page 3 of 63

V. Location of Proposed Development Street Address (or nearest town) 4890 Munn Road

Local Government District of Highlands City Victoria

Stream Name Unnamed Stream, tributary of Craigflower Creek Legal Description (PID) 003-670-627 Region 1 – Vancouver Island

Stream/River Type Wetland & Stream DFO Area 18 – Vancouver Island

Watershed Code 920-077200

Latitude 48o 28’ 20” Longitude -123

o 30’ 05”


Page 4 of 63

TableofContents

List of Figures ....................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ 6

List of Photos ........................................................................................................ 6

1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 8

2. Introduction and Proposed Development ......................................................... 9

3. Assessment Team ............................................................................................. 13

4. Watershed Overview ......................................................................................... 13

History of the Property ....................................................................................... 14

Flooding .............................................................................................................. 14

Riparian Condition .............................................................................................. 16

Precipitation ........................................................................................................ 16

Climate Patterns ................................................................................................. 18

5. Study Area and Fisheries Resources .............................................................. 19

6. Methods .............................................................................................................. 20

7. Field Assessment .............................................................................................. 21

Unnamed Watercourse ...................................................................................... 21

Vegetation ................................................................................................. 21

Erosion ...................................................................................................... 21

Wetland on 5020 Stag Road .............................................................................. 22

Vegetation ................................................................................................. 22

Erosion ...................................................................................................... 22

Fish presence ........................................................................................... 22

8. Results of Riparian Assessment (SPEA width) .............................................. 23


Page 5 of 63

Unnamed Watercourse Reach 1 ........................................................................ 23

Unnamed Stream Reach 2 ................................................................................. 25

Wetland at 5020 Stag Road ............................................................................... 27

9. Site Plans ............................................................................................................ 29

10. Measures to Protect and Maintain the SPEA .................................................. 34

11. Field Reviews and Environmental Monitoring ................................................ 38

Photos ........................................................................................................................... 41

Riparian Assessment Assurance Statement- Qualified Environmental Professional .................................................................................................................. 52

Professional Opinion ................................................................................................... 54

Statement of Limitations .............................................................................................. 55

Appendix 1: Fisheries Inventory for Craigflower Creek ........................................... 56

Appendix 2: Experience of Assessment Team .......................................................... 57

References .................................................................................................................... 63

List of Figures Figure 1. Overview aerial image of the Craigflower Creek Watershed, outlined in white. The property

boundary is outlined in red. Source: Google Earth, 2019. ......................................................... 11Figure 2. Overview map showing the location of the subject property (red polygon) in relation to various

lakes in the Highlands. The land uses in this area are largely rural, rural residential, and parkland. Image source: Google Earth, 2019. ........................................................................... 12

Figure 3. Image showing subject property, outlined in red, the unnamed watercourse (a headwater tributary of Craigflower Creek), and the small isolated, depressional wetland on 5020 Stag Road. Source: Google Earth 2018. ............................................................................................ 13

Figure 4. Map of the northern half of the Craigflower Creek watershed, part of the Roberts and Harding 1997 assessment. The inset photo shows the assessed stream (blue arrow) and the wetland from which it flows (green arrow). .............................................................................................. 15

Figure 5. Graph of Environment Canada temperature and precipitation normals for 1981-2010 for Victoria Highlands. ..................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 6. Site Plan for the proposed 3 Lot subdivision. The Site Plan shows the existing Lot with its single-family residence, out building, well, and septic disposal field. The two new lots would be created to the west and north of the existing lot. The stream channel is shown, as well as


Page 6 of 63

the proposed driveway to access the two new lots. The proposed development footprint for Lot 3 is approximately 60 metres from the wetland HWM (blue arrow). .................................... 29

Figure 7. Surveyor’s Site Plan of 4890 Munn Road. The distance between the isolated depressional wetland and the unnamed stream is >75 metres. The double-headed blue arrows are a 30 m setback from the HWM. The orange arrows indicate a section of the historical road that will be realigned, lying well beyond the 30 m RAA. A minor section of the historical logging road (see inset) lies on the adjacent property. Yellow arrow indicates stream flow direction. .................. 30

Figure 8. Site Plan showing the realignment of the historical logging road (blue lines) and the 7 trees to be removed north of the wetland, within the 30 m RAA, but outside the 15 m SPEA (blue clouds). ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 9. Engineered road cross section (3.6 m wide road prism) showing the crushed gravel road base, with small road-side drainage channels. Drainage from the small road-side channels will be routed into the adjacent forest floor to infiltrate any fines, preventing them from entering the wetland. The consulting civil engineer (JEA) has indicated that the existing historical logging road is the only access to the proposed 2 new Lots. Therefore, the existing logging road must be maintained in its current alignment as it passes through the SPEA, to minimize the driveway access footprint. The Municipal Planner requires that the driveway must meet municipal road construction standards to enable a fire truck to access year-round the two new Lots. The minor driveway upgrade shown above will result in a small increase in road prism width to 3.6 m, with an additional +/- 1 m assumed allowance to accommodate a drainage ditch. ............ 32

Figure 10. Close-up of surveyor’s site plan with mark-ups indicating the boundaries of the SPEA and Zones of Sensitivity (ZOS) for Large Woody Debris (LWD), Litterfall and Shade. Note the exact boundary of the wetland on 5020 Stag Road (circled in yellow) was not surveyed except for the High-Water Mark (HWM) of its eastern edge, the edge closest to the 4890 Munn Road property. Yellow arrow indicates flow direction. ............................................................................................................... 33

List of Tables Table 1. Table of Environment Canada temperature and precipitation normals for 1981-2010 for Victoria

Highlands, near the Western Speedway property located on Millstream Road (Langford). ........... 17

List of Photos Photo 1. Looking west from the edge of the existing logging road, standing on the culvert. Note the dense

riparian vegetation with a coniferous canopy and a shrub-dominated understory. Surface water is visible in the foreground. .............................................................................................................. 41

Photo 2. Looking northwest across the wetland. Note the vigorous riparian plant growth and historic logging debris. ......................................................................................................................................... 42

Photo 3. Looking toward the end of the westernmost section of the wetland on the adjacent property. Note that the wetland had moist soil but there was no visible surface water in the wetland. This wetland flowed east into a small stream channel (yellow arrow). Stag Road is visible in the upper portion of the image (black arrow). .............................................................................................................. 43

Photo 4. A small wetland lying on a slightly elevated terrace on the north bank of the wetland on the adjacent property. The two wetlands are connected. Note the dense riparian vegetation consisting of sedges. ....................................................................................................................................... 44


Page 7 of 63

Photo 5. Looking across the wetland at the approximate property boundary between the subject property and the adjacent property to the west. ........................................................................................ 45

Photo 6. Photo looking downslope to the wetland, taken from a rocky knoll above the watercourse. Note the steep side slopes along the edge of the wetland. ........................................................................ 46

Photo 7. Looking south at the existing logging road that is proposed as the driveway access road for the two new lots. ..................................................................................................................................... 47

Photo 8. Looking west downslope at the logging road and the culvert crossing the wetland (yellow arrow). The blue dashed arrow indicates the wetland flow direction. This culvert will be retained. ............ 47

Photo 9. The existing culvert crossing the wetland. The blue dashed arrow indicates the stream flow direction. ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Photo 10. Looking at the upper wetland that lies adjacent to Stag Road. There was no visual evidence of any inflows into this wetland; there was no culvert under Stag Road that would divert flows from Fork Lake. ........................................................................................................................................... 48

Photo 11. Looking west, upstream, in the small channel downstream of the wetland; note the cobble streambed (yellow arrow) and healthy riparian vegetation community. ......................................... 49

Photo 12. Further downstream, upstream of where the unnamed stream flows under Talon Ridge Road. Note the step-pools that characterize this portion of the stream, starting on the subject property in Reach 2. The avulsions indicate a flashy system, and a potential barrier to upstream fish migration. The dashed yellow line indicates the flow direction and channel alignment (this channel would be characterized as a “Rosgen A and A+ channel” (A = >4 - 10% and A+ = >10% slope gradients). 50

Photo 13. The small, isolated, depressional wetland on the adjacent property. Looking east. ...................... 51

Photo 14. Looking southeast across the small, isolated, depressional wetland. Note the HWM (orange flag) lies approximately 0.75 metres below the terrace that lies to the east and upon which the logging road (Figure 9) is aligned. This isolated, depressional wetland goes dry in the summer and, therefore, does not provide fish habitat. ....................................................................................... 51


Page 8 of 63

1. Executive Summary This report was prepared for Ethan and Natasha Ghidoni, the owners of 4890 Munn Road, District of Highlands, B.C.

The homeowners are proposing to subdivide the property, which is 6.070 ha (15 ac.) in size. The proposed subdivision will divide the existing property into 3 lots, two new ones (4.5 acres & 3.0 acres) and the remainder lot at 4890 Munn Road (7.5 acres). No development is proposed within the SPEAs of the wetland or stream channel; however, the existing logging road will be upgraded to provide a driveway access to the two lots and the existing culvert will be retained in its present location.

There is an unnamed watercourse that flows roughly northwest to southeast across the property before it turns south just east of the property. This unnamed watercourse is a headwater tributary of Craigflower Creek, which flows generally north to south and drains into Portage Inlet. The subject property lies in the northern portion of the Craigflower Creek watershed, in a rural residential neighbourhood on the southern slopes of Mount Work (Figure 4). This upstream portion of the watershed is predominantly rural and parkland, with the lower watershed having more suburban development.

Since the unnamed watercourse assessed in this report connects to a fish-bearing system (Craigflower Creek), we have adopted the default that the stream could be fish-bearing. The lower reach of the stream, as well as the wetland, were observed to be dry during the early part of September 2019.

