Public Hearing Minutes - FTP Directory Listing

Transcription

RDOS Regular Board Meeting
Agenda Item 4.1.4.1
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING HELD MONDAY, JULY
NARAMATA OLD AGE PENSIONERS (OAP) HALL, 330
REGARDING THE ELECTORAL AREA ‘E’ NARAMATA
AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2458.07, 2013 AND ELECTORAL
BYLAW NO. 2459.11, 2013
(E01363.000 Mark Anthony Properties Ltd. / Paradise Ranch)
-
29, 2013 AT 7:00 PM. AT THE
3’ STREET, NARAMATA, B.C.
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
AREA ‘E’ ZONING AMENDMENT
—
Present
Representing
Karla Kozakevich, Chair
Malcolm McNaughton, Planner
Gillian Cramm, Recording Secretary
Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen
5 members of the public
The Chair declared the public hearing open at 7:20 p.m. and explained the process of the public
hearing. It was noted that a binder is available which includes all written comments received to date
and the Chair invited anyone wishing to review the comments to do so.
The Planner outlined the proposed bylaw amendment application.
The Chair asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed bylaws.
Sandy Wilson asked if there was a map that showed the proposed zoning designation.
The Planner explained the rationale for the proposed zoning designation.
Matthew Lebedoff, applicant, stated that the ALC had many conditions in order to allow land to be
taken out of ALR and other land to be put in. He noted that there is a separate lot at the gate. One of
the ALC conditions is that any future winery could not be on agricultural land.
The Planner stated that there is a footprint allotment for each lot allowing for a house and out
buildings.
Mr. Lebedoff stated that Golder and Associates monitor the riparian areas every week.
Ms. Wilson asked about water.
Mr. Lebedoff stated that they have water rights from the lake. Chute Lake water is used for irrigation.
Ms. Wilson asked about a “bed & breakfast”.
Mr. Lebedoff stated that a “bed & breakfast” was the backup plan if the zoning did not go through.
Public Hearing Minutes
Mark Anthony Properties (E01363.000)
July 29. 2013
Page 1
The Planner explained how a lodge would have been allowed under the current zoning, while a house
would not.
Marnie Kelly asked about plans for the road.
Mr. Lebedoff stated that they have no plans to do anything with the road. They might move the gate
back as MOT will want to build a turnaround. The owner wants a private driveway, not a highway.
The Chair asked a second time if there was anyone who wished to speak further to the proposed
bylaws.
The Chair asked a third time if there was anyone who wished to speak further to the proposed bylaws
and hearing none, declared the public hearing closed at 7:46 p.m.
I hereby certify this to be a fair and accurate summary of the nature of the representations made by
the public at the hearing held on July 29, 2013 with regard to Bylaw Nos. 2458.07 and 2459.11
Chair
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Public Hearing Minutes
Mark Anthony Properties (E01363.000)
July29, 2013
Page 2
.
RCVD
Agrkultural Land Commission
V5G 4K6
,lx
www.alc.gov.bc.ca
June 11,2013
ALC Files: 53021 (inclusion), 53022 (exclusio
n)
Mark Anthony Properties Ltd.
500 887 Great Northern Way
BC V5T 4T5
—
Attention Matt Lebedoff
Re:
Applications to Include Land into and Excl
ude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve (ALR)
The Provincial Agricultural Land Commission
(the “Commission”) acknowledges receipt
of your
original proposal (via the above applications)
to include ±3.81 ha into the ALR (of which
the
majority is in vineyard cultivation) and to exclude
±3.99 ha from the ALR (of which roughly
half is
in vineyard cultivation) for future non-farm uses
.
You will recall an on-site meeting was held on
February 28, 2013 involving yourself,
Commissioners Richard Bullock, Bert Miles
and Jim Johnson and ALC staff members
Martin
Collins and Ron Wallace. From that meeting
the Commissioners learned about your
progressive grape growing operation that has
developed significant portions of previously
vacant land into large pockets of cultivated vine
yards with, in many cases, overhead sprin
klers
and drip irrigation systems.
Also it was noted that the subject farm is comprise
d of six separate adjacent parcels of vary
ing
size with four parcels containing most of the
ALR land. In addition, it was noted the curre
nt ALR
boundaries do not include all the land currently
under cultivation. Further, as the staff
of the
has outlined in their consideration of the
application, the current zoning of the property
does not reflect the existing uses or the
proposed
future uses of the subject farm.
Through discussions it was believed by all parti
es the applicant, ALC staff and RDOS
staff
that an opportunity exists to amend the original
proposal which would achieve the objective
s of
the applicant, benefit agriculture and rezone/am
end the OCP to better reflect the current
and
proposed uses of the property.
