slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011

Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP)

Shoreline Care Workshop

for Qualified Environmental

Professionals

November 23, 2011

Workshop Objectives

Building partnership with you to ensure a healthy Shuswap watershed

Share information on process for working near Shuswap Shorelines

Establish a common understanding of expectations when working near shorelines

Agenda

Shuswap Shoreline Information 15 minutes

Shoreline Management Guidelines 1 hour

Riparian Area Regulations 30 minutes

Update on Okanagan Protocol 10 minutes

Question and Answers 35 minutes

SLIPP Website: New Shoreline Page www.slippbc.com

Observed a shoreline

violation? Report it to the RAPP Line

Observed a shoreline

violation? Report it to the RAPP Line

The Importance of Shorelines

The shoreline areas of the Shuswap watershed are critical to:

– Sustainability and liveability of the region

– Economic opportunities

– Fish and wildlife populations

– Water quality for drinking and recreation

Shorelines are unique ecosystems that have developed over thousands of years

We all share the responsibility for keeping our shorelines healthy

SLIPP’s Strategic Approach to Shoreline Health

Enforcement & Restoration

Outreach and Education

Compliance Promotion/ Voluntary Restoration

SLIPP’s first priority is outreach and education, followed by compliance promotion and finally enforcement, when necessary

Shuswap Restoration Project

Strategic shoreline restoration is a key element of SLIPP’s Strategic Approach

What will it achieve?

– Restore shorelines

– Raise awareness and educate

– Deter future shoreline contraventions and promote voluntary compliance

Shoreline sites identified for restoration in 2012, based on:

– Impact on high-value habitats

– Trespass on Crown Land

– No work on private property

Aim for voluntary compliance; use enforcement tools as needed

2 restoration phases: Spring and Fall 2012

Shuswap Restorations

BEFORE

Achieved voluntary remediation of groomed beach, partially filled foreshore and cleared riparian area on Mara Lake

BEFORE

Shuswap Restorations – Eagle River Floodplain

•Guilty plea by Old Town Bay development

•Settlement of $375,000 for illegally altering fish habitat:

•$300,000 for restoration

•$5000 fine

•$70,000 to FBC for SLIPP

•Site preparation and fencing complete and planting will be completed in spring 2012

•Guilty plea by Old Town Bay development

•Settlement of $375,000 for illegally altering fish habitat:

•$300,000 for restoration

•$5000 fine

•$70,000 to FBC for SLIPP

•Site preparation and fencing complete and planting will be completed in spring 2012

RESULT

BEFORE

Shuswap Restorations: Planned for Spring 2012

Working Around Water in the Shuswap:An Overview for Environmental Professionals

Presented by:

Bruce Runciman

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Presentation Objectives

Describe the importance of shoreline areas to the Shuswap Lake system

Describe the expectations of SLIPP members for work in and near shorelines of the Shuswap Lake system

What are shoreline areas?

Shoreline areas include:

• Foreshore areas between the high water mark and the edge of the littoral zone (approximated by the 6 m depth contour at low water)

• Riparian areas within 30 m of the high water mark

With rare exceptions, foreshore areas are Crown land and a public resource, not private property

Floodplain areas are important for water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and flood control

Shoreline areas are the most sensitive and heavily utilized part of the lake

What makes for a healthy shoreline?

Features of Healthy, Sustainable Shorelines

• Functional riparian areas

• Functional wetland and floodplain areas

• Functional fish and wildlife habitats

• Safe drinking water intakes

• Effective waste and storm water management

versus

What do fish and wildlife need?

Shoreline Fish and Wildlife Habitats• Spawning Areas

(both shore and stream)

• Juvenile Rearing /Food Supply Areas

• Migration Corridors• Nesting / Mating /

Wintering Areas• Clean, cool water• Functional,

interconnected riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains

versus

Development in Shoreline Areas

Extent of Shoreline Development

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

High Moderate Low None

Level of Impact

Shuswap Lake

Level of Impact km %

High 174 43

Moderate 71 17

Low 128 31

None 33 8

Extent of Shoreline Development

Level of Impact km %

High 8.3 10

Moderate 4.8 5

Low 24.5 30

None 44.4 55

Types of Shoreline Development

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Agriculture

Commercial

Conservation

Forestry

Institutional

Multi Family

Natural Area

Recreation

Single Family

Urban Park

Transportation

InudustrialL

Shorelength (m)