In addition to the watercourse that flows through the property, there is also a small, isolated wetted depression that lies on the adjacent property (5020 Stag Road). While our assessment indicates that this isolated depressional wetland is not connected to the unnamed stream, the District of Highlands requires that this aquatic landscape element be included in an environmental study. In addition, there is an historic logging road that provides access to the interior of the property, and that will be used as an access driveway to the proposed two new lots. This existing roadway lies within 30 m of the isolated depressional wetland. We have elected to include this isolated wetland in this assessment.

Since this is a sub-division level assessment, and there are no works planned within the RAA, no specific measures have been developed.


Page 9 of 63

2. Introduction and Proposed Development

This RAPR report was commissioned by the property owners, Ethan and Natasha Ghidoni. The subject property is located in the District of Highlands and is located within the Craigflower Creek watershed (Figure 1).

The subject property is approximately 6.070 hectares (15 acres) in size. The present permitted land use designation in the District of Highlands Official Community Plan (COP) is rural residential. The subject property lies in the northern portion of the Craigflower Creek watershed, in a rural residential neighbourhood on the southern slopes of Mount Work (Figure 4). This upstream portion of the watershed is predominantly rural and parkland, with the lower watershed having more suburban development.

The homeowners plan to subdivide the property, which is currently 6.070 ha (15 ac.) in size. The proposed subdivision will divide the existing property into 3 lots: two new ones (4.5 acres & 3.0 acres) and the remainder lot at 4890 Munn Road (7.5 acres). The purpose of this RAPR report is to ensure that the integrity of the SPEA informs potential uses of the lands. The lots are large enough that there are many potential building sites outside the RAA. There are no plans for development within the RAA, therefore no specific measures have been developed.

An unnamed watercourse flows roughly northwest to southeast across the property before it turns south just east of the property. This unnamed stream is a headwater tributary of Craigflower Creek, which flows generally north to south and drains into Portage Inlet. This watercourse has been divided into two reaches. Reach 1 is the upstream portion of the watercourse and is a low-gradient (<1% slope) wetland characterized by organic soils and wetland vegetation, including rushes, sedges, skunk cabbage, and western redcedar. The downstream end of the wetland becomes more channelized as it flows closer to Reach 2. Reach 2 is a step-pool channel (14%-23% slope) with cobble streambed and riparian vegetation dominated by salal, sword fern, salmonberry, and western redcedar. North of Talon Ridge Road, downstream of the subject property, the streambed is characterized by avulsions, indicating a flashy system (Photo 12). This could pose a barrier to upstream fish migration. However, since the unnamed watercourse assessed in this report connects to a fish-bearing system (Craigflower Creek), we have adopted the default condition that the section of the stream / wetland could contain fish. The reaches under assessment were observed to be dry in early September 2019.


Page 10 of 63

In addition to the watercourse that flows through the property, there is also a small, isolated wetted depression that lies on the adjacent property (5020 Stag Road). While our assessment indicates that this isolated depressional wetland is not connected to the unnamed stream, the District of Highlands requires that this aquatic landscape element be included in an environmental study. In addition, there is an historic logging road that provides access to the interior of the property, and that will be used as an access driveway to the proposed two new lots. This existing roadway lies within 30 m of the isolated depressional wetland. We have elected to include this isolated wetland in this assessment.

No development is proposed within the SPEAs, i.e. 30 m to the south or 15 m to the north (Figure 8) of the wetland; however, the existing logging road will be upgraded to provide a driveway access to the two lots and the existing culvert will be retained. The upgrading of the existing logging road will not require the removal of any trees within the SPEAs and shall be on the existing alignment. Tree removal will be conducted under a permit issued by the District of Highlands. The upgrading of the driveway and the culvert will require a minimal increase in the road prism width, to meet municipal driveway standards, especially for fire truck access.


Page 11 of 63

Figure 1. Overview aerial image of the Craigflower Creek Watershed, outlined in white. The property boundary is outlined in red. Source: Google Earth, 2019.


Page 12 of 63

Figure 2. Overview map showing the location of the subject property (red polygon) in relation to various lakes in the Highlands. The land uses in this area are largely rural, rural residential, and parkland. Image source: Google Earth, 2019.


Page 13 of 63

Figure 3. Image showing subject property, outlined in red, the unnamed watercourse (a headwater tributary of Craigflower Creek), and the small isolated, depressional wetland on 5020 Stag Road. Source: Google Earth 2018.

3. Assessment Team The field assessment was conducted primarily by Patrick Lucey, R.P. Bio. and Jordana Herron, A.Sc., GradTech, Trainee(RBTech). The work took place over three site visits and all flagged locations were subsequently surveyed and mapped by JE Anderson Engineers and Surveyors. Lehna Malmkvist, R.P.Bio., conducted a bio-inventory assessment and reported on ecosystems present on the subject propertyi.

The experience of the primary QEP is included as Appendix 2.

4. Watershed Overview A comprehensive report published in April 1997, entitled The Craigflower Watershed Assessment describes the Craigflower Watershed thus:

“The landscape of the Craigflower watershed is highly irregular having been shaped by the retreating glacial ice of 12,000 to 15,000 years ago. The high points within the watershed are Mount Work at 449 m and Scafe Hill at 271 m; between these elevations and sea level lie convoluted hills and valleys of lesser relief. The basins have collected water with the result that the watershed includes nine lakes, at least 15 ponds, and many wetlands…Craigflower Creek rises in several small

Unnamed Watercourse

Wetland 5020 Stag

Road


Page 14 of 63

streams on the southeast slope of Mount Work and flows approximately southeast to Eagles Lake. From there the creek flows generally south through Pike and Prior Lakes. In the vicinity of the Trans-Canada Highway, the creek begins to meander east and south until it empties into the upper reaches of Portage Inlet. The Craigflower watershed consists of seven minor drainage basins including the drainage area of Craigflower Creek itself…. For ease of discussion, the drainages have been named after local features such as lakes, hills, and human habitations as none of the creeks have official names.”

The stream on the subject property is an unnamed headwater stream in the Craigflower Mainstem drainage basin. The Craigflower watershed is 2437 ha in size and the mainstem of Craigflower Creek is 9.2 km long.

The 1997 study notes “On a macroscopic level the Craigflower watershed appears to be in relatively good condition. A large proportion of the watershed is protected in regional parks or held by a few landowners in large parcels, which are mostly undeveloped. The result is that much of the watershed is still wooded and many of the small stream and wetlands in the Craigflower system are in good condition. However, when the watershed was examined more closely, a number of significant impacts from human activities were found.” These impacts include flooding, erosion, and bank damage. Flooding predominantly impacts the lower watershed and bank damage largely affects agricultural land in the watershed; but there are “instances of erosion occurring high in the watershed” where the subject property lies. This erosion is likely due to winter rains and sediment settles in the next lake or wetland downstream and, therefore, “does not travel far enough downstream to cover spawning gravel.”ii

History of the Property The subject property is currently designated as rural residential and lies in the northern portion of the watershed, which is an area made up of mostly rural lots and parkland. There are multiple old and overgrown roadbeds on the property that indicate a history of logging. The property has an existing single family residence, with a few out buildings. There is an historical logging road that lies in a north-south alignment along the western side of the property.

Flooding As shown in Figure 4, the assessed stream flows from a wetland and has no floodplain greater than 10 m. In fact, the wetland being assessed has no appreciable floodplain as the wetland lies in a depression, with the side slopes rising upslope from the wetland’s HWM.


Page 15 of 63

Figure 4. Map of the northern half of the Craigflower Creek watershed, part of the Roberts and Harding 1997 assessment. The inset photo shows the assessed stream (blue arrow) and the wetland from which it flows (green arrow).


Page 16 of 63

Riparian Condition The 1997 study also assessed the condition of the riparian zone at 91 sites throughout the watershed. The study noted “about 77% of the sites had 80% or more of the riparian vegetation intact. Where less than 100% of the riparian vegetation remained, land had been cleared for farming, roads, subdivisions, powerlines, trails, waterworks, or municipal parks. The extent of removal of riparian vegetation depended on whether the works paralleled the creek, crossed the creek, or were confined to one-side of the creek. The greatest amounts of clearing were observed at three agricultural sites…, at eight sites along the Trans-Canada Highway… and near View Royal Park.”

The current condition of the riparian area on the subject property remains much as it was described in 1997, likely due to this area of the watershed remaining largely rural or designated parkland, in addition to the “significant watershed, wetland and watercourse policies” within the District of Highlands Official Community Plan (OCP) that aim to protect aquatic features of the landscape.ii

Precipitation Precipitation measured near 4890 Munn Road is greatest between November and January and typically falls as rain with upwards of 150 mm per monthii. During the dry period, rainfall averages 19.3 mm per month. In 2018 there was no measurable summer rainfall. Temperatures average around 17°C in summer and 3 - 4°C in winter (

Figure 5 and Table 1).


Page 17 of 63

Figure 5. Graph of Environment Canada temperature and precipitation normals for 1981-2010 for Victoria Highlands.

Table 1. Table of Environment Canada temperature and precipitation normals for 1981-2010 for Victoria Highlands, near the Western Speedway property located on Millstream Road (Langford).


Page 18 of 63

Climate Patterns In April 2017, the CRD published the Climate Projections for the Capital Region report. Models for precipitation and temperature were used to assess changes in climate expected by the 2050s and the 2080s. General climate projections for the region include wetter winters, drier summers, warmer average temperatures throughout the year (though unevenly distributed over the seasons), and “more intense extreme events”. The following is an excerpt from this report:

“As our climate warms, our region can expect the number of summer days above 25°C to triple, from an average of 12 days per year to 36 days per year. The 1-in-20 hottest day’s temperature is projected to increase from 32°C to 36°C by the 2050s. These rising temperatures will result in a 22% increase in the growing season length and a 49% increase in growing degree days by the 2050s. This projected warming will have implications for regional ecosystems, watersheds, agriculture and horticulture, and communities. Warmer winters mean the region will experience a 69% decrease in the number of frost days, significantly impacting the natural environment…. The “new normal” is a climate that is almost entirely frost-free at lower elevations.