—
—
On May 22, 2013 the Commission reviewed your
(the applicant’s) amended proposal as
outlined in your submissions dated May 1
Q and 17
th,
2013 and as shown via “Sketch Showing
Potential Subdivision Concept” prepared by McE
lhanney Associates Professional Land
Surveyors. Accordingly, the Commission supp
orts in principle the proposed amendments
follows:
as
•
•
The inclusion into the ALR of additional lands
from the applicant’s original proposal as
per the submitted McElhanney sketch plan.
The creation of two separate legal parcels cont
aining most of the subject farm’s ALR
land located below the current access road as
per the McElhanney sketch plan.
•
The proposed exclusion of ±4
ha
separate lot. The Commission from the ALR and that this area be created as a
exclude the “pie shaped shad remains undecided about the amended request to
ed area immediately north of
our
any additional land proposed
for exclusion beyond the curren road”. Please note that
that a new exclusion applica
t application, would require
tion be submitted.
• The creation of a separa
te lot as
constructing a family home for per the McElhanney sketch plan for the purpose of
the applicant.
• The dedication of a road
along the existing access roa
d within the subject farm.
• The construction of any
future winery on the subject
far
m be located on land outsid
the ALR.
e of
The Commission plans to ma
ke
scheduled for the week of Jul a final decision on this application during its next meetin
g
y 15, 2013. Please submit any
this application to the Comm
comments or questions regard
ission by June 28, 2013.
ing
Yours truly,
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTU
RAL LAND COMMISSION
Per:
Brian Underhill, Executive Dir
ector
cc: Regional District of Okana
gan-Similkameen
.
(E01363.000)
SUMMARY
AMENDMENT 3YLAW NOS. 2458.07 & 2459.11
Approval Recommended for Reasons
Outlined Below
Approval Recommended Subject to
Conditions Below
Signature:
ii-
Interests Unafiected by Bylaw
C Approval Not Recommended Due
to Reasons Outlined Below
Signed By:
I
Agency:
Date:
I4/+li
c’c4
—
Ara EE) 23.OCC’QCP_REZCNEagey retaIdoc
2 Cl 2
—L,
Title:
Fe4o E-l2-3l3f33O2
From: Cooper, Diana FLNR: EX [mailto: Diana.Coope
[email protected]]
Sent: October-10-12 12:54 PM
To: Planning
Subject: re: Bylaw Referral E12-01363.000
-
To whom it may concern:
Regarding the Bylaw Referral E12-01363.000. I have
checked Provincial records and there are 4
archaeological sites that fall within or are overlapped
by the properties indicated in the referral. Please
refer to the screen shot below for the approximate
locations of the sites.
-
DjQv-18, DjQv-11, DjQv-10 and DjO.v-9 are protected
under the Heritage Conservation Act and must not
be altered or damaged without a site alteration permit
from the Archaeology Branch. Given the
subsurface nature of archaeological deposits, boundaries
of archaeological sites are difficult to
determine without extensive subsurface testing. Theref
ore, any mapped boundaries are considered to
be approximate and it is possible that the site is more
or less extensive than currently mapped.
Additionally, archaeological potential mapping for
the area indicates that all of the area occupied
by
these properties has moderate to high potential to contain
unknown archaeological sites.
Prior to any land-altering activities (e.g. addition to home,
property redevelopment, extensive
landscaping, service installation), a qualified (able to
hold heritage inspection permits through the
Archaeology Branch) consulting archaeologist must
be engaged to determine the steps in managing
impacts to the archaeological site and to determine if
development activities are likely to impact
unknown archaeological sites. If the archaeologist deter
mines that development activities will not
impact any archaeological deposits, then a site alteration
permit is not required. Occupying an existing
dwelling or building without any land alterations does
not require archaeological study or permitting.
Archaeologists may be contacted through the BC Associ
ation of Professional Archaeologists
(www.bcapa.ca/) or through local yellow pages and online
directories. If your clients have additional
questions please ask them to visit the FAQ page at http:
//www.for.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/fag.htm and
the Property Owners and Developers web page at
http://www.for.gov. bc.ca/archaeology/property owners
and developersfindex.htm. If your clients
have further questions regarding the permitting process,
please contact Doug Glaum (Manager of
Permitting and Assessment, Archaeology Branch) at 250-95
3-3357 or [email protected].
Below is a screenshot showing the lots (outlined in yellow
) in relation to the archaeological sites
(labelled red polygons at this scale, some of them will
just be the labels). The brown/orange darker
shaded areas have high potential for unrecorded archae
ological sites. The remainder has moderate
potential to contain unrecorded archaeological sites.
Please feel free to contact me should you have
any questions regarding this data request.
