infrastructure services committee agenda
TRANSCRIPT
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE
Thursday April 4, 2013 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER 1:30 pm
AGENDA
1. Adoption of the Agenda.
MINUTES
PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS
REPORTS
2. Manager of Transportation and Facilities Street Light Policy Change
Annex AP1 – 4
3. Section Secretary Monthly Report for March 2013
Annex BP5 – 7
4. Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 1, 2013
Annex CP8 – 11
5. Public Wharves Advisory Committee (PWAC) meeting minutes of March 4, 2013
Annex DP12 – 14
6. Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee (PMAC) meeting minutes of March 11, 2013
Annex EP15 – 19
7. Senior Planner BURNCO Draft Application Information Requirements
Annex FP20 – 41
COMMUNICATIONS IN CAMERA
THAT the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (k) of the Community Charter “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service...”
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5400 Streets\5400-03 Street Lighting\2013-Feb-7
ISC report Street LIghting policy change.docx
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 14, 2013
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 4, 2013
FROM: Brian Sagman, Manager of Transportation and Facilities
RE: Street Light Policy Change
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the Manager of Transportation and Facilities’ report titled “Street Light Policy Change” be received for information; AND THAT the Street Light Policy be amended to remove the reference to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure designation of “Major Street” and substitute with “Arterial/Primary and Collector”. The objective of this report is to revise the SCRD street light policy (attached) that currently refers to the MOTI designation of “Major Street”, a term that is no longer in use. BACKGROUND The Street Light policy in part governs the actions required to install a new street light and the basis for determining if a light should be included in regional lighting or as a separate distinct function. SCRD staff have historically relied on the use of the MOTI’s designation of the “major street” network as one of the criteria for making this determination. However MOTI has moved away from the use of the term “major streets” and now uses Arterial/Primary, Collector/Secondary and Local to define different types of roads. Recent installation of street lights has been minimal. In all cases the requests were related to locations that could not be considered for the exclusive use of specific properties, so the lights were included in the regional lighting function. However the consideration of a light request on Gambier Island led to questions concerning the distinction between regional lighting and a specific service area.
DISCUSSION
The MOTI supplement to the Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide provides for classification of roads as Arterial/Primary, Collector/Secondary or Local.
Arterial/Primary Roads - are primarily for through traffic on a continuous route where direct access to abutting land is not a priority. Highway #101 and the Port Melon Highway would be considered arterial/primary roads.
Collector/Secondary Roads – provide for traffic movement between arterials and local streets with some direct access to adjacent properties. A number of roads on the Sunshine Coast would fit into this category.
ANNEX 'A'
1
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 2 of 4 Regarding Street Light Policy Change
\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5400 Streets\5400-03 Street Lighting\2013-Feb-7 ISC report Street LIghting policy change.docx
Local Roads – are primarily for access to properties.
Street lights located on Arterial/Primary roads such as Highway #101 would most likely fall under the responsibility of the MOTI rather than the SCRD. However in the event that the SCRD did undertake to install a street light on an arterial/primary corridor, it would logically fall under the regional lighting function.
The Collector/Secondary road designation would appear to coincide with the spirit of designating a street light within the regional lighting function. Lights located along these corridors would be expected to function for the general benefit of the public rather than specific property owners.
Street lights located on local roads that service only properties on that road would be more suited to a separate service area through the establishment of a unique function.
2
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 3 of 4 Regarding Street Light Policy Change
\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5400 Streets\5400-03 Street Lighting\2013-Feb-7 ISC report Street LIghting policy change.docx
Sunshine Coast Regional District
BOARD POLICY MANUAL
Section: Engineering and Public Works 11
Subsection: Streets and Roads 5400
Title: Street Lighting 1
POLICY The general function for street lighting will be used for lights installed on the Sunshine Coast Highway and Port Mellon Highway and other roadways where lighting is deemed to be in the public interest. REASON FOR POLICY To enable the Sunshine Coast Regional District Board to make decisions regarding the installation and funding of street lights. AUTHORITY TO ACT Delegated to Staff. PROCEDURE All requests for street lighting must be in writing. When a request is received, it should be forwarded to the Infrastructure Services Department. Staff will review the request, conducting a site visit in order to clarify the location and note the number of the hydro pole, which will provide the best location for the light. During the site visit, staff will also assess the benefit of the street light based on the following criteria: Is the location on the Sunshine Coast Highway or the Port Mellon Highway? Is the location at a major intersection? Is the location at a bus stop? Will the lighting provide a benefit to the immediate properties only or will it provide a
wider benefit to the community? Is there a history of motor vehicle accidents or other such public safety issue? Is the location on a road or at an intersection of a road that has been designated by
the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as a “Major Street”? Staff will also survey neighbours in the area directly affected (in direct view of the light) by the proposed light. Following the preliminary site visit, staff will contact BC Hydro to confirm the cost for the installation of a light at this location.
3
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 4 of 4 Regarding Street Light Policy Change
\\scrd.ad\files\networkfiles\Infrastructure & Public Works\5400 Streets\5400-03 Street Lighting\2013-Feb-7 ISC report Street LIghting policy change.docx
A report outlining the request, the level of benefit and the fiscal implications will then be forwarded to the Infrastructure Services Committee for review. The Committee will make a recommendation to do one of the following:
1. Direct staff to provide a petition to the requester which can be circulated in the area benefiting from the proposed street light and returned to the Regional District requesting the establishment of a Service Area.
2. Direct staff to proceed with the installation under the General Street Lighting
Function. 3. Direct staff to inform the requester that a street light will not be installed
by the Regional District, as there has been an objection from a property owner immediately adjacent to the proposed street light and that other options will need to be pursued by the requester, such as individually owned yard lights or installation of reflective tape on the subject hydro pole.
(Item 1 above will be forwarded to the Legislative Services Division for action. Items 2 and 3 will be completed by the Infrastructure Services Department) BC Hydro is encouraged to install the least invasive type lenses possible and to move toward replacing existing lenses with low light emission technology, in order to create the least possible residual light. If, during the informal survey process, objections are received from any immediately adjacent property owners to the proposed street light location, BC Hydro should be contacted to see if they are able to install the light in such a way as to address the concerns of the objector. For example, a street light can be angled in such a way as to direct the light away from windows and by the use of low light emission technology. Once a review is done of the concerns, staff will submit another report to the Board providing the information necessary for the Board to determine whether or not it is appropriate to proceed with the installation. If a petition for a Local Service is required, staff will prepare the petition and forward it to the requester. If sufficient signatures are received, staff will proceed with the preparation of a Service Establishment Bylaw.
4
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5260 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\5260-20 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\ISC Monthly\2013-MAR IS monthly.doc
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 22, 2013
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 4, 2013
FROM: Section Secretary, Infrastructure Services
RE: MONTHLY REPORT FOR MARCH 2013
RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Section Secretary, Infrastructure Services’ report entitled “Monthly Report for March 2013” be received. BACKGROUND This report is prepared monthly as information for the Infrastructure Services Committee. UTILITIES DIVISION
WATER TREATMENT PLANT In February the Chapman Water Treatment Plant produced and supplied 277,522 m3, a 8.4% decrease from the five year average.
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 10 water meters were installed.
CAPITAL WORKS The Sherman Road water main replacement project has commenced.
The Pratt Road water main replacement project is in the planning stages.
SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable Services and Finance staff completed and submitted the SCRD’s 2012 CARIP claim and report. The report has been posted to the SCRD website for public information. New requirements in 2012 include reporting on third party contracted emissions (e.g. contractors providing services required to maintain SCRD operations). Some of this information is in place, however additional reporting requirements will need to be incorporated into SCRD contract templates for all service providers in future. Resources to maintain comprehensive annual emissions inventories have not been available and SCRD continues to rely on the 2008 baseline data set for corporate emissions. Regular updates to the inventory will be completed by the Corporate Energy Manager once this position is in place allowing for better management of energy consumption and prioritization of conservation measures. For the 2012 report, SCRD was able to report on preliminary results of the Sechelt Aquatic Centre energy project, which yielded the following annual savings relative to 2011: greenhouse gas reduction of approximately 328 tonne of Carbon Dioxide equivalents approximately 68% reduction in natural gas consumption almost $80,000 reduced cost of natural gas
ANNEX 'B'
5
Infrastructure Services Monthly Report for March 2013 Page 2
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5260 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\5260-20 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\ISC Monthly\2013-MAR IS monthly.doc
The SCRD’s Corporate Energy Manager will be starting April 2. The funding agreement with BC Hydro for this position has been received and signed. BC Hydro will be conducting quarterly progress reviews with the Energy Manager and has advised the SCRD that upon completion of the second progress review there is generally a clear indication of whether the agreement will be renewed for another year, thus enabling the Board to make informed decisions during the budget process. BC Hydro’s primary expectation for the first year of the Energy Manager program is the completion of the SCRD’s corporate energy and emissions inventory and Strategic Energy Management Plan, which includes business casing of proposed energy conservation measures.
REGIONAL SUSTAINABILITY SCRD has contracted Enerficiency Consulting to update the SCRD’s Community Energy and Emissions Inventory based on 2010 data from the province and to update forecasted emissions through 2031. The project will commence May 1, 2013 and is expected to be completed in time for the September Infrastructure Services Committee. Costs for this project are within the approved budget.