Annual precipitation projections are a modest 5% increase by the 2050s and 12% by the 2080s. Projections indicate that the fall season will see the greatest increase in precipitation. This precipitation is expected during increasingly extreme events, with about 31% more precipitation on very wet days (95th percentile wettest days precipitation indicator) and 68% more on extremely wet days (99th percentile wettest days precipitation indicator). Despite the projected increased intensity of wet events, the amount of rain in summer is expected to decrease by 20%, while the duration of dry spells will lengthen by about 20%.”

These climate projections may have a serious effect on stream habitats such as those found in the Craigflower Creek watershed, especially since it is fish-bearing. Warmer summer temperatures may increase water temperature in streams as well as contribute to lower flows, both of which may negatively impact cold-water fish stocks such as trout and salmon. Additionally, more extreme precipitation events in the fall, winter and spring may cause high flows and negatively affect fish-spawning habitat through channel erosion, and the deposition of sediment. Riparian vegetation and intact streambanks are important to buffer these effects.


Page 19 of 63

5. Study Area and Fisheries Resources “Historically, Craigflower Creek has been known as habitat for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki)... Other species which have been reported in the watershed…include: pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) in Craigflower Creek, Thetis Lakes Pike Lake, and Prior Lake; small mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and brown bullhead (Ictalurus sp.) in Thetis Lakes; resident cutthroat trout in the lakes and wetlands upstream of the falls at site 271; and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) in the lower reaches of Craigflower Creek.iii” The BC Government’s Fish Inventories Data Queries (FIDQ) lists rainbow trout/steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in addition to the above listed species. A summary of the fish present in Craigflower Creek from the FIDQ is included in Appendix 1.

The 1997 goes on to say that “Low summer flows are considered to be a chronic condition of local streams including Craigflower Creek (Walsh, Blecic, and Vanbruggern, 1994). Low flows are a major limiting factor on fish production in Craigflower Creek. In some locations fish may die as the channel dries out or fish (may) be trapped in isolated pools for the low flow period. More generally, during low flow periods fish are exposed to increased water temperatures and reduced oxygen levels which can create lethal or sub-lethal conditions. The problem of low summer flows in Craigflower Creek is managed cooperatively by Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Water Management at MELP, and CRD Parks.”

There is a history of community groups working to restock lakes and creeks in the watershed. According to the CRD, coho salmon numbers “declined substantially in the 1970s when road construction created impassable barriers for the fish. After these channel obstructions were removed during the 1980s the Esquimalt Anglers’ Association, supported by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, began restocking the creek with juvenile coho and chum salmon transplanted from Goldstream Creek. Today, the run is self-sustaining, and the Anglers maintain a smolt counting fence in the stream.iv” In 2001, DFO stopped supplying fry for restocking after “declaring Craigflower creek an indicator stream.v” The 1997 report also mentions the Goldstream Volunteer Salmonid Enhancement Association’s work in restocking Pike and Prior Lakes, beginning in 1989.

North of Talon Ridge Road, downstream of the subject property, the streambed is characterized by avulsions, indicating a flashy system (Photo 12). This could pose a barrier to upstream fish migration.


Page 20 of 63

6. Methods A detailed RAPR was conducted for the site per standard RAPR methods. Bankfull width was noted and flagged with irrigation flags on both banks and later surveyed by JE Anderson surveyors. The stream boundary, which includes the active floodplain, was also marked in the field and surveyed. Slopes were measured periodically along the channel using a clinometer. The riparian vegetation was noted in both reaches of the unnamed watercourse and the small wetland on 5020 Stag Road.


Page 21 of 63

7. Field Assessment Unnamed Watercourse The unnamed watercourse was divided into two reaches, based on hydrological characteristics. All references to left and right bank follow standard hydrological methods, i.e. looking downstream.

Reach 1, the upstream reach, is approximately 73 m long, and is a low-gradient (<1% slope) wetland characterized by organic soils and wetland vegetation, including rushes, sedges, skunk cabbage, and western redcedar. The downstream end of the wetland becomes more channelized as it flows closer to Reach 2. Under the proposed rezoning of the property into three lots, no development would occur within the 30 m RAA. A prescribed 15 metre SPEA for wetlands has been applied on the northern bank, and a 30 m SPEA has been applied on the southern bank to include shade (Figure 10).

Reach 2, the downstream reach, is approximately 20 m long and is a step-pool channel (14%-23% slope) with a cobble streambed and riparian vegetation dominated by salal, sword fern, salmonberry, and western redcedar. A 10 metre SPEA has been applied to both the northern and southern bank, which includes the shade setback for step-pool channels on the southern bank. Further downstream, off the property (Photo 12), the streambed is characterized by avulsions.

Vegetation In both Reach 1 and Reach 2, the riparian area is dominated by western redcedar (Thuja plicata), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Additionally, reach 1 contains riparian vegetation characteristic of wetlands, including sedges (Cyperaceae sp.), rushes, (Juncaceae sp.) and skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus).

Erosion

The 1997 report made note of erosion impacts high in the Craigflower Creek watershed, where the subject property lies. The report states that these instances are “probably the result of heavy winter rains running off of steep slopes and can be considered natural events. The sediment carried by the fast-moving waters is probably deposited at the first lake or wetland downstream and does not travel far enough downstream to cover spawning gravel.ii”


Page 22 of 63

Wetland on 5020 Stag Road

In addition to the watercourse that flows through the property, there is also a small, isolated wetted depression that lies on the adjacent property (5020 Stag Road). The riparian vegetation in the depression is consistent with wetland vegetation. The existing logging roadbed, on the subject property, lies within 30 m of this isolated wetland and has been included in the assessment. The District of Highlands requires that an aquatic landscape element such as this isolated, depressional wetland be assessed and for this reason we have included it in this report. Given that our field assessment documented that it is not connected to the unnamed stream it would not be subject to the RAPR.

Note: An assessment report written by another QEP states that this wetland may connect with the unnamed watercourse to the north during heavy rain events. The latter report is based upon anecdotal information from a neighbour, rather than field indicators. The primary QEP of this assessment for 4890 Munn Road has conducted a field review of the latter report and has found no field-based evidence that the two water bodies are connected. We have appended our response and rationale to this report as an Appendix to this RAPR Assessment report.

Vegetation Riparian vegetation in the depression is consistent with wetland vegetation, including hardhack (Spiraea douglasii) and sedges.

Erosion There was no evidence of any erosion as the isolated waterbody is depressional and well vegetated. The benthic condition was soft silty soil, with woody debris and grassy banks. Since the depressional wetland is isolated, there is no potential for sediment to be transported beyond the wetland. In addition, the catchment for the wetland is very small and there was no visual evidence that the wetland had filled and flowed beyond the rim of the banks. There is a lengthy distance (~75 m) between the wetland and the unnamed stream channel, such that any overflow would be infiltrated into the forested landscape lying between the wetland and the unnamed stream channel.

Fish presence

The isolated nature of this depressional wetland (Photo 14), the absence of any surface connection with the unnamed stream / wetland lying to the north, and there being no surface water during the summer months, precludes this wetland from being fish habitat – there are no fish present in this wetland.


Page 23 of 63

8. Results of Riparian Assessment (SPEA width) Unnamed Watercourse Reach 1

Date: 2019-Jun-27 Description of Water bodies involved (number, type) Unnamed Watercourse, 4890 Munn Road Stream Wetland X Lake Ditch

Number of reaches 2 Reach # 1

Channel width and slope and Channel Type (use only if water body is a stream or a ditch, and only provide widths if a ditch)

Channel Width(m) Gradient (%) starting point I, Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P.Bio , hereby certify that:

a) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian Areas Protection Act;

b) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni;

c) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and

d) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical manual to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation.

upstream

downstream

Total: minus high /low mean

R/P C/P S/P Channel Type

Site Potential Vegetation Type (SPVT) Yes No SPVT Polygons X Tick yes only if multiple polygons, if No then fill in one set of SPVT data boxes I, Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P.Bio, hereby certify that:





Polygon No: 1 Method employed if other than TR LC SH TR

SPVT Type X

Zone of Sensitivity (ZOS) and resultant SPEA

Segment No: 1 If two sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water bodies multiple segments occur where there are multiple SPVT polygons

LWD, Bank and Channel Stability ZOS (m)

15.0


Page 24 of 63

Litter fall and insect drop ZOS (m)

15.0

Shade ZOS (m) max 0.0 South bank Yes No X Ditch Justification description for classifying as a ditch (manmade, no

significant headwaters or springs, seasonal flow)

Ditch Fish Bearing

Yes No If non-fish bearing insert no fish bearing status report

SPEA maximum 15.0 m (For ditch use table3-7) Segment No: 2 If two sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water bodies

multiple segments occur where there are multiple SPVT polygons LWD, Bank and Channel

Stability ZOS (m) 15.0


15.0

Shade ZOS (m) max 30.0 South bank Yes X No SPEA maximum 30.0 m (For ditch use table 3-7)

I, Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: a) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian Areas

Protection Act; b) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni; c) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and d) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical

manual to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation.