Natural Shoreline Disturbed Shoreline

Shuswap Lake

Rate of Shoreline Development and Cumulative Effects

Rate of Change: 0.5 - 2.0% per year

Likely similar in other areas experiencing rapid high rates of development

May exceed capacity of fish species and populations to adapt, posing risk of significant habitat-related harm

Okanagan Lake

Residential Development – Shuswap Lake

Integrated LandManagement

Bureau - MFLNRO

Interior Health

Environmental Protection -

MFLNROWater Stewardship

- MFLNRO

Dept of Transportation – Marine Safety – Navigable Waters

Protection

Who’s Managing Shoreline Areas?

How Are They Doing It?

How Are They Perceived to be Doing It?

Fish & Wildlife - MFLNRO

Front Counter BC Environmental Stewardship -

MFLNRO

Ministry of Transportation

Dept of Transportation – Marine - Office

of Boating Safety

South Shuswap Parks Commission

Incorporated Areas

Environment Canada

BC Parks

First Nations

Dept. of Aboriginal Affairs &

N. Development

Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process

SLIPP Foreshore Development Work Stream

Foreshore Inventory and Mapping, Aquatic Habitat Index and Shoreline Management Guidelines

• Support the SLIPP foreshore development goal of development that respects the environment as well as economic and social interests

• Support SLIPP foreshore development strategies of:•comprehensive foreshore area site sensitivity mapping•managing cross-agency development applications and lake issues•improving the development application review process•creating a model for assessing cumulative impact

• Integrate regulation and policy requirements for protection of fish habitat with best available habitat information

• Support the SLIPP foreshore development goal of development that respects the environment as well as economic and social interests

• Support SLIPP foreshore development strategies of:•comprehensive foreshore area site sensitivity mapping•managing cross-agency development applications and lake issues•improving the development application review process•creating a model for assessing cumulative impact

• Integrate regulation and policy requirements for protection of fish habitat with best available habitat information

Planning a Project near Shuswap Shorelines?

versus

Key Steps to Follow:

• Contact your Local Government and Front Counter BC

• Consult a Qualified Environmental Professional

• Follow the Shoreline Management Guidelines

Shoreline Management Process for BC Lakes

versus

Step 1Foreshore Inventory and Mapping: Provides a biophysical and habitat modification inventory of the shoreline

Step 2

Aquatic Habitat Index: Provides an environmental sensitivity analysis of the shoreline, using existing biological data (e.g., shore spawning locations) and the FIM database

Step 3Shoreline Management Guidelines: Provide design and assessment standards for development activities based on the level of risk they pose to natural shoreline features

FIM and the AHI are a Spatial Inventory

versus

Shoreline Management Guidelines

versus

What are they?

• Guidance to proponents, professionals, contractors, agencies and other stakeholders regarding design and assessment standards for development activities that may affect fish habitat

• A tool for inter-agency planning and streamlining of development applications

What are the benefits?

• Allow low risk development activities to proceed without fish habitat review provided best practices are applied.

• Allow moderate risk development activities to proceed without fish habitat review provided a qualified professional certifies no harm to fish habitat

• Provide a coherent and predictable process for planning and undertaking works that may affect fish habitat on the Shuswap Lake system

Key Steps in Shoreline Management Guidelines

versus

Step 1Identify the “Aquatic Habitat Index” and any “Sensitive Site Types” for the property

Step 3

Step 2Identify the “Activity Risk Rating” for the proposed activity

Identify design, assessment and review process for the proposed activity

Step 4Follow process outlined through SMG. Questions? Ask FrontCounter BC or your QEP

Shoreline Management Guidelines: Maps

versus

Shoreline Management Guidelines: SWARM

Boat LaunchesConstruction of new hard surface boat launch or repair/upgrade of existing hard surface boat launch without land tenure

VH VH VH H H H

DocksDesign and Assessment Flow Chart for Private Moorage

on the System5

Water Withdrawal and UseWaterline - directional drilling

H H MDFO Pacific : Directional

Drilling2

Waterline - open excavation

VH VH VH H M L6

Activity

Activity Risk by Spawning Location and Rank1

Known Char or Sockeye Spawning

(9.6% of total shore length,

2.6% in Moderate and

Low ) 1

Very High(13% of total

shore length

High(34% of total shore length)

Moderate(38% of total

shore length)

Low(14% of total

shore length)

Very Low

(0.7% of total

shore length)

SWARM = Shuswap Watershed Activity Risk Matrix

Low Risk Activities

Pose low risk of harm to fish habitat. Harm to fish habitat can usually be prevented if

experienced contractors complete works following endorsed best management practices.