ZERO WASTE GUIDE FOR ACCOMMODATIONS A new Zero Waste Guide for Accommodations is now available on our website.
The guide is intended to help an accommodations facility work towards becoming a ‘zero waste’ business, where waste is minimized, and reuse, composting and recycling are maximized. The guide includes steps for developing a zero waste strategy, practical zero waste tips that can be implemented throughout the facility and gardens, local examples for inspiration, and resources and links for further information.
The SCRD is working with Sunshine Coast Tourism to share the guide with owners and managers of Bed & Breakfast or other accommodations facilities, and to gather their feedback.
SOLID WASTE SCRD issued a Request for Information (similar to a Request for Expressions of Interest) on March 8, 2013 to identify proponents who are interested and qualified to provide resource recovery facility (RRF) services in the Pender Harbour, Sechelt and Gibsons areas. This is the first step in the Board’s approved process for moving forward with implementation of RRF services in each of the three areas, as detailed in staff’s report to the ISC meeting held December 6, 2012 entitled “Resource Recovery Facility Business Plan Update and Next Steps”. The Request for Information closes March 27, 2013, and results will be brought to the ISC at the earliest opportunity to discuss next steps.
The Sechelt Landfill received 894 tonnes in February, an 8% decrease from February 2012 and a 6% decrease from 2011.
The Pender Harbour Landfill received 87 tonnes in February, a 15% decrease from February 2012 and a 22% decrease from 2011.
TRANSPORTATION AND FACILITIES DIVISION
TRANSIT The second of three stakeholder meetings is being held on March 27th in support of the development of the Transit Future Plan. This will be followed by a second public engagement period between April 19th and April 24th. Staff are currently finalizing the May 16, 2013 schedule that will coincide with the change to BC Ferries to their spring shoulder schedule. This will be followed by the June 26, 2013 schedule that will be in effect until September 2, 2013.
6
Infrastructure Services Monthly Report for March 2013 Page 3
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5260 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\5260-20 Infrastructure Reports & Statistics\ISC Monthly\2013-MAR IS monthly.doc
PORTS The installation of new cross bracing at the Hopkins Landing dock and replacement of two short pilings has been completed. This was a carry-over project from the 2012 work plan.
The installation of the new portion of dock for Gambier Harbour is scheduled for the week of March 25, 2013. The installation has been hampered by the need for installation of rub rails and decking as well as delays to avoid winter weather conditions. Staff are undertaking pressure washing of docks in response to slippery conditions and to reduce long term maintenance costs.
The focus for major repairs and projects will be shifting to West Bay where we will be replacing major structural components on the dock approach as well as cross bracing. We also plan to contract for the construction and installation of a low maintenance replacement float at this location that will be consistent with the type of float constructed for Gambier Harbour.
FLEET We expect delivery of three new Arboc buses in late April or early May of this year that will replace our aging fleet of Polar buses that are used primarily for handyDART service.
7
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - JWMAC\2013-Mar-01 JWMAC minutes.docx_
1
JOINT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
March 1, 2013
MINUTES FROM THE JOINT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICE AT 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, B. C. FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013
PRESENT: Sechelt Indian Band: Chief Garry Feschuk Councillor Jordan Louie Councillor Ashley Joe Councillor Christopher August Rights and Title Department Jasmine Paul SCRD: Director, Halfmoon Bay (Area B) Garry Nohr, Chair Director, Pender Harbour (Area A) Frank Mauro Director, Roberts Creek (Area D) Donna Shugar Director, Elphinstone (Area E) Lorne Lewis Director, West Howe Sound (Area F) Lee Turnbull Chief Administrative Officer John France GM Infrastructure Services Bryan Shoji Recording Secretary Susan Hunt Other: Sunshine Coast Community Forest Dave Lasser Sunshine Coast Community Forest Elise Rudland Public – Concerned Citizens Hans Penner Public – Sandy Hook Dave Bebbington CALL TO ORDER 11:00 a.m. AGENDA The agenda for the Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee meeting was adopted as received.
ANNEX 'C'
8
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - JWMAC\2013-Mar-01 JWMAC minutes.docx_
2
Recommendation No. 1 – Minutes Follow-Up Page THAT a follow-up page be attached to the Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee Minutes which includes on-going information that the Board and the Sechelt Indian Band can review. Introductions were made around the table and the guests invited from Sunshine Coast Community Forest (SCCF) were welcomed, Dave Lasser and Elise Rudland. Two members of the public were welcomed as observers. MINUTES The minutes of the Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee Meeting held on September 17, 2012 were received as presented. It was noted that on page 2 of the minutes, under “Other Business” a follow up is needed on the bulleted items i.e. that this information is passed on to the SIB for their information. REPORTS Recommendation No. 2 – 2006 Water Summit The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the report regarding 2006 Water Summit be received. Bryan Shoji reviewed the “Recommended Actions” from Page 10 of 2006 Water Summit Report. Recommendation No. 3 – Chapman Creek Watershed Source Assessment Response Plan Implementation – Proposed 2013 Work Plan The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the report regarding Chapman Creek Watershed Source Assessment Response Plan Implementation – Proposed 2013 Work Plan be received. Recommendation No. 4 – Sunshine Coast Community Forest Cutblock Spacing Project The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the staff report titled Sunshine Coast Community Forest Cutblock Spacing Project be received. Elise Rudland and Dave Lasser were invited to comment on the Forest Cutblock Spacing Project. The
9
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - JWMAC\2013-Mar-01 JWMAC minutes.docx_
3
following comments were made: The spacing was done as the silviculture obligation from the past that was not completed. This
has resulted in silviculture “slums” due to overplanting. Spacing is needed for healthy trees in watershed which in turn creates a healthy watershed.
The variables that affect tree growth i.e. disease, Christmas tree cutting. And that tree spacing makes a healthy watershed. Sunshine Coast Community Forest (SCCF) has a legal obligation to grow the stand and then the province takes over the stand.
The approximate location is an old inherited Interfor block harvested in late 90s (before the SCCF existed and planted in approximately 1994). A flat area close to the Gun Club, approximately 5.6 hectares spaced with manual labour by crew with small chainsaws to remove small trees. Remove alder, no machine work. Trees are left in place to rot and become part of soil. The size of the trees cut were approximately from 2-3 inches up to 5 inches in width.
SCCF offered an educational afternoon as a walk about in the Community Forest.
The Chair thanked SCCF for coming to answer questions. It was noted that there is a protocol between the SCRD and SIB that the Sechelt Community Projects Inc. (SCPI) is to be made aware of. This is new information that this area was overstocked and needed to be managed. In the interest of good relations it would be advisable any activity in the community watershed that SCCF consult with the SIB and SCRD prior to conducting. Chief Feschuk explained that there is a protocol that was established when District of Sechelt Mayor Reid came to the SCRD Boardroom and was asked to stop work in the forest. The SCCF stopped cutting and the loggers were pulled out. The new SCPI Board must be aware of the protocol that is already established. The Sunshine Coast Community Forest guests left the meeting at 12:15 pm Sechelt Community Project Inc’s Development Plans The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee agreed to remove the topic titled “Sechelt Community Project Inc’s Development Plans” from the agenda. BCTS at McNeill Lake Discussion ensued regarding the McNeill Lake cut block tender and the Committee agreed that the issue has been addressed. Chair Nohr said that a follow up letter was sent to BC Timber Sales, and that BCTS removed the contentious block from the tender.
10
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - JWMAC\2013-Mar-01 JWMAC minutes.docx_
4
Recommendation No. 5 The Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee recommended that the communication protocol with Sunshine Coast Community Forest be reviewed at the next Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee - In Camera at the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING 11:00 a.m. Monday, June 17, 2013 ADJOURNMENT 12:20 pm.
11
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT PUBLIC WHARVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 4, 2013 DRAFT MINUTES FROM A PUBLIC WHARVES ADVISORY COMMITEE MEETING HELD AT FRANK WEST HALL, 1224 CHASTER ROAD, GIBSONS, BC. PRESENT PWAC Members Nancy Donaldson, Chair Tony Flynn Kate-Louise Stamford ABSENT Ralph Rutherford Dan Crosby Roger Sayer Bruce Wallis ALSO PRESENT Manager, Transportation and Facilities Brian Sagman Recording Secretary Amanda Walkey CALL TO ORDER 10:38 a.m. AGENDA The Agenda was adopted. MINUTES The minutes of the Public Wharves Advisory Committee meeting of December 3, 2012 were adopted as circulated. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Bollard at Keats Landing Ms. Donaldson commented that the scheduled Saturday May 25, 2013, Town Hall meeting date poses a conflict with work party events the same day. Recommendation No. 1 Town Hall Meeting The Public Wharves Advisory Committee recommended that the Town meeting that is to include discussion of the installation of a bollard at Keats Landing be rescheduled for Sunday May 26, 2013.