Comments • Thewetlandreachextendswestontotheneighbouringproperty.• CRDNaturalAreasAtlas(NAA)websiteindicatesthatthewetlandisdirectlyconnectedtoFork

Lake,lyingwestofStagRoad.Thewebsite(WaterFeaturesandDrainages)showsastreamchannelflowingunderStagRoad,thenflowingeastthroughtheneighbouringpropertyandthesubjectproperty.OurfieldinvestigationdocumentedthattheCRDwebmapisincorrectandthereisnoconnectionbetweenForkLakeandtheunnamedstreamchannel.NoculvertunderStagRoadwasfound;therewereafewsmallseepsontheeastbanksofStagRoadbutthewetlandontheadjacentpropertyappearedtoresultfromtheverysmallcatchmentsurroundingthewetland.

• Thewetlandontheadjacentpropertyconsistedoftwoseparateelongateddepressions,connectedbyashortstreamchannel(~7m).Thewesterndepressionalwetlandwasapproximately1metrehigherinelevation.

• Theneighbouringdevelopment,consistingoflargerockstackboulderwallswas~16metressouthoftheHWMofthewetland.

• InearlySeptember2019,thewetlandonthesubjectproperty,andextendingwestontotheadjacentproperty,hadnosurfacewater,althoughthebenthicsoilsweremoist.

• Theriparianvegetationexhibitedvigourandtherewasnoevidenceofdroughtstress.• Thewetlanddidnothaveafloodplainperseasitlieswithinadepressionwiththelandform

slopingupfromtheedgesofthewetland.


Page 25 of 63

Unnamed Stream Reach 2

Date: 2019-Jun-27 Description of Water bodies involved (number, type) Unnamed Stream, Highlands Stream X Wetland Lake Ditch


Channel width and slope and Channel Type (use only if water body is a stream or a ditch, and if a ditch only provide widths)

Channel Width(m) Gradient (%) starting point 4.5 1 I, Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P.Bio , hereby certify that:





4.5 upstream 3.0

1.5 14 2.25 1.5 23

downstream 3.0 3.0 14 3.9 1.9 2.9

Total: minus high /low 25.95 mean 2.9 13

R/P C/P S/P Channel Type X







SPVT Type X




10.0


10.0

Shade ZOS (m) max 0.0 South bank Yes No X


Page 26 of 63

Ditch Justification description for classifying as a ditch (manmade, no significant headwaters or springs, seasonal flow)

Ditch Fish Bearing




Stability ZOS (m) 10.0


10.0

Shade ZOS (m) max 8.7 South bank Yes X No SPEA maximum 10.0 m (For ditch use table3-7)

I, Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: a) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian Areas

Protection Act; b) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni; c) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and d) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical


Comments • ThisreachconsistedofashortsegmentdownstreamofReach1(wetland)thathadashallow

gradient(1%),whichthensteepenedasthechannelfloweddownasteepslope.• Thechannelwasnarrowandhadbeencreatedbytheperiodicflowofwaterfromthewetland.

Giventhesmallcatchmentforthewetlandandtheshortstreamchannellengththerewasnoevidenceofprolongedscouringflowswithinthestreamchannel.

• Thechannelwasvegetatedwithsalalandferns;thebenthicsubstrateconsistedofcobblesandbedrockintrusions.

• Thelowersectionofthereach,offsite,consistedofavulsedchannelsegments,gravelsandcobbles,beforeplungingintotheupperendofthe2metrediameterculvertunderTalonRidgeRoad.

• Whilethestreamchannel,withitssteepgradient,avulsions,andculvertunderTalonRidgeRoad,makeitunlikelythatthisheadwaterchannelwouldbeaccessibletoupstreamfishmigration,wehaveadoptedthedefaultconditionoffishpresence,intheabsenceofanon-fishbearingstatusreport.


Page 27 of 63

Wetland at 5020 Stag Road

Date: 2019-Jun-27 Description of Water bodies involved (number, type) Isolated, depressional wetland at southern

end of 5020 Stag Road Stream Wetland X Lake Ditch


Channel width and slope and Channel Type (use only if water body is a stream or a ditch, and if a ditch only provide widths)

Channel Width(m) Gradient (%) starting point n/a n/a I, Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P.Bio , hereby certify that:

e) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian Areas Protection Act;

f) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni;

g) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and

h) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical manual to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation.

upstream

downstream

Total: minus high /low mean n/a n/a

R/P C/P S/P Channel Type n/a n/a n/a


e) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian Areas Protection Act;

f) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni;

g) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and

h) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical manual to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation.


SPVT Type X




15.0


15.0


Page 28 of 63

Shade ZOS (m) max 0.0 South bank Yes No X Ditch Justification description for classifying as a ditch (manmade, no

significant headwaters or springs, seasonal flow)

Ditch Fish Bearing




Stability ZOS (m)


Shade ZOS (m) max South bank Yes X No SPEA maximum 30.0 m (For ditch use table3-7)

I, Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: e) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian Areas

Protection Act; f) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni; g) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and h) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical


Comments • Whileourassessmentindicatesthatthisisolateddepressionalwetlandisnotconnectedtothe

unnamedstream,theDistrictofHighlandsrequiresthatthisaquaticlandscapeelementbeincludedinanenvironmentalstudy.

• Wehaveelectedtoincludethisisolatedwetlandinthisassessment,attherequestoftheDistrictofHighlands.

• Thereisanhistoricloggingroadthatprovidesaccesstotheinteriorofthesubjectproperty,thatwillbeusedasanaccessdrivewaytotheproposedtwonewlots.

• Thisexistingroadway,lyingtotheeastoftheisolatedwetland,lieswithin30moftheisolateddepressionalwetland.

• AnassessmentreportwrittenbyanotherQEPstatesthatthiswetlandmayconnectwiththeunnamedwatercoursetothenorthduringheavyrainevents.Weconductedafieldreviewofthelatterreportandhasfoundnofield-basedevidencethatthetwowaterbodiesareconnected.Thelatterreportisbaseduponanecdotalinformationfromaneighbour.WedisagreewiththisassessmentandhaveappendedourresponseandrationaleresponsetothisreportasanAppendixtothisRAPR.

• Therewasnoevidenceofanyerosionastheisolatedwaterbodyisdepressionalandwell-vegetated.Thebenthicconditionwassoftsiltysoil,withwoodydebrisandgrassybanks.

• Sincethedepressionalwetlandisisolatedthereisnopotentialforsedimenttobetransportedbeyondthewetland.

• Inaddition,thecatchmentforthewetlandisverysmallandtherewasnovisualevidencethatthewetlandhadfilledandflowedbeyondtherimofthebanks.

• Thereisalengthydistance(~75m)betweenthewetlandandtheunnamedstreamchannel,suchthatanyoverflowwouldbeinfiltratedintotheforestedlandscapelyingbetweenthewetlandandtheunnamedstreamchannel.


Page 29 of 63

9. Site Plans

Figure 6. Site Plan for the proposed 3 Lot subdivision. The Site Plan shows the existing Lot with its single-family residence, out building, well, and septic disposal field. The two new lots would be created to the west and north of the existing lot. The stream channel is shown, as well as the proposed driveway to access the two new lots. The proposed development footprint for Lot 3 is approximately 60 metres from the wetland HWM (blue arrow).


Page 30 of 63

Figure 7. Surveyor’s Site Plan of 4890 Munn Road. The distance between the isolated depressional wetland and the unnamed stream is >75 metres. The double-headed blue arrows are a 30 m setback from the HWM. The orange arrows indicate a section of the historical road that will be realigned, lying well beyond the 30 m RAA. A minor section of the historical logging road (see inset) lies on the adjacent property. Yellow arrow indicates stream flow direction.

Isolated depressional wetland on 5020 Stag Road

Existing logging road

Wetland

Stream


Page 31 of 63

Figure 8. Site Plan showing the realignment of the historical logging road (blue lines) and the 7 trees to be removed north of the wetland, within the 30 m RAA, but outside the 15 m SPEA (blue clouds).

1Plan VIP78963

BPlan EPP37463

4

Plan

20030

2

1Plan 20030

TALO

N

RI

DGE

MUNN RO

AD

Rem 3Plan 16127

APlan VIP86642

Rem 2Plan 6646

3

APlan VIP86642

1Plan 20030

J E ANDERSONASSOCIATES&

. .

ETHAN AND NATASHA

SITE PLAN

LOT 1, SECTION 78, HIGHLAND DISTRICT,

PLAN 20030

GHIDONI

CENTERLINERADIUS OF CURVETO BE 12M ORGREATER

DESIGN NOTES:

1. DRIVEWAY WIDTH TO BE 3.6M TYPICALLY. AN ADDITIONAL +/- 1m ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO ACCOMMODATE A DRAINAGE DITCH.2. EXISTING GRADES SHOWN THUS TO BE MAINTAINED.3. EXISTING DRIVEWAY IS TO BE LEVELLED, ORGANICS TO BE CLEARED AWAY.4. NEW CLEAN DRIVEWAY MATERIAL AT AN ASSUMED MAXIMUM AVERAGE DEPTH OF 16" (400mm) HAS BEEN ASSUMED ALONG THE ENTIRE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LENGTH. THIS IS INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR VOLUME.5. 87 TREES TO BE REMOVED IN TOTAL.

ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF CLEAN DRIVEWAY MATERIAL REQUIRED

MAXIMUM VOLUME OF CLEAN DRIVEWAY MATERIAL REQUIRED IN DPA RAA ZONE108m (length in RAA zone) x 3.6m (drive width) x 0.4m (average depth) = 155 CUBIC METERS

MAXIMUM VOLUME OF CLEAN DRIVEWAY MATERIAL REQUIRED OUTSIDE OF DPA RAA ZONE207m (length of driveway) x 3.6m (drive width) x 0.4m (average depth) = 298 CUBIC METERS

IN TOTAL, A MAXIMUM OF 453 CUBIC METERS OF CLEAN DRIVEWAY MATERIAL COULD BEUSED.