Supervision of works by a qualified environmental professional is recommended to ensure harm to fish habitat does not occur.

DFO review is not required if works follow endorsed best management practices referenced in activity-specific footnotes to Table 1.

Project proponents are responsible for ensuring that they comply with fish habitat protection provisions of Fisheries Act. section 35(1) (see http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/index.html).

Notify DFO 10 working days before starting works by submission of a completed Project Review Application Form to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Notification to DFO” in (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire-eng.pdf). Include a cover letter describing how it was determined that works could proceed without DFO review, specifically referencing Table 1, as applicable.

Moderate Risk Activities Pose moderate risk of harm to fish habitat. Some works will require authorization under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to

legally proceed. Harm to fish or fish habitat can usually be prevented if appropriate relocation,

redesign and mitigation measures are implemented. Professional planning and assessment is required; costs to the proponent may be

high. Mitigation and compensation costs to the proponent may be high. DFO review is not required if a qualified environmental professional certifies

and documents that harm to fish habitat will not occur if works proceed as planned; notify DFO 10 working days before starting your work by submission of a completed Project Review Application Form to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Notification to DFO” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire-eng.pdf) and including certification of no harm to fish habitat by a qualified environmental professional.

DFO review is required if a qualified environmental professional cannot certify and document that harm to fish habitat will not occur if works proceed as planned: submit a completed Project Review Application Form and Aquatic Effects Assessment to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Request for Project Review” or “Request for a Fisheries Act Authorization” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire-eng.pdf).

High Risk Activities

Pose high risk of harm to fish habitat. Many works will require authorization under section

35(2) of the Fisheries Act to legally proceed. Include significant challenges to prevention of harm

through relocation, redesign and mitigation measures or to compensation for fish habitat losses that may occur.

Professional planning and assessment is required; costs to the proponent may be high.

Mitigation and compensation costs to the proponent may be high.

DFO review is required: submit a completed Project Review Application Form and Aquatic Effects Assessment to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Request for Project Review” or “Request for a Fisheries Act Authorization” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire-eng.pdf).

Very High Risk Activities

Pose very high risk of harm to fish habitat. Most works will require authorization under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act

to legally proceed. Include significant challenges to prevention of harm through relocation,

redesign and mitigation measures or to compensation for fish habitat losses that may occur.

Professional planning and assessment is required; costs to the proponent may be high.

Mitigation and compensation costs to the proponent may be high. DFO review is required: submit a completed Project Review Application

Form and Aquatic Effects Assessment to the BC Interior South Referral Centre at ReferralsKamloops@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, selecting “Request for Project Review” or “Request for a Fisheries Act Authorization” in Box 1 (see http://dev-public.rhq.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/steps/praf/form-formulaire-eng.pdf).

DFO may determine the risk of harm to fish habitat is unacceptable and not grant Fisheries Act, section 35(2) authorization.

Shoreline Management Guidelines: Figure 1

versus

Important Considerations

• Operational Statements and Best Management Practices rely on proven mitigative measures and/or professional oversight to prevent harm to fish habitat

• As an engineer or geoscientist, you are to ensure that your designs consider fish and fish habitat values at the work location. If in doubt, include a QEP on the project team

• As a QEP, you are expected to have working knowledge of fish and fish habitat values, environmental impact assessment standards and mitigation practices and to certify that proposed works will not cause harm to fish or fish habitat unless a Fisheries Act authorization will be sought

• Important Considerations

• Have you considered important fish and fish habitats identified in the FIM?

• Have you met minimum information standards for the various SLIPP agency’s notification, review or authorization?