ANNEX 'D'
12
Public Wharves Advisory Committee Minutes March 4, 2013 Page 2
Traffic on the Dock at Keats Landing Ms. Donaldson commented that parking on the dock at Keats Landing is still a problem. Mr. Flynn indicated that the parking problem has improved with the exception of one individual. West Bay Dock Mr. Sagman reported that bids have been requested to replace some 4x12 stringers under the decking at West Bay Dock. One bid has been received over the budget and the SCRD is awaiting a second bid or has the option to do the work using staff. Ms. Stamford asked Mr. Sagman to email her regarding the update of attaching the float so that she can keep the people on Gambier Island informed. Mr. Sagman explained that the SCRD Board has asked for a capital works budget in future years based on the approved work plan. New Brighton Dock Divesture Ms. Stamford indicated that she will arrange to meet with MP John Weston to discuss the New Brighton Dock Divesture and her concerns about maintaining access to the dock for the public and the Stormway passenger ferry. Mr. Sagman commented that Transport Canada has not provided any information to the SCRD based on their negotiations with the Squamish Nation. Discussion ensued regarding growth and the need of an expansion plan for New Brighton Dock. Tire Breakwater at Eastbourne Discussion developed regarding the feasibility of a breakwater at Eastbourne and the future growth and importance of the wharves and docks. Action: Mr. Sagman stated that staff will bring a draft Strategic Plan for Ports report from the SCRD Board to the next meeting on June 3, 2013 that will include consideration to these kinds of improvements. The comments from PWAC will then help to finalize the report for submission to the Infrastructure Services Committee in the fall of 2013. NEW BUSINESS Camp Artaban on Gambier Island Mr. Sagman explained that Camp Artaban’s floats are attached to the SCRD docks. He also explained that there is not a current signed lease. He noted that Camp Artaban has indicated that they do not think they should pay for the lease because they do maintenance. Mr. Sagman explained that one option is for the camp to remove the floats if they do not wish to pay the lease costs.
13
Public Wharves Advisory Committee Minutes March 4, 2013 Page 3
Wrapping Pilings for Herring Ms. Stamford explained that Howe Sound Community Forum for Island Trust have been wrapping the creosoted-coated pilings with a thin, low-toxic plastic-high density polyethylene to protect the herring eggs. She wondered if this is something that should be done on other docks and wharves. Mr. Sagman responded that we have not undertaken wrapping existing piles but will investigate that option when installing new piles. Communities wishing to hang herring roe nets from the SCRD docks should notify the SCRD in advance. Gambier Island Webinar It was noted that March 20, 2013 Gambier Island is having a Webinar called Greening Our Shores Workshop Program. ROUND TABLE Ms. Donaldson stated that the Keats Landing Dock was still very slippery from the algae. Mr. Sagman replied that power washing may help to remove the algae. He explained that it needs to be done every two to three years and that Keats Island Dock would be pressure washed in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Flynn noted that the lights at Eastbourne are needed for safety. Mr. Flynn questioned if in general he could arrange to have the wharf repairs done by a private individual. Mr. Sagman indicated that such arrangements fit within our program but staff should be advised and provide approval for cost in advance. Mr. Flynn also stated that Eastbourne may become a safety issue soon because of 6 foot and 8 foot drops. Mr. Sagman replied that in the case of the repair work on Eastbourne that is union work that the SCRD can plan and budget so it was unlikely that the repairs could be done by a private individual. Mr. Sagman informed that the person responsible for the damage to the Eastbourne Wharf should be advised to agree to pay for the damages or have to deal with the RCMP. Mr. Flynn commended Jessie for his professional attitude and good work. It was noted that the June 3, 2013 meeting date may have to be changed due to a schedule conflict. NEXT MEETING June 3, 2013 ADJOURNMENT 11:40 pm
14
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT SOLID WASTE PLAN MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 11, 2013
DRAFT MINUTES OF MEETING #9 OF THE PLAN MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM AT 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, B.C
PRESENT: Chair B. Sadler F. Diamond J. Collins K. Jasim F. Mauro E. Lands J. Harrison ALSO PRESENT: Manager of Sustainable Services D. Whyte Zero Waste Coordinator J. Valeriote Infrastructure Secretary S. MacKenzie Media 0 Public 0
ABSENT WITH REGRETS: K. Tang G. Foss ABSENT: Ministry of Environment D. O’Malley
CALL TO ORDER: 2:02pm
Adoption of Agenda Adopted.
ANNEX 'E'
15
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - PMAC\2013-MAR-11 PMAC MINUTES.doc Page | 2
Minutes from February 13, 2013 – Meeting #8
An intention of these minutes was to incorporate the recommendations from Meeting #7, but this did not occur. The recommendations were printed out separately for the ISC for discussion and review at their March 7, 2013 meeting, with wording taken directly from the Meeting #7 minutes. Status of these recommendations is noted below.
Adopted.
Business arising from the Minutes a. PMAC membership recruitment Member recruitment continues. An application to PMAC from a resident of Area B is going to Board on March 14, 2013 for final approval. Conversely, the Chair reported that a potential applicant from Area E has withdrawn their interest and will not apply. b. Status of Recommendations from Meeting #7 Recommendation #1: that the ISC consider and clarify that PMAC have an educational and
awareness visit to HSPP to be briefed upon and observe the ultimate process at that facility; and, that a visit to the intermediate 'chipping' operation at Coastland be included within this field trip by PMAC.
ISC: No official recommendation required. Recommendation #2: that the ISC seriously, favourably and expeditiously consider the application
for PMAC membership recently submitted by Erich Schwartz of Greenomics; and, that the Delegates from Areas B and E solicit applications from residents within their communities during the Christmas 'break'; including the possible recant of his previous resignation from PMAC, by Louis Legal of Area E.
ISC: Application was denied due to perceived conflict of interest. Recommendation #3: that the ISC note/approve the amended schedule for PMAC meetings to
occur on the second Monday of a given month, from 2 to 4 pm; that the ISC note/approve that all Delegates and/or their Alternates are welcome to 'stand in' for an otherwise occupied Board Liaison, and/or attend within the gallery of a PMAC meeting; and, that the ISC note/approve the amendment to the PMAC standard Agenda such that an “Inquiries” period of 10 minutes be included for gallery attendees prior to the adjournment of said PMAC meeting.
ISC: No official recommendation required. Recommendation #4: that the ISC approve the inclusion of a semi-annual Delegation from PMAC
such that PMAC can provide a brief 'situation report' and solicit advice / guidance /direction from the ISC. It is suggested that worthwhile timings for these Delegations would be early in the new year and immediately prior to the summer break.
ISC: Recommendation approved by the ISC.
16
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - PMAC\2013-MAR-11 PMAC MINUTES.doc Page | 3
Recommendation #5: that the ISC consider the future role of PMAC within the context of the staff paper “We Envision – next steps” and the proposed creation of the “Roundtable”; and, that the ISC advise PMAC of its decision(s), including any changes to PMAC's Terms of Reference deemed desirable or necessary.
ISC: No official recommendation required. Recommendation #6: that the ISC consider including representative attendance by PMAC at
future discussions of the MMBC Draft 'Plan', for the specific purpose of enhancing PMAC's education and awareness of externally generated issues facing the SCRD.
ISC: No official recommendation required. c. Visits to remaining solid waste sites within the SCRD The Chair requested that K.Jasim provide him with some potential dates for a tour of Howe Sound Pulp & Paper Corp., so the tour can be arranged. The remaining site visits will be scheduled after this visit is confirmed, to avoid conflict. d. ‘Zero Waste Hierarchy’ vs. ‘Pollution Prevention Hierarchy’ The Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIA) definition of ‘Zero Waste’ is adopted in the current Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). If the definition becomes a part of how the SWMP is implemented, PMAC can voice their opinion of the various definitions via the Annual PMAC Report that is submitted to MOE. When the final version of the Zero Waste Hierarchy is released (currently in draft form), then this topic will be re-addressed. e. Treated wood waste “Staff suggested that PMAC draft resolutions to be forwarded to the ISC for submission to AVICC and UBCM, requesting that specific items be included in future stewardship programs.”
ISC adopted the following PMAC recommendation: THAT the SCRD Board draft a recommendation to be submitted to AVICC, UBCM and copied to CCME that indicates endorsement by the SCRD to include household hazardous waste and hazardous building materials under an Extended Producer Responsibility Program.
J. Collins and J. Valeriote will collaborate to craft a list of building materials of particular concern (eg. Treated wood, pre-1980 drywall mud) which may result in additional recommendations. This will be on the next PMAC agenda. Members would like to see some positive incentive for customers built in to the recommendations if possible. Submission deadline for the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Conference is early/mid June. f. PMAC Terms of Reference PMAC members are appointed by the Board, and PMAC may provide suggestions or support for applications. Upon receiving an email from The Manager of Sustainable Services, indicating that a particular PMAC Application had been rejected by the Board due to a ‘conflict of interest’, the Chair emailed the PMAC Board Representative, Director Mauro, to find out why the Board felt that the applicant had a ‘conflict of interest’. The Chair has had no response to date.