30m SETBACKLINE

15m SETBACKLINE

30m SETBACKLINE

3

0mSE

TBAC

K

1

5mSE

TBAC

K

6 TREES TOBE REMOVED



ALIGNMENT OFADJUSTED DRIVEWAYSHOWN BOLD

EXISTINGDRIVEWAY

EXISTINGDRIVEWAY


APPROXIMATE LOT LINE LOCATION

6 TREES TO BE REMOVED

10 TREES TO BE REMOVED


DRAWING SUBMITTED TO AQUA-TEX - FEB.27, 2020

LOT 2

LOT 1

LOT 3


5 TREES TOBE REMOVED.2 @ 15.5 m2 @ 22.5 m1 @ 28 m




2 TREES TO BE REMOVED.1 @ 23 m1 @ 29 m15m SETBACK

LINE


Page 32 of 63

Figure 9. Engineered road cross section (3.6 m wide road prism) showing the crushed gravel road base, with small road-side drainage channels. Drainage from the small road-side channels will be routed into the adjacent forest floor to infiltrate any fines, preventing them from entering the wetland. The consulting civil engineer (JEA) has indicated that the existing historical logging road is the only access to the proposed 2 new Lots. Therefore, the existing logging road must be maintained in its current alignment as it passes through the SPEA, to minimize the driveway access footprint. The Municipal Planner requires that the driveway must meet municipal road construction standards to enable a fire truck to access year-round the two new Lots. The minor driveway upgrade shown above will result in a small increase in road prism width to 3.6 m, with an additional +/- 1 m assumed allowance to accommodate a drainage ditch.


Page 33 of 63

Figure 10. Close-up of surveyor’s site plan with mark-ups indicating the boundaries of the SPEA and Zones of Sensitivity (ZOS) for Large Woody Debris (LWD), Litterfall and Shade. Note the exact boundary of the wetland on 5020 Stag Road (circled in yellow) was not surveyed except for the High-Water Mark (HWM) of its eastern edge, the edge closest to the 4890 Munn Road property. Yellow arrow indicates flow direction.

Reach 1 (wetland) 15 m SPEA (dashed black line) 15 m LWD and Litterfall ZOS (solid orange line)

Reach 1 (wetland) 15 m LWD and Litterfall ZOS

Reach 2 (stream) 10 m SPEA (dashed black line) 10 m LWD and Litterfall ZOS (solid orange line)

Reach 2 (stream) 8.7 m Shade ZOS

Reach 1 (wetland) variable width SPEA (dashed black line)

Reach 1 (wetland) 30 m Shade ZOS (solid purple line)

30 m

Reach 2 (stream) 10 m SPEA (dashed black line) 10 m LWD and Litterfall ZOS (solid orange line)

N


Page 34 of 63

10. Measures to Protect and Maintain the SPEA As per the Riparian Area Regulations Assessment Methods, the proposed subdivision at 4890 Munn Road triggered the need for a RAPR Assessment Report. However, there is no proposed construction work for this project that lies within the SPEAs (Figure 8). The existing logging road will require an upgraded road bed to meet an all-season driveway access to the two new lots. The existing culvert will be retained in its present condition and alignment. The upgraded road will be constructed using gravel and appropriate measures to protect the stream / wetland shall be required. Since the proposed development of the two lots lies well beyond the 30 m RAA, there are no measures required to protect and maintain the SPEA from that development.

Measures – Danger Trees in the SPEA and Windthrow Riparian vegetation in the SPEA, including trees, is vital to streamside soil function and stability and must be protected. The only vegetation management that is permitted in the SPEA is the treatment of Danger Trees. A Danger Tree is a tree that is a hazard to people or property due to its location or lean, its physical damage, overhead conditions, deterioration of its limbs, stem or root system, or any combination of these conditions.

Windthrow (trees knocked over due to wind) can be a risk to people and property, and if excessive, can result in a loss of function of riparian vegetation in the SPEA. Windthrow is especially a risk when adjacent forest or individual trees are cleared or new structures are built, thus changing wind patterns and creating new stresses on remaining trees that are not adapted to the new wind patterns.

The proposed building sites on the new lots lie outside of the SPEAs and 30 m RAA for the District of Highlands.

The upgrading of the existing logging road may require the removal of a few trees with a tree removal permit issued by the local government. No trees will be removed within the SPEAs. Therefore, there are no measures required for Danger Trees or Windthrow.

1. Danger Trees I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio , hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian

Areas Protection Act; b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Ethan & Natasha

Ghidoni ; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and in

carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical manual to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation

2. Windthrow


Page 35 of 63

I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio , hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian


Ghidoni; c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and in


Measures – Slope Stability Typical field indicators of instability include buttress wood on trees, evidence of slumps or landslip, soil and rock accumulated on the uphill sides of trees, tension cracks in soil, poorly drained or gullied fine-textured soils, shallow or wet organic soils on slopes, or very steep slopes or debris at the bottom of slopes. There are no indicators of slope instability on the subject property.

There are no measures required for Slope Stability.

3. Slope Stability I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio , hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian




Measures – Protection of Trees in the SPEA Riparian vegetation in the SPEA, including trees, is vital to stream function and stability and must be protected. This includes root zones, which may extend beyond the SPEA boundary.

There is no proposed construction work for this project within the SPEAs other than the upgrading of the driveway access. The upgrading of the existing logging road will not require the removal of any trees within the SPEAs. The road alignment across the creek will not change, nor will the length of the culvert.

There are no measures required for Protection of Trees in the SPEA. 4. Protection of Trees I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian





Page 36 of 63

Measures – Preventing Encroachment in the SPEA As part of the proposed subdivision, potential sites for dwellings and septic fields are included on the site plan. There are no proposed building or septic sites within the 30 m RAA.

No measures for encroachment are required. 5. Encroachment I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian




Measures – Sediment and Erosion Control During Construction There is no proposed construction work for this project other than the upgrading of the driveway access road. Improvements to the existing logging road, to establish an all-weather driveway, shall be done during a dry period (regardless of the season) and any measures necessary to prevent mobilization of sediment during the upgrading of the driveway prism shall be at the direction of the QEP or the Civil Engineer. Given the treed lands adjacent to the existing road alignment the use of silt fencing shall be at the discretion of the QEP to prevent inadvertent harm to tree roots. Other measures to prevent sediment flowing into the wetland shall be implemented under the supervision and monitoring of the QEP.

6. Sediment and Erosion Control I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian




Measures – Stormwater Management All rainwater runoff from the proposed two new lots shall be infiltrated within the individual properties and no runoff shall be permitted to enter the wetland. This will be the responsibility of the owners of the new lots.

7. Stormwater Management I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian


Ghidoni;


Page 37 of 63

c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and in carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out in the Minister’s technical manual to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation

Measures – Floodplain Concerns The channel on this property is low-gradient and stable. Channel migration is not a concern. Therefore, there are no measures required for Floodplain Concerns. 8. Floodplain Concerns (highly

mobile channel)

I, Wm. Patrick Lucey R.P.Bio, hereby certify that: a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian





Page 38 of 63

11. Field Reviews and Environmental Monitoring

In general, the most environmentally dangerous period of development is the initial construction phase when land is cleared of vegetation and graded to create a proper surface for construction. This initial phase tends to involve open exposed soils, often involves demolition and debris, and may involve contractors who are not familiar with the site or the required best management practices. As construction proceeds, risk generally declines. Soil-disturbing activities should be scheduled for low-risk periods of dry weather, not in the wet winter season.

Field Reviews A field review is recommended prior to initiation of any disturbance. Aqua-Tex, or another suitably qualified QEP, should be advised at least one week in advance of the work. The field review should confirm that the recommended measures are in place:

• Prior to site disturbance, including demolition if required, the SPEA in the work area should be clearly marked with orange snow fencing and signs indicating the debris and stockpiles of excavated material are not to be placed in or adjacent to the SPEA.

• A silt fence should be installed on the downhill side of the proposed area of disturbance.

• Areas outside the SPEA should be selected for stockpiling of excavated materials. • Prior to site disturbance, key locations on the site for monitoring photographs

should be chosen. These should be locations that will not be disturbed by the development activities and enable photography of key site features. These locations should be used as Photopoint Monitoring locations where regular photographs will be taken (camera locations). These locations should provide a broad and complete overview of site activities in addition to specific areas of interest (e.g. water clarity on the lakeshore).

Environmental Monitoring To ensure that the SPEA and stream water quality are protected, the site should be monitored regularly to ensure that no erosion or sedimentation is occurring, that signage, fencing and erosion control measures are in place, and that stockpiles and debris do not enter the SPEA. The use of repeat photography is a simple method for documenting site conditions and should be a core component of the environmental monitoring program – this method is called Photopoint Monitoring.

Photopoint Monitoring is a standardized procedure, developed largely by Dr. Fred Hall of the U.S. Forest Service, for taking precisely replicable photographs of resources that


Page 39 of 63

require long-term managementvi. Photopoint Monitoring is both a qualitative and quantitative tool that can assist in detecting unacceptable conditions in target resources before severe or irreversible changes occur and allow time to implement corrective actions.

• During construction of the upgraded driveway the site should be checked on a weekly basis and after every significant rainstorm (6mm [1/4”] or greater).

• Repeat photos should be taken at each camera location as well as candid photos showing activities of interest and the general condition of the site.

• Photos should be time and date stamped and stored in a central location for future reference if requested.

• During weekly inspections, the environmental monitor should utilize a standardized checklist which includes all the items noted above as well as measures from the erosion and sediment control plan.

• The monitor should check that the items listed in “Field Reviews” above remain in place in addition to confirming the following

The intent with environmental monitoring is to document changes to the landscape and that any such changes to the landscape have not resulted in harm to the ecology of the wetland.