Example 1 – Open Excavation Waterlinein a Very Low Habitat Value Area

Subject Property

Water Withdrawal and UseWaterline - directional drilling

H H MDFO Pacific : Directional

Drilling2

Waterline - open excavation

VH VH VH H M L6

Activity

Low ) 1

shore length

shore length)

Low(14% of total

shore length)

Very Low

(0.7% of total

shore length)

6. DFO supports installation of waterlines by experienced contractors using open excavation (i.e. trenching) techniques in shoreline segments of Very Low AHI rank because harm to fish habitat can be avoided in these areas by following Operational Best Practices detailed in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Installation and Maintenance of Water Line Intakes (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPIntakes_WorkingDraft.pdf).

Example 2 – Joint-planted Rock Retaining Wallin a Moderate Habitat Value Area

Subject Property

Erosion Control and Foreshore Sediment Control Structures

New groyne construction or maintenance of existing groyne

VH VH VH VH H H

Erosion control (e.g. concrete, rip rap, vegetation, etc.)

Design and Assessment Flow Chart for Lakeshore Erosion Control on the System5

Activity

Low ) 1

shore length

shore length)

Low(14% of total

shore length)

Very Low

(0.7% of total

shore length)

1 Indicators of lakeshore erosion include large areas of bare soil and steep, high banks at the high water mark (HWM), noticeable recession of the HWM over a period of time, leaning or downed trees with exposed roots at the HWM, large patches of muddy water at the lake margin during high water and large deposits of eroded soil on the lakeshore following high water.

2 Erosion-related risks include loss of property and damage or loss of nearshore structures.

3 Maintenance of an existing work is limited to replacement of less that one half of an existing erosion control structure on its existing foundation and must not include any lakeward extension of the existing structure or backfill.

4 On Shuswap Lake, the 1-in-5 year flood level has been calculated to correspond with an elevation of 348.7 m GSC. For Little Shuswap and Mara Lakes, the 1-in-5 year flood level has been extrapolated as 348.0 m GSC and 348.8 m GSC, respectively.

5 Many lakeshore erosion protection options are available, including planting of native trees and shrubs, planting of native trees and shrubs through a biodegradable erosion control blanket, planting of native trees and shrubs within the joints of a rock matrix and hard armouring techniques. Additional information is provided in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Lakeshore Stabilization (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPLakeshoreStabilization_WorkingDraft.pdf)

6 Applicable Operational Best Practices are detailed in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Lakeshore Stabilization (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPLakeshoreStabilization_WorkingDraft.pdf)

7 Known shore spawning locations are illustrated in Attachment I and on the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca).

5 Many lakeshore erosion protection options are available, including planting of native trees and shrubs, planting of native trees and shrubs through a biodegradable erosion control blanket, planting of native trees and shrubs within the joints of a rock matrix and hard armouring techniques. Additional information is provided in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Lakeshore Stabilization (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPLakeshoreStabilization_WorkingDraft.pdf)

6 Applicable Operational Best Practices are detailed in the BC Ministry of Environment document Best Management Practices for Lakeshore Stabilization (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPLakeshoreStabilization_WorkingDraft.pdf)

7 Known shore spawning locations are illustrated in Attachment I and on the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca).

Example 3 – Private Floating Dock Outside Mapped Sensitive Site Types

Subject Property

DocksDesign and Assessment Flow Chart for Private Moorage

on the System5

Activity

Low ) 1

shore length

shore length)

Low(14% of total

shore length)

Very Low

(0.7% of total

shore length)

1 Sensitive site types include mapped: (a) shore spawning sites, (b) high-value rearing sites, (c) vegetated foreshore areas, and/or (d) stream deltas (see Attachment I or the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca)).

Floating Dock:

Less than 24 square meters in total surface area.

Less than 3 meters wide.

Decking constructed or spaced to allow light penetration to foreshore areas under the dock.

Floats discontinuous and spaced at least 1-meter apart so at least one-third of the dock is free of floats.

Maintained in water depth of 1.5 meters or greater at all times.

If annually removed from the water, this must be completed without disturbance of the lake foreshore.

No permanent physical link to shore (e.g. piles or decks); retractable walkways acceptable.

Floating Dock:

Less than 24 square meters in total surface area.

Less than 3 meters wide.

Decking constructed or spaced to allow light penetration to foreshore areas under the dock.

Floats discontinuous and spaced at least 1-meter apart so at least one-third of the dock is free of floats.

Maintained in water depth of 1.5 meters or greater at all times.

If annually removed from the water, this must be completed without disturbance of the lake foreshore.

No permanent physical link to shore (e.g. piles or decks); retractable walkways acceptable.