17
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - PMAC\2013-MAR-11 PMAC MINUTES.doc Page | 4
Director Mauro indicated that discussions regarding a member of the public are required to be In Camera, according to the Community Charter. The Board cannot discuss details of In Camera meetings outside of the meeting, so further details on the reasons for in camera decisions cannot be provided. PMAC 2013 Work Plan – deferred from Meeting #8 These documents were sent to members via email on March 4, 2013. a. 2012 Work plan status report Discussion deferred to next meeting. b. 2013 Work plan The two first projects listed on this work plan are very large projects for the SCRD for 2013. Discussion deferred to next meeting. Hard copies were provided by staff during the meeting. c. Summary of 2013 Budget Proposals Round 3 is complete, so J. Valeriote will email an updated summary to members. d. Update on Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) implementation process A request for Information (RFI) has been put out to the public, to solicit expressions of interest for operation of three facilities in Gibsons, Sechelt and Pender Harbour areas. The RFI closes on March 27, 2013. Direction has been given to staff to apply for applicable grants for these facilities. e. Multi-Material BC (MMBC) Printed Paper & Packaging (PPP) stewardship plan update Members would like to have clarification regarding the Pender Harbour area, as the delegate from MMBC at the Special ISC Meeting on February 25, 2013 indicated that the depot system in that area will be funded. This information appeared to conflict with a staff report to the ISC by J. Valeriote. Clarification was given that the report was only targeted to curbside collection, and does not address the Pender Harbour depot situation specifically. Indications from representatives of MMBC are that their organization will adjust to the needs of the particular area. f. Timing for 2012 PMAC Report
Intention is to submit the Annual PMAC Report for MOE to the ISC prior to summer break, so that the end of August deadline for MOE can be met. Staff offered to provide required data and template for a partial draft this report, and have it as an item on the next PMAC agenda for review & discussion. April 18, May 16, June 20 are the ISC agenda deadlines that would need to be met for inclusion of PMAC comments.
NEW BUSINESS: Special ISC Minutes of February 25, 2013 on MMBC Packaging and Printed Paper Draft Stewardship Plan Indications are that a market clearing price will be offered to existing recycling depots, with respect to printed paper and packaging. The Chair indicated that the MMBC Plan does not include glass, with the exception of recycling depots.
18
N:\Administration\0540 Board & Committees\Minutes\ISC - PMAC\2013-MAR-11 PMAC MINUTES.doc Page | 5
Report to March 7, 2013 Infrastructure Services Committee:
Residential Waste Collection – 2014 Tender Options Staff received preliminary direction from the ISC to coordinate with partner municipalities on curbside collection options for contract renewal in February 2014. Concerns were raised regarding single-stream vs. multi-stream collection. This will be a standing PMAC agenda item until completion, so that staff can update the group on the developments of the situation and solicit input. Direction has been given to staff to apply for applicable grants for this project. Backyard composting education campaign The SCRD is actively addressing this SWMP initiative. The District of Sechelt is planning to offer a composter rebate, and the SCRD will provide educational and outreach support for backyard composting, including brochure, website and advertising promotion, with a composting workshop this year or in 2014. This project is still in the preliminary stage. Members pointed out issues such as rodents, wildlife, lack of outdoor space, education, and composter quality. Ideas of Issues from Members deserving consideration by PMAC Garbage incineration in the Lower Mainland is a controversial topic at the moment, as there are plans in place to burn waste, but the Fraser Valley will have significant air quality problems if this project goes forward. Waste to Energy educational articles are welcomed by the Chair, for distribution to members. Questions submitted from the Gallery No gallery in attendance. ADJOURNMENT: 3:59pm NEXT MEETING: April 8, 2013
19
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 26, 2013
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013)
FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner
RE: BURNCO DRAFT APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THAT the report titled “BURNCO Draft Application Information Requirements” be received;
2. AND THAT the following comments be forwarded to the Environmental Assessment Officer:
a) Environmental impact on key species such as eel-grass, forage fish and cetaceans (especially from increased barge movement) needs to be emphasized and appropriate studies provided;
b) Consideration should be given to making improvements to the foreshore area, that may have suffered from the impacts of previous forestry and industrial activity, in light of the proposed loading and barge facility;
c) There is a gap relating to assessing the potential impact on economic activity such as tourism, resulting from the mine;
d) Include a section on the environmental recovery of Howe Sound, including estimated investment to date that achieved the current improvements and any proposed reclamation projects, the objective is to assess what impact the mine (including barge activity and potential accidents) could have on the on-going recovery of Howe Sound;
e) As mitigation/benefit the air should include a review of improvements such as new trails, kayak landing near or on the site.
3. AND THAT the draft Application Information Requirements is forwarded for information to:
• West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission,
• Natural Resources Advisory Committee,
• West Howe Sound Community Association,
• Howe Sound Community Forum, and
• Future of Howe Sound Society;
4. AND THAT the final draft be referred to the above for comment when the Environmental Assessment Office starts the public consultation period;
5. AND FINALY THAT staff provide a report to the Planning and Development Committee prior to the completion of the public consultation period to allow for additional comments to be provided from the SCRD Board.
ANNEX 'F'
20
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013) Regarding BURNCO draft AIR Page 2 of 6
N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.147\2013-Apr-04 ISC report re BURNCO draft AIR.docx
BACKGROUND
The BURNCO gravel mine proposal is currently undergoing an environmental assessment. At this stage, the proponent has prepared a document setting out the draft application information requirements (dAIR). The dAIR was recently sent to the SCRD and the Environmental Assessment Officer (EAO) requested comments by April 15, 2013. A copy of the full document was placed in the Directors’ Reading Room, is available from staff and is posted on the SCRD website at
http://www.scrd.ca/BURNCO-Aggregate-Mine
The EA website notes that the process for developing the application information requirements as follows:
• The proponent prepares a draft (the document under review in this report);
• EAO seeks feedback from the working group, First Nations and the public. Public input is obtained through posting the draft application information requirements on the ePic (BC’s EA project information centre) web site, issuing an RSS feed1 to interested parties, specifying a period and process for public written input, and directing the proponent to hold a public open house in one or more locations near the project; and
• EAO approves and formally issues the application information requirements document when it is satisfied that the document is complete and appropriate for the assessment to be undertaken.
The draft application information requirements is the first formal stage in the environmental assessment process where the public provides input on the project.
It is important to ensure that the AIR includes all the issues and sets out the information required to address the issues. If the AIR fails to include an item then it is very unlikely that the EAO will require BURNCO to address it in the application stage.
The SCRD has received many letters from local residents, residents of Howe Sound and people who visit/recreate in the area. Copies of the letters are available on the SCRD website and in the SCRD Directors’ Reading Room. Concerns regarding the gravel mine include:
1. Noise
2. Visual impact
3. Dust and Air Quality
4. Impact on Health arising from issues such as noise, dust and so on
5. Impact on Freshwater Fish Habitat
6. Impact on Boating and Navigation
7. Impact on Martine Habitat and Species, especially cetaceans
8. Impact on Foreshore Habitat and Species, especially eel grass and forage fish breeding areas including loss of alluvial fan
9. Impact on wildlife
10. Impact on the Environmental Revival of Howe Sound thus wasting significant investment
1 RSS Rich Site Summary (originally RDF Site Summary, often dubbed Really Simple Syndication) is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video—in a standardized format. An RSS document (which is called a "feed", "web feed",] or "channel") includes full or summarized text, plus metadata such as publishing dates and authorship. (Source: Wikipedia)
21
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013) Regarding BURNCO draft AIR Page 3 of 6
N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.147\2013-Apr-04 ISC report re BURNCO draft AIR.docx
11. Impact on Property Values especially of the McNab Strata and properties on Gambier Island
12. Impact on Viability of existing yacht/boat clubs and youth camps in the area
13. Impact on the area as a recreation and tourism destination
14. Reclamation of the mine and potential clean up costs
15. Loss of economic potential (tourism, filming, fisheries, closing of camps and boat clubs, loss of property value and tax) outweighs economic benefit of the mine (few jobs, property tax gain)
The dAIR is broken into topics and most chapters will include:
a) baseline information,
b) studies to be carried out,
c) regulatory/policy requirements (including links to legislation and agencies),
d) effects assessments,
e) cumulative impacts and
f) mitigation measures.
DISCUSSION
Application Information Requirements
The following is information provided by the EAO.
Proponents are responsible for preparing the draft AIR which specifies the information that must be included in their Application for an EA Certificate (Application). Agencies and First Nations are responsible for identifying the information they require in the AIR. The EAO is responsible for incorporating comments received from agencies and First Nations and determining whether to approve the AIR or require additional information.
Each agency is responsible for identifying the information it requires so that is can be included in the AIR. This information may include:
• Identifying environmental, heritage, health and socio-economic valued components (VC) in a proposed project area;
• Specifying that potential effects on these VCs be examined;
• Commenting on the criteria that the proponent plans to use to determine the significance of any adverse effects;
• Commenting on the appropriateness of study areas; and
• Requiring any other information needed so that the Application can be properly assessed in terms of potential impacts, proposed mitigation measures and significance of any residual effects.
The AIR should focus on information that must be included in the Application. Detailed comments relating to baseline studies should be conveyed to proponents before these studies proceed or in a separate comment to the proponent. Comments on the AIR should focus on the level of information required for an Application rather than the more detailed information that is typically required during the permitting stage.
The public will have an opportunity to comment on the document during EAO’s Public Comment Period after the working group has provided feedback.
22
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013) Regarding BURNCO draft AIR Page 4 of 6
N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.147\2013-Apr-04 ISC report re BURNCO draft AIR.docx
Contents of the Draft AIR
A copy of the table of contents is attached to show the breadth of the information that BURNCO is proposing to provide with the application (Attachment A).
The dAIR sets out information about the proposed project including the processing facility and marine loading and barge facility. Another section sets out the range f permits and approvals that are required in addition to an environmental assessment certificate; these can be applied for and issued concurrently to the certificate (this is the concurrent review).