Post-Development Report The owner is required under the RAPR to have a QEP conduct a site assessment following completion of all development-related activities, at the owner’s expense. This is to ensure that the development has followed the recommendations contained in the RAPR and any, and all, measures to protect the SPEA contained in this report have been followed. In this instance, once the installation of the upgraded driveway access road has been completed a post-development report must be completed.

If future development should be planned within the 30 metre RAA, a new or updated RAPR report with associated protection measures, will be required prior to any development. The QEP that completes the post-development report may be a different QEP than the author(s) of the new/updated RAPR report applicable to the development, but that report must be the basis for the post-development review.

A physical inspection of the site and the SPEA must be conducted, to ensure that no damage has occurred or is anticipated and the required management practices have been carried out. A checklist should be drafted, with each of the measures and monitoring requirements listed in the RAPR report, and accompanying documentation be attached, such as a summary of the results of the monitoring and photographs. The QEP will then file a post-development report on behalf of the property owner, submitted through the Ministry of Environment Notification System, after the development related activities have


Page 40 of 63

been completed. This report will document that the required measures and conditions outlined in this report have been implemented.


Page 41 of 63

Photos Unnamed Watercourse - Reach 1 (Wetland)

Photo 1. Looking west from the edge of the existing logging road, standing on the culvert. Note the dense riparian vegetation with a coniferous canopy and a shrub-dominated understory. Surface water is visible in the foreground.


Page 42 of 63

Photo 2. Looking northwest across the wetland. Note the vigorous riparian plant growth and historic logging debris.


Page 43 of 63

Photo 3. Looking toward the end of the westernmost section of the wetland on the adjacent property. Note that the wetland had moist soil but there was no visible surface water in the wetland. This wetland flowed east into a small stream channel (yellow arrow). Stag Road is visible in the upper portion of the image (black arrow).


Page 44 of 63

Photo 4. A small wetland lying on a slightly elevated terrace on the north bank of the wetland on the adjacent property. The two wetlands are connected. Note the dense riparian vegetation consisting of sedges.


Page 45 of 63

Photo 5. Looking across the wetland at the approximate property boundary between the subject property and the adjacent property to the west.


Page 46 of 63

Photo 6. Photo looking downslope to the wetland, taken from a rocky knoll above the watercourse. Note the steep side slopes along the edge of the wetland.


Page 47 of 63

Photo 7. Looking south at the existing logging road that is proposed as the driveway access road for the two new lots.

Photo 8. Looking west downslope at the logging road and the culvert crossing the wetland (yellow arrow). The blue dashed arrow indicates the wetland flow direction. This culvert will be retained.


Page 48 of 63

Photo 9. The existing culvert crossing the wetland. The blue dashed arrow indicates the stream flow direction.

Photo 10. Looking at the upper wetland that lies adjacent to Stag Road. There was no visual evidence of any inflows into this wetland; there was no culvert under Stag Road that would divert flows from Fork Lake.


Page 49 of 63

Unnamed Watercourse - Reach 2 (Stream)

Photo 11. Looking west, upstream, in the small channel downstream of the wetland; note the cobble streambed (yellow arrow) and healthy riparian vegetation mixed tree / shrub community. Dashed blue line indicates stream flow direction.


Page 50 of 63

Photo 12. Further downstream, upstream of where the unnamed stream flows under Talon Ridge Road. Note the step-pools that characterize this portion of the stream, starting on the subject property in Reach 2. The avulsions indicate a flashy system, and a potential barrier to upstream fish migration. The dashed yellow line indicates the flow direction and channel alignment (this channel would be characterized as a “Rosgen A and A+ channel” (A = >4 - 10% and A+ = >10% slope gradients).


Page 51 of 63

Isolated, depressional wetland (5020 Stag Road)

Photo 13. The small, isolated, depressional wetland on the adjacent property. Looking east.

Photo 14. Looking southeast across the small, isolated, depressional wetland. Note the HWM (orange flag) lies approximately 0.75 metres below the terrace that lies to the east and upon which the logging road (Error! Reference source not found.) is aligned. This isolated, depressional etland goes dry in the summer and, therefore, does not provide fish habitat.


Page 52 of 63

Riparian Assessment Assurance Statement- Qualified Environmental Professional To: District of Highlands 1980 Millstream Road Victoria BC V9B 6H1 October 1, 2019 With reference to the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation for the property: ___4890 Munn Road; PID: 003-670-627 ________________________________ Legal description or PID and civic address of the property

The undersigned hereby gives assurance that he/she is a Qualified Environmental Professional: Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P. Bio., member of the College of Applied Biology of BC I/we have signed, sealed and dated, and thereby certified, the attached riparian assessment report on the property in accordance with the Professional Practice Guidelines – Legislated Riparian Assessments and with the assessment methods. That report must be read in conjunction with this statement. In preparing that report I/we have:

Collected and reviewed appropriate background information Reviewed the development proposal on the property Conducted field work on and, if required, beyond the property Reported on the results of the field work on and, if required, beyond the property Incorporated recommendations or assessment results from other specialists Prescribed measures to protect and maintain the integrity of the streamside protection

and enhancement area Prescribed measures to avoid the occurrence of a HADD* Reported on the requirements for field reviews or environmental monitoring of the

property during or following site works for the proposed development and recommended who should conduct those field reviews or environmental monitoring

Reviewed the riparian assessment report with the client and explained the content and the measures required to be implemented.

I/we hereby confirm that in my/our professional opinion, based on the conditions contained in the attached riparian assessment report, as required by the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation: The proposed development will meet the riparian protection standard if the development proceeds as proposed in the report and complies with the measures, if any, recommended in the report.


Page 53 of 63

Check one:

with one or more recommended registered covenants

without any registered covenant. Signature, seal and date

March 10th , 2020 *HADD – harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions and conditions that support fish life processes


Page 54 of 63

Professional Opinion Qualified Environmental Professional opinion on the development proposal’s riparian assessment.

Date March 11, 2020

1. I/We Wm. Patrick Lucey, R.P. Bio.__________________ _______________

Please list name(s) of qualified environmental professional(s) and their professional designation that are involved in assessment.)

hereby certify that: a) I am/We are qualified environmental professional(s), as defined in the

Riparian Areas Protection Regulation made under the Riparian Areas Protection Act;

b) I am/We are qualified to carry out the assessment of the proposal made by the developer Natasha and Ethan Ghidoni , which proposal is described in section 3 of this Assessment Report (the “development proposal”),

c) I have/We have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my/our assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and

d) In carrying out my/our assessment of the development proposal, I have/We have followed the specifications of the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation and assessment methodology set out in the minister’s manual; AND

2. As qualified environmental professional(s), I/we hereby provide my/our professional opinion that:

a) the site of the proposed development is subject to undue hardship, (if applicable, indicate N/A otherwise) and

b) X the proposed development will meet the riparian protection standard if the development proceeds as proposed in the report and complies with the measures, if any, recommended in the report.


Page 55 of 63

Statement of Limitations The information presented in this report was compiled and interpreted exclusively for the purposes of complying with the District of Highlands Permit Guidelines with respect to watercourse setbacks and the Riparian Areas Protection Regulation. Aqua-Tex provided this report for the clients, Ethan & Natasha Ghidoni, solely for the purpose noted above.

Aqua-Tex has exercised reasonable professional skill, care and diligence to assess the information acquired during the preparation of this report, but makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information. The information contained in this report is based upon, and limited by, the circumstances and conditions acknowledged herein, and upon information available at the time of its preparation. The information provided by others is believed to be accurate but cannot be guaranteed.

Copying or distribution of this report, in whole or in part, is not permitted without the express permission of the clients. Use or reliance on the information contained in the report, other than by the client or District of Highlands, is not permitted without the written permission of Aqua-Tex.

The success of the measures prescribed to protect the riparian area assume diligent work practices and construction methods on the part of the clients and their contractors. If Aqua-Tex, or another qualified QEP is not retained to carry out field reviews and/or environmental monitoring, Aqua-Tex will be unable to provide assurance that the work was completed to an acceptable standard or to sign a conformance statement (e.g. post development completion report) if required by the local government.

This report remains valid for two years only if the site conditions remain unaltered and the proposed development remains the same. If the development plans change, or if site conditions change, the report may no longer be valid. Once a confirmed development plan is proposed for the site, or a portion of the site, a new RAPR will be required for the affected property which prescribes measures specific to that development.