Example 4 – Strata Marina in a High Habitat Value Area

MarinasDesign and Assessment Flow Chart for Commercial and

Strata Moorage on the Shuswap Lake System5

Activity

Low ) 1

shore length

shore length)

Low(14% of total

shore length)

Very Low

(0.7% of total

shore length)

1 Wave attenuation structures include standalone breakwaters as well as over-wide outer docks and other structures intended to modify wave conditions in the moorage area and/or near-shore environment.

2 Sensitive site types include mapped: (a) shore spawning sites, (b) high-value rearing sites, (c) vegetated foreshore areas, and/or (d) stream deltas; see Attachment I or the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca).

1 Wave attenuation structures include standalone breakwaters as well as over-wide outer docks and other structures intended to modify wave conditions in the moorage area and/or near-shore environment.

2 Sensitive site types include mapped: (a) shore spawning sites, (b) high-value rearing sites, (c) vegetated foreshore areas, and/or (d) stream deltas; see Attachment I or the Community Mapping Network (http://www.cmnbc.ca).

3 Draft Integrated Land Management Bureau Thompson Okanagan Strata - Commercial Moorage Guidelines include the following walkout/dock dimensions and shoreline proximity standards:

o Floating portions of the dock must be located offshore of the 6 meter depth contour at mean annual low water.o Access to floating portions of the dock must be achieved by a single elevated fixed deck and ramp that must not exceed 1.5 meters in width. At a

minimum, the base of the elevated fixed deck must be located at least 1 meter above the lake 1-in 5 year flood level. The remainder of the dock surface must not exceed 3 meters in width for any other portion of the dock.

o Supported dock structures must use widely spaced wooden or steel piles that are made of non-toxic materials (solid core docks will not be allowed). Do not use pressure treated wood.

3 Draft Integrated Land Management Bureau Thompson Okanagan Strata - Commercial Moorage Guidelines include the following walkout/dock dimensions and shoreline proximity standards:

o Floating portions of the dock must be located offshore of the 6 meter depth contour at mean annual low water.o Access to floating portions of the dock must be achieved by a single elevated fixed deck and ramp that must not exceed 1.5 meters in width. At a

minimum, the base of the elevated fixed deck must be located at least 1 meter above the lake 1-in 5 year flood level. The remainder of the dock surface must not exceed 3 meters in width for any other portion of the dock.

o Supported dock structures must use widely spaced wooden or steel piles that are made of non-toxic materials (solid core docks will not be allowed). Do not use pressure treated wood.

5 DFO supports proponents receiving term and tenure-type considerations from ILMB where a fish or fish habitat review is not required for proposed works or where an applicant has received a letter of advice from DFO related to proposed moorage works. To ensure protection of fish habitat and meet present-day best practice standards, all new, renewal and replacement tenures for commercial and strata moorages will be subject to this flow chart process.

4 Follow Operational Best Practices detailed in the BC Ministry of Environment document “Best Management Practices for Small Boat Moorage on Lakes” (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/BMPSmallBoatMoorage_WorkingDraft.pdf)

Shoreline Management Guidelines

versus

Where can I get more information?

• SLIPP: www.slippbc.com

• Request information from Front Counter BC

Riparian Areas Regulation

ObjectiveObjective

RAR processRAR process Yanke decisionYanke decision Next stepsNext steps

What is the RAR?What is the RAR?

a regulation enacted through Section 12 of the a regulation enacted through Section 12 of the Fish Protection ActFish Protection Act

an approach to protecting fish habitat during an approach to protecting fish habitat during residential, commercial, and industrial residential, commercial, and industrial developmentdevelopment

a results based regulation that focuses on a results based regulation that focuses on prescribed setbacks from stream banks prescribed setbacks from stream banks

When does the RAR apply?When does the RAR apply?

The Riparian Areas Regulation applies to riparian The Riparian Areas Regulation applies to riparian fish habitat, and only in association with new fish habitat, and only in association with new residential, commercial and industrial residential, commercial and industrial development on land under local government development on land under local government jurisdictionjurisdiction

ProcessProcessDevelopment Proposed in Development Proposed in Riparian Assessment AreaRiparian Assessment Area

Local Government bylaws Local Government bylaws exceed Riparian Areas exceed Riparian Areas

Regulation?Regulation?