Exceptions will be the chapters on project description, EA process, and assessment methods which are descriptive in nature.
An important section regards identifying the Valued Components; these are the key indicators for environment, social, economic, heritage and health impacts/issues. BURNCO included a list of these in the dAIR (Attachment B).
The dAIR proposes to examine impacts on terrestrial wildlife and vegetation; fisheries and aquatic habitat (freshwater and marine); geotechnical/natural hazards; surface and groundwater; air quality and the impact of climate change. Specific species mentioned include marbled murlets, and a focus will be on red/blue listed species. Baseline studies, including literature reviews, will establish the current conditions and identify sites of specific concern (such as raptor nests). Mitigation measures and environmental management strategies will be set out.
Information regarding noise, dust, visual impact and light pollution will be presented.
Information will be provided regarding economic impact along with a mitigation strategy, however the focus is on potential benefits. The dAIR may not deliver the information needed to assess broader negative impacts that were raised in correspondence with the SCRD. BURNCO has been advised of the correspondence and informed where to find copies on the SCRD website. The public review of the dAIR is an opportunity for concerns to be raised by individuals or groups regarding this under the heading of Regional Economic Development – Potential Effects. As this is likely to be one focus during the public review BURNCO should include reference to the overall balance of economic impact (potential benefits such as economic gain due to the project vs potential negatives such as impact on tourism) in the next version of the dAIR.
Under Social Effects issues such as marine transportation and non-traditional land use (including recreation and tourism) are covered. There is scope to consider improvements to recreation in the area. For example BURNCO should examine establishing a public trail around the site to allow access to the Crown lands beyond. To assist trail use, there is scope to establish a small boat/canoe/kayak moorage/landing facility either on the site or on Crown land nearby (to be at the head of the trail).
Health Effects include impact on water, air quality, and noise
There is a section on Heritage and another on First Nations Information Requirements. The Squamish Nation is included in the consultation regarding the dAIR and the environmental assessment as a whole.
A description of the federal EA process will also be provided along with information about how this process is integrated.
23
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013) Regarding BURNCO draft AIR Page 5 of 6
N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.147\2013-Apr-04 ISC report re BURNCO draft AIR.docx
Next Steps – Environmental Assessment
The EAO will organize a working group meeting in late April to discuss the dAIR. In addition to the SCRD, the working group is made up of provincial & federal agencies/ ministries (can be issue based reps such as the Grizzly Bear expert, and so on) and First Nation(s) are also invited (sometimes they will met separately with EAO as well as or instead of participating on the working group). It is not clear if the EAO is inviting other local governments. The EAO is not inviting community groups – they will be able to make their views known during the public consultation process.
Staff will confirm the dates for public consultation period for the dAIR.
BURNCO will then conduct the field work and produce the reports and documents required by the AIR. Once this is done there will be a period where the application is reviewed for completeness (has BURNCO provided all the information required by the AIR). Then the application is complete and can be submitted; everything up to this point is part of the pre-application stage.
The application then undergoes a public consultation period where the actual information is examined for accuracy. When this period is finished the EAO reviews the comments and can ask BURNCO to provide additional information or move the application forward to the Ministers responsible for approving or refusing the environmental certificate; the Ministers may also ask for additional information.
Next Steps – Rezoning Application
The Board resolved to place Bylaw 310.147 on hold pending receipt of the Application Information Requirements. When the AIR is approved then staff will provide a report updating the Directors and seeking direction with respect to Bylaw 310.147 (BURNCO rezoning application to allow for processing). Updates will also be posted on the SCRD website.
SUMMARY
It appears that the breadth of information that will be provided covers the natural environment and physical aspects of the project. No obvious gaps appear. However the headings and sub-headings are broad. Thus it is useful to note the concerns expressed regarding specific issues.
The following comments should be provided to the Environmental Assessment Officer as items that the SCRD wishes to see included or emphasized in the final AIR:
a) Environmental impact on key species such as eel-grass, forage fish and cetaceans (especially from increased barge movement) needs to be emphasized and appropriate studies provided;
b) Consideration should be given to making improvements to the foreshore area, that may have suffered from the impacts of previous forestry and industrial activity, in light of the proposed loading and barge facility;
c) There is a gap relating to assessing the potential impact on economic activity such as tourism, resulting from the mine;
d) Include a section on the environmental recovery of Howe Sound, including estimated investment to date that achieved the current improvements and any proposed reclamation projects, the objective is to assess what impact the mine (including barge activity and potential accidents) could have on the on-going recovery of Howe Sound;
e) As mitigation/benefit the air should include a review of improvements such as new trails, kayak landing near or on the site.
24
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee (April 4, 2013) Regarding BURNCO draft AIR Page 6 of 6
N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.147\2013-Apr-04 ISC report re BURNCO draft AIR.docx
The dAIR should be forwarded to interested groups for information and these groups should also be notified when the public consultation period starts in order for them to provide comments, either directly to the EAO or through the SCRD. The list of groups should be:
• West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission,
• Natural Resources Advisory Committee,
• West Howe Sound Community Association,
• Howe Sound Community Forum, and
• Future of Howe Sound Society;
The SCRD can also provide additional comments during the public consultation period. Staff will provide a report to set out any additional comments during this period.
_________________________
David Rafael, Senior Planner
25
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
Tab’e of Contents
PREFACE TO THE AIR/EIS GUIDELINES ii
TABLE OF CONCORDANCE iii
PREFACE TO THE EAC APPLICATION / EIS iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
PART A — INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND I
1.0 PURPOSE OF THE EAC APPLICATIONIEIS I
2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT OVERVIEW 2
2.1 Proponent Description 2
2.2 Proposed Project Description ...., 3
2.2.1 Project Location 4
2.2.1.1 Site History 4
222 Project Background 5
2.2.3 Project Components 6
2.2.3.1 Aggregate Pit Development 7
2.2.3.2 Processing 7
2.2.3.3 Marine Loading Facility and Barging 8
2.2.3.4 Other Facilities and Infrastructure and Alternatives 9
2.2.4 Project Emissions, Discharges and Waste 10
2.2.5 Reclamation, Closure and Monitoring 10
2.2.6 Labour 11
2.2.7 Costs 11
2.3 Provincial Scope of Proposed Project 11
2.4 Federal Scope of Proposed Project 11
2.5 Alternate Means of Undertaking the Proposed Project 12
2.6 Proposed Project Land Use 12
2.7 Proposed Project Benefits 12
2.8 Applicable Permits and Approvals 13
DRAFT ix
ATTACHMENT A
26
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
3.0 EA REVIEW PROCESS 15
3.1 Provincial EA Review Process 15
3.2 Federal Review 15
3.3 First Nations Information Distribution and Consultation 16
3.3.1 Pre-Application 16
3.3.2 Consultation Planned During EAC Application/EIS Review 16
3.4 Public and Agency Information Distribution and Consultation 16
3.4.1 Pre-Application Consultation 16
3.4.2 Consultation Planned during EAC Application/EIS Review 16
PART B — ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUALEFFECTS 17
4.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS 17
4.1 General 17
4.2 Valued Component Selection 17
4.3 Spatial Boundaries 23
4.4 Temporal Boundaries 23
4.5 Compilation of Relevant Background Information 24
4.6 Assessment of Effects 24
4.6.1 Interactions with the Biophysical and Human Environment 24
4 6 2 Consideration of Proposed Mitigation Measures 24
4.6.3 Determination of Significance of Residual Effects 24
4.6.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment 25
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 30
5.1 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat 30
5.1.1 Introduction 30
5.1.2 Regulatory/Policy Selling 30
5.1.3 Assessment Methodology 30
5.1.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 30
5.1.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 31
5.1.3.3 Assessment Methods 31
5.1.4 Baseline Conditions 32
DRAFT x
27
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
5.1.5 Effects Assessment 34
5.1.6 Mitigation 34
5.1.7 Prediction and Assessment of Residual and Cumulative Effects 35
5.1.8 Conclusions 35
5.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation 35
5.2.1 Introduction 35
5.2.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 35
5.2.3 Assessment Methodology 36
5.2.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 36
5 2 3 2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 36
5.2.3.3 Assessment Methods 36
5.2.4 Baseline Conditions 37
5.2.5 Effects Assessment 38
5.2.6 Mitigation 39
5.2.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 39
5.2.8 Conclusions 39
5.3 Geotechnical and Natural Hazards 40
5.3.1 Introduction 40
5.3.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 40
5.3.3 Assessment Methodology 40
5.3.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 40
5.3.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 40
5.3.3.3 Assessment Methods 41
5.3.4 Baseline Conditions 41
5.3.5 Effects Assessment 42
5.3.6 Mitigation 42
5.3.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 43
5.3.8 Conclusions 43
5.4 Surface Water Resources 43
5.4.1 Introduction 43
5.4.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 43
DRAFT xi
28
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
5.4.3 Assessment Methodology 43
5.4.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 43
5.4.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 43
5.4.3.3 Assessment Methods 44
5.4.4 Baseline Conditions 44
5.4.5 Effects Assessment 45
5 4 6 Mitigation 46
5.4.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 46
5.4.8 Conclusions 46
5.5 Groundwater Resources 46
5.5.1 Introduction 46
5.5.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 46
5.5.3 Assessment Methodology 47
5.5.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 47