Page 56 of 63

Appendix 1: Fisheries Inventory for Craigflower CreekSPECIES_NAME OBSERVATION_DATE FISH_OBSERVATION_POINT_ID POINT_TYPE_CODE UTM_ZONE UTM_EASTING UTM_NORTHING

CutthroatTrout(Anadromous) 97-10-210:00 454952 Summary 10 468011 5367140

RainbowTrout 93-01-010:00 454950 Summary 10 468011 5367140

Sculpin(General) 93-01-010:00 454947 Summary 10 468011 5367140

Steelhead 92-01-010:00 454951 Summary 10 468011 5367140

CohoSalmon 86-01-010:00 454948 Summary 10 468011 5367140

CutthroatTrout 77-01-010:00 454949 Summary 10 468011 5367140

SmallmouthBass 454955 Summary 10 468011 5367140

Pumpkinseed 454954 Summary 10 468011 5367140

BrownCatfish(formerlyBrownBullhead) 454953 Summary 10 468011 5367140


Page 57 of 63

Appendix 2: Experience of Assessment Team Date: 2018-Dec-13 Name of Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP):

Wm. Patrick Lucey

Professional designation: R.P. Bio., C. Biol. Professional association: College of Applied Biology of BC; Royal

Society of Biology (UK) Registration number: 1467; P0119549 Training in Riparian Areas Protection Regulation assessment methods

Organization or agency delivery training: Malaspina College (now VIU) Name of trainer: Date of training session: November 2005 Certificate number: Other relevant education, training or experience

RAPR Professional Practice Guidelines Training, Nanaimo BC

May 2018

Field Soil Description and Classification, Wayne Blashill, P.Ag. (Instructor). Columbia Mountains Institute, Revelstoke BC

June 2017

Forest and Range Evaluation Program (FREP) riparian protocol training, 3-day course. Mr. Derek Tripp, instructor. Victoria BC

November 2016

BCWF Wetland Institute- Eastern Vancouver Island

September 2014

Riparian Roads Workshop- US National Riparian Roads Team, Portland OR

May 2001

CVRD Development Services RAPR Workshop, Duncan BC

April 2015

RAPR QEP Workshop, Nanaimo BC January 2013 RAPR QEP Workshop, Victoria BC January 2013 RAPR QEP Workshop, Nanaimo BC February 2012 Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Level 1. Dr. Dave Rosgen (Instructor) Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

June 2006

Greenline Vegetation Monitoring for Riparian Areas. Dr. Alma Winward (Instructor), Richfield, Utah

July 2000

Instructor Training PFC Train the Trainer- US National Riparian Service Team

May 1999

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment Training. US National Riparian Service Team. Whistler, Pemberton and Victoria.

March 1998

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment Training. Oregon State University, Klamath Falls, OR

August 1997

M.Sc., Biology, University of Victoria. Thesis: Periphyton functional and structural response, within semi-natural surrogate streams, to artificially induced water quality perturbations

1994


Page 58 of 63

B.A. Geography, University of Victoria. Aquatic Resource Management

1990

Riparian assessments completed or contributed to

Primary QEP Secondary QEP

1. Lantzville Foothills Estates (Kettle Creek) (2006-02-20) (#52)

Patrick Lucey Paul DeGreeff, BCSLA

2. 1945 Sooke Road (Colwood Creek) (2006-04) (not uploaded)

Patrick Lucey Cori Barraclough Don Skinner, RP Bio Arborist

3. 551 Latoria Road (“Madrona Creek”- unnamed tributary of Latoria Creek) (2006-04-09)

Patrick Lucey

4. Arbutus Mountain Estates - Phase 1 (Shawnigan Creek) (2006-03-29) (#60)

Patrick Lucey Lehna Malmkvist, RP Bio.

5. Westlock Rd. Subdivision (Trumpeter Pointe) (Quamichan Lake) (2005-08-18) (#77)

Patrick Lucey Rick Lloyd P.Eng.

6. 1404 Wild Cherry Drive (Metchosin Creek) (2006-04-15) (#78)

Patrick Lucey

7. Westlock Rd. Subdivision (Trumpeter Pointe) (Quamichan Lake) (2006-04-25) (#77 revision)

Patrick Lucey Rick Lloyd P.Eng.

8. Baranti Developments (Mill Bay Tributary) (2007-04-25) (#435)

Patrick Lucey Lehna Malmkvist, RP Bio., Alec Morse, P.Eng., Don Skinner, RP Bio

9. Waldy Road (Cowichan Bay) (2008-01-08) (#726)


10. 1545 Cowichan Bay Road (2008-12-08) (#727)


11. Westhills Community (Langford Lake & tributaries) (2008-06-12) (not submitted- Langford not registered in RAPR database)


12. Oasis Lake (Sooke Lake Road) (2008-06-24) (#972)

Patrick Lucey

13. 2215 Clearihue Road (Shawnigan Lake) (2008-06-26) (#976)

Patrick Lucey

14. 3031 Phillips Road (Sooke River) (2008-08-12 updated 2009-01) (#1044)



Page 59 of 63

15. 3501 Paradise Valley Road (Cheakamus River) (2008-09-23) (#1097)

Patrick Lucey Lehna Malmkvist, RP Bio. Brian LaCas, P.Eng.

16. 9270 Lochside Drive (Reay Creek) (2008-11-24) (#1157)

Patrick Lucey Cori Barraclough

17. Sooke Business Park (3220 Otter Point Rd) (2008-06-05 revised 2008-12-18) (#1180)

Patrick Lucey Lehna Malmkvist, RP Bio

18. Goldstream Avenue (Millstream Creek) (2010-02-17) (#1557)

Patrick Lucey

19. Stebbings Road (VanHorne Creek) (2010-04-14; modified 2011-01-11) (#1597)


20. Morgan Maples RV Park (Chemainus River trib) (2010-04-26) (#1610)


21. Elkington Forest – Comprehensive (Shawnigan Creek tribs) (2010-07-23) (#1712)

Patrick Lucey

22. 1785 Whiffen Spit Road (Wright Road Creek) (2010-07-27) (#1723)

Patrick Lucey

23. Elkington Forest (Creek 19B) (2010-12-09)(#1850)

Patrick Lucey

24. 3055 Phillips Road (Sooke River) (2010-12-17) (#1857)

Patrick Lucey

25. St. Rose of Lima - 2191 Townsend Road (Knott Creek) (2011-01-10) (#1876)


26. 1585 W. Shawnigan Lake Road (Shawnigan Lake) (2011-01-13) (#1878)

Patrick Lucey

27. 2585 Selwyn Road (Millstream Creek) (not submitted- Langford not registered in RAPR database)

Patrick Lucey

28. 1609 Keating Cross Road (Graham Creek) (2010-12-03) (not submitted at client request)


29. 2637 Savory Road (Florence Lake) (2011-05-3) (#LANGFORD- NOT UPLOADED TO RAPRNS)

Patrick Lucey

30. Goodwin Farms-Munn Road (Fizzle Creek) (2011-06-06) (#2054)



Page 60 of 63

31. 2907 Phillip St Duncan (Holmes Creek) (2011-09-09) (#2131) (note: also submitted as #2112- should be deleted, wrong regional district)

Patrick Lucey

32. Sahtlam Lodge (Cowichan River) (2011-09-16) (#2145)

Patrick Lucey

33. Lot 6, Shawnigan Lake Road (Van Horne Creek) (2011-09-16, updated 2011-10-03, updated 2012-02-06) (#2147)

Patrick Lucey

34. 227 Meadowbrook Road, Saanich BC (OCP revision- not uploaded) (2012-01-25)

Patrick Lucey

35. Elkington Trailhead Creek #19 (2012-06-19) (#2412)

Patrick Lucey Shane Moore, P. Geo.

36. Elkington Creek 17 and Lower Elkington Tributary (2012-08-08, revised 2018-09) (#2482)

Patrick Lucey

37. 288/290 Beecher Bay Road (2013-09-04) (#2877)

Patrick Lucey

38. 1591 W. Shawnigan Lake Road, Don Calveley (Shawnigan Lake) (#2478)

Patrick Lucey

39. 2054 Butler Avenue, Gary Henshaw (Shawnigan Lake)(2013-04-12) (#2749)

Patrick Lucey

40. 5080 Cowichan Lake Road, Deborah Juch (2014-07-10)(Simple Assessment Tributary to Cowichan River) (#3181)

Patrick Lucey Justin Straker, P.Ag.

41. 875 Whittaker Road, Spectacle Creek & Unnamed Tributary (2015-08-21) (#3689)

Patrick Lucey

42. 820 Latoria Road, Unnamed Tributary to Pritchard Creek, JTC Investment Group (2015-07-26) (#LANGFORD- NOT UPLOADED TO RAPRNS)

Patrick Lucey

43. Craigflower Creek, Fort Victoria RAPR, Goodwill Investments Ltd. (2015-07-21) (#3662)

Patrick Lucey

44. 6244 Rodolph Road, Central Saanich Creek, Aplomado Developments (2014-08-26) (#3226)

Patrick Lucey Don Skinner RP Bio., Arborist

45. 2000 Renfrew Road, Shawnigan Lake (2014-07-28) (#3182)

Patrick Lucey


Page 61 of 63

46. Pritchard Creek, TJBS Holdings (Aug. 2012) (#LANGFORD- NOT UPLOADED TO RAPRNS)

Patrick Lucey

47. 2219 London Road, Shawnigan Lake (2014-08-26) (#3227)

Patrick Lucey

48. Dovedale Road; Lot 41, Tributary to Shawnigan Lake (2014-10-22) (#3293)

Patrick Lucey

49. 2010 Renfrew Road Shawnigan Lake (2014-11-05) (#3304)

Patrick Lucey

50. 989 Kangaroo Road, Hewitt Creek Wetland & Unnamed Tributary (2015-03-29) (#3461)

Patrick Lucey

51. 3999 Renfrew Road Koksilah River (2015-07-12) (#3476)

Patrick Lucey

52. 774 Latoria Road, Pritchard Creek (2015-03-31) (# LANGFORD- NOT UPLOADED)

Patrick Lucey

53. 1660 Monterey Avenue (2015-05-26) (#3562)

Cori Barraclough

Patrick Lucey

54. 3590 Gilbert Drive (2016-04-27) (#4015)

Patrick Lucey

55. 2319 Stevenson Road, Shawnigan Lake, (2016-06-22) (#4085)

Patrick Lucey

56. Lot 4, Ark Road. Roofmart. (2017-04-26) (#4595)

Patrick Lucey

57. 1939 and 1945 Sooke Road, Brookes Westshore School, Colwood Creek. (2017-03-30) (#4605


58. 360 Stebbings Road, Goldstream Heights, Tributary to Van Horne Creek. (2017-06-13) (#4637)

Patrick Lucey

59. 468,474 and 476 Millstream Rd., Millstream Creek, (2017-06-02) (#XXXX). NOT UPLOADED TO RAPRNS