HADD avoided by HADD avoided by assessment resultsassessment results

Local Local Government Government

May May Authorize Authorize

Development Development Subject to Subject to ConditionsConditions

Consider Consider Development Development Opportunities Opportunities

Outside of Outside of Riparian Riparian

Assessment Assessment AreaArea

Site Assessment by Qualified Environmental Professional

Yanke DecisionYanke Decision

Salmon Arm residential property affected Salmon Arm residential property affected by RARby RAR

Owner challenged that RAR didn’t applyOwner challenged that RAR didn’t apply Lower court ruled in favour of property Lower court ruled in favour of property

ownerowner Decision overturned by appeal, however Decision overturned by appeal, however

the Appeal Court decision has implications the Appeal Court decision has implications for RAR implementationfor RAR implementation

Ruling affects:Ruling affects:

Variances, bending and flexingVariances, bending and flexing HADD determinationHADD determination DFO authorityDFO authority

VariancesVariances

““There is no provision allowing any There is no provision allowing any governmental body to vary the extent of governmental body to vary the extent of the streamside protection and the streamside protection and enhancement area.” enhancement area.”

HADD determinationHADD determination

... (LG approval) will depend on whether it is anticipated ... (LG approval) will depend on whether it is anticipated that it will cause a “harmful alteration, disruption or that it will cause a “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions and conditions destruction of natural features, functions and conditions that support fish life processes in the riparian that support fish life processes in the riparian assessment area” (commonly referred to as a “HADD”). assessment area” (commonly referred to as a “HADD”).

development can occur within a streamside protection development can occur within a streamside protection and enhancement area if the assessment report certifies and enhancement area if the assessment report certifies that the development will not result in a HADDthat the development will not result in a HADD

DFO authorityDFO authority

.... “there is nothing in s. 4 of the .... “there is nothing in s. 4 of the Riparian Areas Riparian Areas Regulation that allows the Department of Fisheries and Regulation that allows the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to veto a development proposal that is before a Oceans to veto a development proposal that is before a local government where the qualified local government where the qualified environmental environmental professional has given an opinion that the proposed professional has given an opinion that the proposed development will not result in a HADD”.development will not result in a HADD”.

““the City could authorize the construction in the the City could authorize the construction in the circumstances of this case without the approval of the circumstances of this case without the approval of the

Department of Fisheries and OceansDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans””

SummarySummary

No provision for variance from legislated No provision for variance from legislated requirementrequirement

QEP determines HADDQEP determines HADD Within RAR model, DFO authority is Within RAR model, DFO authority is

limitedlimited Provided the reporting requirements are Provided the reporting requirements are

met, LG approval process is independent met, LG approval process is independent of senior governmentof senior government

Now what?Now what?

Province is evaluating implications and will Province is evaluating implications and will pursue appropriate legislative changes. In pursue appropriate legislative changes. In the meantime, RAR still applies. the meantime, RAR still applies.

The intent of RAR still applies. Where The intent of RAR still applies. Where setbacks deviate from methodology, setbacks deviate from methodology, recommend that QEPs seek LOA from recommend that QEPs seek LOA from DFO.DFO.

Courts will decide due diligenceCourts will decide due diligence

Okanagan Protocol Update

Jason Ladyman, BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Questions and Answers

slipp shoreline care qep outreach meeting 23 november-2011

shoreline fish

importance of shoreline

shuswap shorelines

healthy shoreline

shoreline violation

shuswap restorations

rate of shoreline development

flood control shoreline

Technology

ftals-ftamii slipp. - agecon...

qep download(pdf)

focusing the qep - roanoke college · focusing the qep...

quality enhancement plan (qep) · 7.8 – qep marketing...

slipp all-committee meeting: shoreline update 12-april-2012

shuswap lake integrated planning process (slipp) recreation...

qep/flc overview

qep writing rubric samples - savannah state university...

hcc qep final version

qep range - gesan | power without compromise ·...

qep annual report 2013

slipp water quality monitoring plan 2012 wq pac workshop...

slipp sc tt pac meeting with nhc june 2010

gama qep - gesan | power without compromise · calidad de...

qep iwac2012 rodrigo-final

qep annual summary 2013

from here to qep

anna mccollister-slipp - diabetesmine innovation summit 2013

slipp water quality results 2011 for slipp wq pac workshop...

models qem and qep