5.5.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 47
5.5.3.3 Assessment Methods 47
5 5 4 Baseline Conditions 48
5.5.5 Effects Assessment 49
5.5.6 Mitigation 50
5.5.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 50
5.5.8 Conclusions 50
5.6 Air Quality 50
5.6.1 Introduction 50
5.6.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 50
5.6.3 Assessment Methodology 51
5.6.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 51
5.6.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 51
5.6.3.3 Assessment Methods 51
5.6.4 Baseline Conditions 52
5.6.5 Effects Assessment 52
5.6.6 Mitigation Measures 53
DRAFT xii
29
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
5.6.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 53
5.6.8 Conclusions 53
5.7 Climate Change 53
5.7.1 Introduction 53
5.7.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 53
5.7.3 Assessment Methodology 54
5.7.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 54
5.7.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 54
5.7.3.3 Assessment Methods 54
5 7 4 Baseline Conditions 54
5 7 5 Effects Assessment 55
5.7.6 Mitigation 55
5.7.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 55
5 7 8 Conclusions 55
5.8 Summary of Environmental Effects 55
6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC EFFECTS 57
6.1 Sustainable Economy 57
6.1.1 Introduction 57
6.1.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 57
6.1.3 Assessment Methodology 57
6.1.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 57
6.1.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 57
6.1.3.3 Assessment Methods 58
6.1.4 Baseline Conditions 59
6.1.5 Effects Assessment 59
6.1.6 Mitigation 60
6.1.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 60
6.1.8 Conclusions 60
6.2 Summary of Economic Effects 60
7.0 ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL EFFECTS 62
7.1 Social Conditions 62
DRAFT xiii
30
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
7.1.1 Introduction 62
7.1.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 62
7.1.3 Assessment Methodology 62
7.1.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 62
7.1.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 62
7.1.3.3 Assessment Methods 63
7 1 4 Baseline Conditions 63
7.1.5 Effects Assessment
7.1.6 Mitigation 64
7.1.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 65
7.1.8 Conclusions 65
7.2 Marine Transportation 65
7.2.1 Introduction 65
7.2.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 65
7.2.3 Assessment Methodology 65
7.2.3.1 Value Component (VC) ldentifcation 65
7.2.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 65
7.2.3.3 Assessment Methods :. 66
7.2.4 Baseline Conditions 66
7.2.5 Effects Assessment 66
7.2.6 Mitigation 67
7.2.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 67
7.2.8 Conclusions 67
7.3 Non-Traditional Land and Resource Use 67
7.3.1 Introduction 87
7.3.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 68
7.3.3 Assessment Methodology 68
7.3.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 68
7.3.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 68
7.3.3.3 Assessment Methods 68
7.3.4 Baseline Conditions 69
DRAFT xiv
31
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
7.3.5 Effects Assessment 69
7.3.6 Mitigation 70
7.3.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 70
7.3.8 Conclusions 70
7.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 71
7.4.1 Introduction 71
7 4 2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 71
7.4.3 Assessment Methodology 71
7.4.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 71
7.4.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 71
7.4.3.3 Assessment Methods 71
7.4.4 Baseline Conditions 72
7.4.5 Effects Assessment 73
7.4.6 Mitigation 73
7.4.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 73
7.4.8 Conclusions 74
7.5 Summary of Social Effects 74
8.0 ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE EFFECTS 75
8.1 Heritage Resources 75
8.1.1 Introduction 75
8.1.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 75
8.1.3 Assessment Methodology 75
8.1.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 75
8.1.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 75
8.1.3.3 Assessment Methods 76
8.1.4 Baseline Conditions 77
8.1.5 Effects Assessment 77
8.1.6 Mitigation 77
8.1.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 78
8.1.8 Conclusions 78
8.2 Summary of Heritage Effects 78
DRAFT xv
32
DRAFT AIR1EIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
9.0 ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH EFFECTS 79
9.1 Public Health 79
9.1.1 Introduction 79
9.1.2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 79
9.1.3 Assessment Methodology 79
9.1.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 79
9.1.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 79
9.1.3.3 Assessment Methods 80
9.1.4 Baseline Conditions 81
9 1 5 Effects Assessment 81
9.1.6 Mitigation 81
9.1.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 82
9.1.8 Conclusions 82
9.2 Noise 82
9.2.1 Introduction 82
9 2 2 Regulatory/Policy Setting 82
9.2.3 Assessment Methodology 82
9.2.3.1 Value Component (VC) Identification 82
9.2.3.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 83
9.2.3.3 Assessment Methods 83
9.2.4 Baseline Conditions 84
9.2.5 Effects Assessment 84
9.2.6 Mitigation 85
9.2.7 Assessment and Prediction of Residual and Cumulative Effects 85
9.2.8 Conclusions 85
9.3 Summary of Health Effects 86
PART C — FIRST NATIONS INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 87
10.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 87
10.1 Aboriginal Rights 87
10.2 Other Aboriginal Interests 87
10.3 Aboriginal Consultation 87
DRAFT xvi
33
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
10.4 Summary 88
PART D — FEDERAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 89
11.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 89
PART E — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND FOLLOW-UP 91
12.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 91
12.1 Construction Environmental Management Programme 91
12.2 Operational Environmental Management Programme 92
13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP PROGRAMS 93
PART F — CONCLUSIONS AND COMMITMENTS 94
14.0 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS 94
15.0 SUMMARY OF COMMITMENTS AND ASSURANCES 95
16.0 CONCLUSION 96
PART G — REFERENCES AND APPENDICES .97
17.0 REFERENCES 97
18.0 APPENDICES 98
TABLES
Table 1: Table of Concordance between the Approved AIR/EIS Guidelines and the EAC Application/EIS for theProposed BURNCO Aggregate Project iii
Table 2: Preliminary List of Required Permits and Approvals 13
Table 3: Valued Components (VCs) and Selection Criteria 19
Table 4: Cumulative Projects and Activities under Consideration 28
Table 5: Summary of Predicted Residual Environmental Effects 56
Table 6: Economic Effects Assessment Spatial Boundaries by VC 58
Table 7: Summary of Predicted Residual Economic Effects 61
Table 8: Social Condition Effects Assessment Spatial Boundaries by VC 63
Table 9: Summary of Predicted Residual Social Effects 74
Table 10: Summary of Predicted Residual Heritage Effects 78
Table 11: Summary of Predicted Residual Health Effects 86
Table 12: Summary of Potential Effects on Aboriginal Rights/Interests and Accommodation Measures 88
Table 13: Summary of Predicted Residual Effects 94
Table 14: BURNCO’s Commitments for the BURNCO Aggregate Project 95
DRAFT xvii
34
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Plan
Figure 2: Site and Surrounding Area Plan
Figure 3: Proposed Conceptual Site Layout
Figure 4: Proposed and Existing Barge Shipping Routes
Figure 5: Socioeconomic Study Area
Figure 6: Marine, Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation RSA
Figure 7 Marine Fish Wildlife and Vegetation LSA
Figure 8 BCEAO Cumulative Assessment Process
DRAFT xviii
35
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
PART B - ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION ANDSIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS
4.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS
41 General
The EAC Application/EIS will provide a clear description of the methods used to conduct the assessment and will
specifically include the following information:
• Scope of the environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health effects assessments;
• A description of the agencies, First Nations, and stakeholders that reviewed and commented on the draft
AIR / EIS Guidelines
• A description of how consultations with the public, stakeholders, First Nations, and government agencies on
the scoping and identification of issues to be addressed in the assessment;
a A list of the guidance documents provided by agencies used to develop the assessment methodology;
• Methods used for assessing potential effects of the Proposed Project, including identification of the criteria
used to characterise effects in support of the evaluation of the sigruficance of effects (i.e., magnitude,
geographic extent, duration and frequency, reversibility,context and probability) for construction, operation,
and reclamation and closure phases of the Proposed Project;4
• Description/reference for each standard used in baseline studies and assessment analyses; and
a List of applicable best management practices, and guidance documents that will be implemented.
4.2 Vahied Component Section
The EAC Application/EIS will describe the general methodology used to identify the valued components (VCs)
for each discipline specific study used in the effect assessment. VCs are the key indicators of the environmental,
social, economic, heritage c- health environment that are considered important by the Proponent, public, First
Nations, scientist and government agencies involved in the assessment of potential effects during the
construction, operation and reclamation and closure phases of the Proposed Project.
VCs are selected through development of the AIR/EIS Guidelines and reflect regulatory issues and guidelines,
potential First Nations concerns, issues identified by government agencies, stakeholders, professional judgment
and key sensitive resources, species or social and heritage values. VCs for the biophysical environment are
typically major components, such as wildlife or vegetation, or are aspects of the physical and biological
environment that are widely recognized as important for ecological resources. Representative VCs for the
socio-cultural and economic environment are aspects of the human environment that include such components
as economy, employment and business, land use, communities or community life, and traditional land and
resource access and use.
DRAFT 17
ATTACHMENT B
36
DRAFT AIRIEIS GUIDELINES (REV. 1.0)PROPOSED BURNCO AGGREGATE PROJECT
VCs will be scoped and identified based on the following criteria:
• Focus and identification of the issues of greatest concern and relevance to the Proposed Project associatedwith the biophysical conditions and culturaVsocioeconomic (human) resources of the Project area;
• Identification of measurable parameters to assess Project-specific effects and cumulative effects for eachVC;
• Regulatory requirements and issues raised by First Nations, the public and interested stakeholders;
a Assessment of spatial and temporal boundaries; and
• Integration of the cumulative effects assessment into the overall assessment of Project-related residualenvironmental effects.