Patrick Lucey Tracy Motyer, Richard Brimmel, P.Eng., (Geotechnical) Jan Hoel, P.Eng. (stormwater), Tom Talbot (arborist)

60. 1105 Cypress Road, Tharratt Brook (2017-11-03) (#4879)

Patrick Lucey Tracy Motyer

61. Horizon Terrace, Pritchard Creek (2018-03-29) (# LANGFORD- NOT UPLOADED)

Patrick Lucey


Page 62 of 63

62. 6140 Payne Road, Duncan (2018-06-11) (#5215)

Steve Voller Tracy Motyer

63. YMCA Camp Thunderbird, Glinz Lake, Mark Dodd (2018-10-12) (#5425)

Cori Barraclough

Tracy Motyer

64. Goldstream Heights, Tarras. (2018-12-04) (# 2018)

Patrick Lucey Cori Barraclough Tracy Motyer

65. 2368 Renfrew Road, Dan Nikirk, Shawnigan Lake (2018-12-13) (#5514)

Patrick Lucey Cori Barraclough Tracy Motyer

66. 1393 Turner Lane, John Laurie, Cobble Hill (2018-12-31; revised 2019-04-26) (#5542)

Patrick Lucey Tracy Motyer

67. 7069 East Saanich Road, Darleen Taylor, Saanichton (2019-03-15) (#5632)

Cori Barraclough

68. 2222 Renfrew Road, Len Wansbrough, Shawnigan Lake (2019-03-25) (#5549)

Patrick Lucey Steve Voller

69. 2220 Renfrew Road, Tom Wilson, Shawnigan Lake (2019-04-12) (#Noname 17 – Submitted by email to Charlotte Billingham, FLNRORD)



Page 63 of 63

References

i Swell Environmental Consulting Ltd. 2019. 4890 Munn Rd Sensitive Ecosystem Development Permit Report. ii Environment Canada. Canadian Climate Normals 1980-2010 Station Data. Victoria Highlands. http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?searchType=stnProx&txtRadius=25&optProxType=city&selCity=48%7C25%7C123%7C22%7CVictoria&selPark=&txtCentralLatDeg=&txtCentralLatMin=0&txtCentralLatSec=0&txtCentralLongDeg=&txtCentralLongMin=0&txtCentralLongSec=0&stnID=116&dispBack=0 (Accessed on February 15th, 2019) iii Roberts, J.M., Harding, E.A. 1997. The Craigflower Watershed Assessment. iv Capital Regional District. 2019. Craigflower River Watershed. https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/our-environment/watersheds/featured-watersheds/craigflower-creek/wildlife-plants v Esquimalt Anglers’ Association. 2015. Craigflower Creek Historical Data. https://esquimaltanglers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/craigflower-historical-2014-ng.pdf vi Hall, F.C., 2001. Ground-based photographic monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-503. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 340 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr503/

DPA 6 – Energy and Water Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction 1

Guideline Check Sheet Development Permit Area 6 – Energy and Water Conservation and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases

Area Affected: All of the District of Highlands, including single family residential, commercial and industrial, is designated as Development Permit Area #6.

Circumstances Affected

Any construction requiring a building permit for a building, or an addition, 50m2 or larger once completed

Any development requiring a Development Permit

Subdivision of land

Date:

Application No:

Address:

Purpose of Project:

April 15, 2020

4890 Munn Road - Lot 1, Section 78, Highland District Plan 20030

Subdivision of land in accordance with Highlands District Official Community Plan

PLA No. 01-19


Guidelines

The following guidelines are intended to meet the Objectives and should be considered collectively, choosing the best “mix” for each unique situation.

Objectives

To guide development in a manner that conserves energy and water.

To guide development in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions.

Guideline Does it meet the Objectives How are you addressing the guideline

Yes? No? N/A?

FOR BUILDINGS: ENERGY CONSERVATION Building Orientation and Access to Sunlight a. Buildings should be located, oriented and designed to

facilitate the retention of passive solar heat (e.g. larger south facing and smaller north facing windows), reduce heat loss and support natural ventilation

b. Whenever possible encourage building massing/shape to improve the passive solar performance of the structure, recognizing that a more compact form and a longer shape along an east/west axis is more appropriate for maximizing passive heat gain

c. Reduce the energy consumption of electric lighting by maximizing opportunities for the distribution of natural

daylight into a buildings’ interior spaces (excluding the

use of skylights).

d. Avoid the use of heavily tinted or reflective glazing that reduces solar heat gain but also reduces the penetration of daylight

e. Placement and retention of deciduous trees is encouraged such that these trees provide summer-season shading, and winter-season solar access

f. Encourage the design of on-site landscaping and screening to minimize negative shading impacts on the potential for solar thermal or photovoltaic systems

X

X

X

X

X

X


Guideline

Does it meet the Objectives How are you addressing the guideline Yes? No? N/A?

Roof Design

g. Roof overhangs and window placement should be coordinated to provide cooling and shade during the summer and solar access for passive heating in the winter

h. Roof surfaces should be designed to accommodate solar energy collection devices

i. Skylights are only encouraged if the benefit of natural daylight penetration is sufficient from an energy perspective, to outweigh their heat loss due to low insulation value

j. Consider light tubes as a passive light source, without unwanted solar gain or heat loss

k. Green roofs are especially encouraged where they can be shown to reduce heating and cooling needs, enhance biodiversity, reduce fire hazards, or realize other benefits

Efficient and Renewable Energy

l. For alternate wall systems designed to achieve higher “R” values or higher thermal mass than the standard in the BC Building Code, calculation of the total floor area should not include additional wall thickness used to compensate for higher levels of insulation

m. Strongly support the installation of on-site renewable energy systems wherever feasible (e.g. solar thermal hot water, solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, low-noise heat pumps, and low-noise micro turbines)

n. Design mechanical systems to enable interconnection with future sustainable energy systems. For example, this means a conduit to allow for solar or wind power installations, or district energy systems (within the Highlands Servicing Area)

o. Encourage the recovery of available waste heat resources as a strategy to preheat incoming ventilation or domestic potable water supply

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


Guideline


Outdoor Areas

p. Snow management should be premised on sound design principles and not be reliant on the integration of heat trace devices. Heated driveways, stairs, or pedestrian walkways are discouraged, where not justified to accommodate people with mobility challenges

q. While still supporting safe pedestrian mobility, all outdoor lighting should minimize wattage and be directed downward with full cut-off fixtures

r. The control of all outdoor lights with motion detectors or timers is encouraged

s. Outdoor lighting should be well designed to protect natural night skies and avoid light pollution

Materials Management

t. Recycling infrastructure and animal-proof storage areas are encouraged, especially for composting and organics recycling

u. Reuse existing building materials where practical

v. Wherever practical, new building materials should be: a. Sourced locally or regionally to reduce transportation

requirements whenever possible, b. Durable for the intended use and last for the life cycle

of the building, and c. Non-toxic (in manufacturing process and once in use).

w. Encourage construction waste diversion planning as part of the development process, including the identification of designated areas for the collection of recyclable materials during construction

Preferred Transportation Choices

x. Design which includes bicycle storage and easy access racks is encouraged

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

X


Guideline


LANDSCAPING: WATER CONSERVATION

a. Landscaping design should preserve existing native vegetation, and use non-invasive plant species suited to the local climate, requiring minimal irrigation. Measures should include: i. Incorporating drought-tolerant, native plants and other

xeriscaping techniques to minimize the need for landscape irrigation.

ii. Maximizing the use of topsoil or composted waste for finish grading to assist in infiltration and to increase the water holding capacity of landscaped areas (30cm is the recommended minimum).

iii. Maximizing the use of mulch layers above soil for all landscape planting areas; and utilizing rainwater capture systems for appropriate end uses where possible.

b. Incorporate edible landscaping where possible

c. Use or manage stormwater and building water discharge on site. Site and building design measures should include: i. Maximizing pervious surfaces to enhance stormwater

infiltration opportunities by reducing building footprints, paved parking areas and pedestrian pathways.

ii. Incorporating stormwater capture and storage measures including bioswales and rain gardens for infiltration.

d. Utilize automated control systems where temporary or permanent mechanical irrigation systems are required

X

X

X

X


Guideline


FOR SUBDIVISION: ENERGY CONSERVATION AND GHG REDUCTIONS Parcel Orientation and Access to Sunlight

a. Parcels should be subdivided and oriented to take advantage of opportunities for improving passive solar heating, reducing heat loss and supporting natural ventilation. Plans need to explain how these aspects are achieved

b. Lot layout should minimize negative shading impacts on surrounding properties

c. Whenever possible encourage lot layout permitting building massing/shape to improve the passive performance of the structure, recognizing that a more compact form and a longer shape along an east/west axis maximizes passive heat gain

Renewable and Alternative Energy

d. Encourage lot layouts that enable interconnection with future District energy systems in those areas identified as having potential for such systems

Preferred Transportation Choices

e. Neighbourhood design and subdivision layout needs to include human/active transportation choices such as short pedestrian connections to adjacent roads

X

X

X

X

XLot 1 - Existing residence will remainLot 2/3 - These parcels are generous in size. The locations wherebuildings may be located and oriented provide plentiful opportunityto take advantage of energy conserving measures.

Lot 2/3 - The parcel sizes are generous and the potential buildingsites provide significant setbacks from adjacent properties.

Lot 1 - Existing residence will remainLot 2/3 - The parcels are generous in size such that the potentialbuilding sites may be located and oriented to provide plentifulopportunity to take advantage of energy conserving and buildingperformance measures.

Lot 1 - Existing residence will remainLot 2/3 - These parcels enjoy privacy and a short direct walk downthe driveway to Munn Road if someone should choose to do so.