Table 3 presents a preliminary list of VCs for inclusion in the EAC Application/EIS and provides a rationale forthe selection of each VC. VCs that have been identified are based on currently available information, includingongoing studies and experience in the site and region. VCs may be revised or updated based on consultationand additional information.
VCs will inblude measurement endpoints which will be used in the assesment to represent properties of theenvironment or a population, that when changed, could result in or contribute to a project-related effect whichmay alter an endpoint. Measurement endpoints may be quantitative (e.g., concentrations of chemical in tissuesof representative VC species, species density levels, and noise levels) or qualitative (e.g., distribution,movement and behaviour of wildlife from disturbance to travel corridors). Measurement endpoints are a valueused to assess whether there is an effect on a VC (e.g., population persistence for a VC species). Measurementendpoints represent an ecological, economic or social basis for evaluation of the significance of residual effects.
DRAFT 18
37
DR
AFT
AIR
IEIS
GU
IDE
LIN
ES
(RE
V,
tO)-
PR
OP
OS
ED
BU
RN
CO
AG
GR
EG
AT
EP
RO
JEC
T
Tab
le3:
Val
ued
Com
ponen
ts(V
Cs)
and
Sel
ecti
on
Cri
teri
a
Dis
cipl
inel
The
me
IV
alue
dC
om
ponen
t(s)
Def
init
ion
and!o
rS
up
po
rtin
gR
atio
nal
e
Envir
onm
ent
Ana
drom
ous
chum
,co
hosa
lmon
and
Cut
thro
attr
out
spec
ies
and
thei
rha
bita
ts
Fish
spec
ies
are
appr
opri
ate
“sen
tinel
s”ch
uman
dco
hosa
lmon
and
trou
tar
1,ro
1.so
me
mar
ine
fish
habi
tats
and
i”ir1
che
Pro
jfi
shsp
ecie
sw
ere
iden
tifie
d.s
ent
with
inth
for
chum
and
coho
salm
c.i
Cut
thro
attr
out.
hev
alua
teal
lfis
hsp
ed.
VC
s(H
illet
a!.
2006
).i-
rank
edth
ehi
ghes
t thr
o,sc
reen
in’
“th
efo
lIow
in
•D
istr
ibut
ion
with
inth
eje
r’
•R
egu
stat
us(s
pec.
risk)
;
•S
elec
tv
‘bita
tre
qui
‘ent
s;•
Posi
tior,
the
hai
n;
Mar
ine
Ben
thic
com
mun
ities
(fau
naan
dfl
ora)
___________
aila
bilit
y•i
form
atio
n.
oat
trou
ti
‘sid
ent f
ish
spec
ies
inst
ream
sw
ithin
the
Proj
ect
area
and
isan
:..fe
indi
c.r
ofth
eye
ar-r
ound
habi
tat
use
and
cond
ition
s.C
utth
roat
trou
tis
..iist
ribt.a
“n.n
ysi
mila
rfr
eshw
ater
syst
ems
inth
ere
gion
and
has
recr
eatio
nal
econ
omic
rst
Nat
ions
impo
rtan
ceC
utth
roat
trou
tis
posi
tione
dhi
ghin
the
aqua
tic
‘ood
chai
n,an
dha
ssp
ecif
icha
bita
tre
quir
emen
ts.
qual
ityof
mar
ine
sedi
men
taf
fect
sth
equ
ality
ofha
bita
tfor
bent
hic
com
mun
ities
,as
vas
the
qual
ityof
over
layi
ngw
ater
colu
mn.
The
qual
ityof
this
VC
may
beaf
fect
edby
hist
oric
alor
curr
ent
oper
atio
nsan
dac
tiviti
es,
and/
orfu
ture
activ
ities
orop
erat
ions
asso
ciat
edw
ithPr
ojec
tdu
ring
both
the
cons
truc
tion
and
oper
atio
nph
ases
.S
edim
ent
qual
itym
aybe
affe
cted
thro
ugh
sedi
men
tre
susp
ensi
on,
silta
tion
orac
cide
ntal
rele
ase
ofch
emic
als.
The
VC
mea
sure
men
ten
dpoi
nts
are
phys
ical
(par
ticle
size
com
posi
tion)
and
chem
ical
(e.g
.,m
etal
san
dco
ntam
inan
tco
ncen
trat
ions
)co
mpo
sitio
n.
Impa
cts
can
resu
ltfr
omth
ein
stal
latio
nof
mar
ine
faci
litie
s(h
abita
tlo
ss),
chan
ges
inw
ater
and
sedi
men
tqu
ality
,in
crea
sed
navi
gatio
n,an
dac
cide
ntal
rele
ase
ofto
xic
subs
tanc
es.
Abu
ndan
ce,
taxo
nom
icco
mpo
sitio
n,an
ddi
vers
ityof
bent
hic
com
mun
ities
are
good
indi
cato
rsof
the
qual
ityof
the
mar
ine
habi
tat.
Fis
heri
esan
dA
quat
icH
abit
at
‘eov
eral
laq
uati
csy
stem
.A
nadr
omou
se
indi
cato
rsof
seas
onal
fres
hwat
eran
dar
ea.
Ato
tal
ofsi
xsa
lmon
and
trou
toj
ecta
rea
and
are
pref
erre
dha
bita
ts‘o
tpr
actic
alto
iden
tify
and
b-se
tof
VC
sw
asse
lect
edth
at‘r
ibut
es:
a U
Fre
shw
ater
resi
dent
trou
tan
t..ir
Ci’
habi
tats
(Cut
thro
attr
out)
Com
mer
Iand
P‘I
cim
nce;
crea
tio
‘.
irst
r..
‘im
port
ance
;an
d
Mar
ine
Seo.
‘nt
DR
AFT
.19
38
CD
RA
FT
AIR
IEIS
GU
IDE
LIN
ES
(RE
V.
1.0
)-
PR
OP
OS
ED
BU
RN
CO
AG
GR
EG
AT
EP
RO
JEC
T
Mig
rato
ryM
arin
eB
irds
,T
axa
liste
dun
der
the
fede
ral
Spe
cies
atR
isk
Act
(SA
RA
);an
dR
ed(e
ndan
gere
dor
thre
aten
ed)
orB
lue-
list
ed(s
peci
alco
ncer
n)sp
ecie
s;.
Mig
rato
ryse
abir
dsw
hose
know
nra
nge
over
laps
the
Pro
ject
stud
yar
ea;
and
.T
hes
egr
oups
may
beaf
fect
edby
chan
ges
inno
ise
cond
itio
ns(d
urin
gco
nstr
ucti
on),
light
cond
itio
ns,
wat
eran
dse
dim
ent
qual
ity,
phys
ical
pre
sence
ofm
arin
efa
cili
ties
and
incr
ease
dna
viga
tion
.M
arin
eM
amm
als
•T
axa
list
edun
der
the
fede
ral
Spe
cies
atR
isk
Act
(SA
RA
);an
dR
ed(e
ndan
gere
dor
thre
aten
ed)
orB
lue-
list
ed(s
peci
alco
ncer
n)sp
ecie
s(e
.g.,
Ste
ller
Sea
Lio
n,G
rey
Wha
le,
Sou
ther
nK
iller
Wha
le,
Har
bour
Por
pois
e)T
erre
stri
alW
ildlif
ean
dT
erre
stri
alS
peci
esat
Ris
kan
dth
eir
•Pr
ovin
cial
lyR
ed(e
ndan
gere
dor
thre
aten
ed)
orB
lue-
list
ed(s
peci
alco
ncer
n)ta
xa;
Veg
etat
ion
habi
tat:
•T
axa
liste
dun
der
the
prov
inci
alIn
tegr
ated
Wild
life
Man
agem
ent
Str
ateg
y(I
WM
S);
aA
mph
ibia
nsp
ecie
sat
risk
•T
axa
list
edun
der
the
fede
ral
Spe
cies
atR
isk
Act
(SA
RA
);•
Wes
tern
scre
ech
owl
aR
egio
nall
yIm
port
ant W
ildlif
e;•
Com
mon
nigh
thaw
k•
Mig
rato
rybi
rds
who
sekn
own
rang
eov
erla
psth
eP
roje
ctst
udy
area
;•
Nor
ther
nG
osha
wk
•Pr
ovin
cial
ly(r
ed!
blue
)lis
ted
orse
nsit
ive/
uniq
ueec
osy
stem
sw
hich
may
occu
rat
ora
Ban
d-ta
iled
pige
onad
jace
ntto
the
Pro
pose
dpr
ojec
tco
uld
beaf
fect
edby
chan
ges
toar
eaco
ndit
ions
aM
arbl
edm
urre
let
incl
udin
gcl
eari
ngof
vege
tati
onor
chan
ges
tohy
drol
ogic
alre
gim
es;
aR
oose
velt
Elk
•T
axa
orsu
btax
aof
prov
inci
ally
(red
!bl
ue-l
iste
d)an
d/or
fede
rall
y(u
nder
Sch
edul
eI
aG
rizz
lybea
rof
SAR
A)
desi
gnat
edpl
ant
spec
ies
whi
chm
ayoc
cur
with
inth
eP
ropo
sed
proj
ect
area
coul
dbe
affe
cted
byal
tera
tion
sor
loss
ofha
bita
t;an
d
Veg
etat
ion:
•S
peci
esor
spec
ies
grou
pskn
own
tooc
cur
ator
adja
cent
toth
eP
ropo
sed
proj
ect
area
.C
hang
esto
nois
eor
light
regi
mes
coul
daf
fect
norm
alsp
ecie
sbe
havi
our
aE
nvir
onm
enta
lly
Sen
siti
vesu
chas
nest
ing
orfo
ragi
ng.
Eco
syst
ems
•R
are
plan
ts
Geo
tech
nica
lan
dT
erra
inst
abili
tyan
dea
rthq
uake
sa
Roa
dan
dsi
teco
nstr
ucti
onan
dcl
eari
ngca
nin
crea
seth
ech
ance
sof
land
slid
esan
dN
atur
alH
azar
dsgr
ound
stab
ility
;
Sno
wav
alan
ches
•C
ould
indu
ceea
rthq
uake
driv
eli
quef
acti
on,
and
faul
tru
ptur
es;
Cli
mat
ea
Min
eop
erat
ion
may
crea
tene
wav
alan
che
trig
ger
zone
s;an
da
May
incr
ease
stor
mev
ent
freq
uenc
y,se
asu
rge.
DR
AFT
20
39
DR
AF
TA
IR
IE
IS
GU
ID
EL
IN
ES
(R
EV
.1
.0
)-
PR
OP
OS
ED
BU
RN
CO
AG
GR
EG
AT
EP
RO
JE
CT
Sur
face
Wat
erW
ater
quan
tity:
base
flow
,hi
ghflo
w•
Min
eop
erat
ion
may
alte
rco
ntri
butio
nto
base
flow
sin
wat
erco
urse
s;an
d
Res
ourc
es•
Min
eop
erat
ion
may
alte
rru
noff
;
Wat
erqu
ality
:su
spen
ded
sedi
men
ts,
•In
crea
sein
TSS
IT
DS
may
alte
rcl
arity
and
qual
ityof
runo
ffan
dba
seflo
w;
and
chem
ical
qual
ity•
Acc
iden
tal
rele
ase
ofch
emic
als
may
alte
rcl
arity
and
qual
ityof
runo
ffan
dba
seflo
w.
Gro
undw
ater
Gro
undw
ater
regi
me
and
Res
ourc
esgr
ound
wat
erqu
ality
•M
ine
oper
atio
nm
ayal
ter
loca
lgr
ound
wat
erre
gim
eby
low
erin
gw
ater
leve
ls,
redu
cein
filtra
tion
rate
sfr
oman
dto
adja
cent
river
san
dcr
eeks
;an
d
•M
ine
oper
atio
nm
ayal
low
mar
ine
wat
erin
filtra
tion
into
the
aggr
egat
epi
t.
Air
Qua
lity
Air
Qua
lity
BC
Am
bien
tAir
Qua
lity
Obj
ectiv
es(A
AQ
O)
and
Nat
iona
lA
mbi
entA
irQ
ualit
yO
bjec
tives
(NA
AQ
O)
forS
O2,
NO2,
Dus
tFa
Il,P
M10,
PM2.5.
Com
pari
son
with
back
grou
ndan
dba
seli
neco
nditi
ons
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Gre
enH
ouse
Gas
esC
ompa
riso
nw
ithto
tals
acro
ssC
anad
ain
clud
ing
BC
,Alb
erta
and
allt
erri
tori
es.
Eco
nom
ic
Sus
tain
able
Eco
nom
yR
egio
nal
econ
omic
deve
lopm
ent
•Pr
ojec
tw
illof
fer
new
cont
ract
ing
oppo
rtun
ities
,w
hich
may
resu
ltin
dive
rsif
icat
ion
Lab
our
mar
ket
and
expa
nsio
nof
the
loca
lec
onom
y;
Loc
algo
vern
men
tre
venu
e•
Proj
ect
labo
urde
man
ddu
ring
cons
truc
tion
and
oper
atio
nph
ases
will
draw
upon
RI
labo
ursu
pply
inth
evi
cini
tyof
the
Proj
ect
and
effe
cts
wou
ldbe
adve
rse
orbe
nefi
cial
eaes
tate
depe
ndin
gon
cond
ition
sth
atpr
evai
lat
the
time
this
dem
and
ente
rsth
em
arke
t;
!•Po
tent
ial
chan
gein
loca
lgo
vern
men
tex
pend
itur
ean
dre
venu
est
ream
s;an
d
Pre
senc
eof
Proj
ect
cons
truc
tion,
infr
astr
uctu
rean
d/or
oper
atio
nsm
ayaf
fect
loca
l
prop
erty
valu
esan
dth
elo
cal
owne
rs’
use
ofth
eir
real
esta
te.
Soc
ial
Soc
ial
Con
diti
ons
Hou
sing
and
Acc
omm
odat
ion
•T
empo
rary
infl
uxof
Pro
ject
cons
truc
tion
wor
kers
may
lead
topre
ssure
son
Em
erge
ncy
Ser
vice
sac
com
mod
atio
nav
aila
bilit
yan
dco
stan
din
crea
sed
dem
and
for
acco
mm
odat
ion
has
the
pote
ntia
lto
gen
erat
ein
crem
enta
lre
venu
esfo
rlo
cal
prov
ider
s;an
d
aPr
ojec
tco
nstr
uctio
nan
dop
erat
ion
ina
rem
ote
loca
tion
coul
daf
fect
emer
genc
yre
spon
se_a
bilit
ies
and
cost
ofem
erge
ncy_
serv
ices
.
Mar
ine
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Mar
ine
Nav
igat
ion
•C
hang
ein
vess
eltr
affi
c
aP
hysi
cal
inte
rfer
ence
DR
AFT
21
.Q
40
CD
RA
FT
AIR
IEIS
GU
IDE
LIN
ES
(RE
V.
1.0
)-
PR
OP
OS
ED
BU
RN
CO
AG
GR
EG
AT
EP
RO
JE
CT
Non
-Tra
diti
onal
Lan
dF
ores
try
•C
onve
rsio
nof
fore
sted
priv
ate
land
sto
non-
fore
stry
use
san
dpo
tent
ial
chan
gein
Use
Har
vest
ing
fish
and
wild
life
acce
ssto
Cro
wn
fore
sted
land
san
das
soci
ated
chan
gein
tim
ber
harv
esti
ngan
d
Rec
reat
ion
and
tour
ism
woo
dpr
oces
sing
..
Pro
ject
may
affe
ctre
side
ntan
dto
uris
tac
cess
toan
duse
ofou
tdoo
rre
crea
tion
Min
eral
san
dA
ggre
gate
sar
eas
and
reso
urc
esad
jace
ntto
and
inth
eP
roje
ctac
tivity
zones
.;•
Pro
ject
may
affe
ctac
cess
toan
dus
eof
tenu
red
guid
eou
tfitt
ing
and
trap
ping
area
s;•
The
Pro
ject
may
chan
geen
viro
nmen
tal
sett
ing,
fish
and
wild
life
popu
lati
ons
and
oppo
rtun
itie
sto
trap
,hu
ntan
dfi
sh;
and
•T
heP
roje
ctw
illaf
fect
acce
ssto
and
deve
lopm
ent
ofm
iner
alan
dag
gre
gat
ete
nure
san
d_de
posi
ts.
Vis
ual
and
Aes
thet
icV
isua
lQ
ualit
y•
Vis
ual
qual
ityof
the
surr
ound
ing
land
scap
eco
uld
pote
ntia
lly
bead
vers
ely
affe
cted
Res
ou
rces
byth
epre
sence
ofag
gre
gat
epi
tan
dpr
oces
sing
infr
astr
uctu
re,
mar
ine
barg
elo
adin
gpr
oces
sing
and
barg
elo
adin
gfa
cili
ties
light
ing
and
barg
esh
ippi
ng.
Her
itag
eH
erit
age
Res
ourc
esP
aleo
ntol
ogic
alre
sourc
esC
onst
ruct
ion
and
oper
atio
nof
the
Pro
pose
dP
roje
ctco
uld
dire
ctly
orin
dire
ctly
affe
ctA
rcha
eolo
gica
lre
sourc
esj
heri
tage
reso
urce
sn
the
Poj
ect A
rea
Hea
lthPu
blic
Hea
lthW
ater
qual
ity•P
ubli
che
alth
issu
esin
clud
ing
chan
geto
wat
erqu
ality
and
air
qual
itywi
llbe
Air
qual
ityin
teqr
ated
acro
ssal
ldi
scip
lines
ina
sing
lere
port
asa
who
leto
addr
ess
accu
mul
atio
not
man
ypo
tent
ial
issu
esho
listic
ally
rath
erth
anin
divi
dual
lyw
ithin
disc
iplin
esp
ecif
icre
port
sN
oise
Noi
sele
vels
Pote
ntia
lno
ise
effe
cts
ofth
ePr
opos
edPr
ojec
ton
seas
onal
sem
i-pe
rman
ent
and
perm
anen
tre
side
nts
inpr
oxim
ity.
DR
AFT
22
41