—
Kind regards,
Diana
0117
/
I
035931479
/
DjQ9
01.18555
014702053
0J5950147
k
cnsio
f27053253
3J1826476
018653413
0J9204381 821 717
0J30
92
57
031
4
02557901
CL’
034830822
039880534
03920467
0J920406
c0787$O 034830806
015224431
038118906
Close-up of the smaller sites and
lots:
C0483h
931479
.7
Dl 4702053
Diana Cooper
Archaeologist/Archaeological Site Inventory
Information and Data Administrator
Archaeology Branch Ministry of Natu
ral Resource Operations
UnIt 3 1250 Quadra St, Victoria BC
V8W 2K7 I P0 Box 9816 Stn Prov
Govt Victoria BC V8W 9W3
1
Phone:
250-953-3343
Fax:
250-953-3340 Website: httD://ww
w.for,aov.bc.ca/archaeolppv/
-
I
Lcnd cor
l33—494OCcncc Wy
urncby, 3ris Cecrnba ‘/50 4K6
Tel: aO 660-7000
x: 604 660-, 033
www.clc.9ov.c.cQ
June 11,2013
500 887 Great Northern Way
Vanccuver, BC V5T 4T5
ALO Files: 53021 (inclusion),
53022 (exclusion)
—
Attention: Matt Lebedoff
Re:
ApDtications to lnclude Land
into and Exclude Land from
the Agricultura: Land
Reserve (ALR)
The Provincial Agricultural Lan
d Com
mission (the “Commission”)
original proposal (via the above
acknowledges receipt of you
r
applications) to inciude ±3.8 1
ha into the ALR (of which the
rnaority is in vineyard cultivaticn)
and to exclude ±3.99 ha from
the ALR (of which rougy ha
in vineyard cultivation) for future
non-farm uses.
s
You will recall an or-site meeting
was held on February 28, 201
3 invc:ving yourself.
Commissioners Richard Bullock
, Bert Miles and Jim Johnso
n and ALC staff members Aa
Collins and Ron Wallace. Fro
rt
m tha. meeting the Commiss
ioners learned about your
progressive grape growing cpe
raticn that has developed sign
iflcant portions of prevIously
vacant land into large pocket
s of cultivated vineyards with,
in many cases, overhead spri
and drip irrigation systems.
nklers
Also it was noted that the sub
ject farm. is comprised of six
separate adjacent parcels of
size with four parcels contain
varying
ing most of the ALR land. In
addition, it was ncted the cur
boundaries do not include a
rent ALR
the land current:y under cult
ivation. Further, as the staf
Regional District of Okanagan
f of the
-Similkameen has outlined in
their consideration of the
application, the current zoning
of the property does not refl
ect the existing uses or the
future uses of the subject farm
proposed
.
nrcugn cscuss:ons t was beli
eved cy a parnes the app
cant, A_C s:au and RDOS
that an opportunity exists to am
sarr
end the original proposal whi
ch wod achieve the objecti
the applicant, benefit agriculture
ves of
and rezone/amend the OCP
to better reflect the current
proposed uses of the property.
and
—
—
On May 22, 20 3 the Ccmmiss
ior reviewed your (the applica
nt’s) amended proposal as
cutllned in your submissions
dated May 1D and
2013 and as shown via “Sketch
Potential Subdivision Concept”
Showing
prepared by McEllanney As
sociates Professional Land
Sunieyors. Accordingly, the
Commission supports in principl
e the proposed amendme
follows:
nts as
.
ne :ncus:cn :rtc t.e A_.R cr
accn:cna, lands :rcrn me aPo
car: s ar:g:na propose. as
per the submitted McELann
sy sketch plan.
The creaticn of two separa:e
legal parcels containing mo
st of the subject farm’s ALR
and located belcw the curren
t access road as per the Mc
Ehanney ske:ch plan.
•
•
•
a
The proposed exclusion of 4
ha from The ALR and that t:s
area be created as a
separate tot. The Commission
remains undecided about the
excude the “pie shaped sha
amended request tc
ded area immediately north
of our road”. P!ease note
any additiona land proposed
that
for exclusion beyond the cur
rent application, would require
that a new exclusion apticatio
n be submitted.
The creation of a separate lot
as per the McElhanney sketch
plan for the purpose of
constructing a family home for
the applicant.
The dedication of a road alon
g the existing access road
within the subject farm.
The construction of any future
winery on the subject farm
“k
A?
be located on land outside
of
The Commission plans to mak
e a flna: decision on this app
lication during its next mee
scheculec for tne week of dul
ting
y 15, 2D
?,ease subm:t any comments
trs apphcat:on to tne Ccmm
or quest:ons regarcng
:sson cy une 28, 2013.
.
Yours truly,
PROVlNC:A.. A3R:oLTURA
LA.\D COMM:SS:QN
Per:
Brian Underhill, Executive Dir
ectcr
cc: egone Dstnct o Ok
anagan-S:m:kameen (E0136
3.D3D)
.
From: Withler, Carl AGRI:EX {mailto:C
[email protected]]
Sent: October-23-12 3:37 PM
To: Malcolm McNaughton
Subject: Referral response file:
E-12-01363.000 (Paradise Ran
ch)
Good afternoon Malcolm, our serv
ers are down so, can’t access
my referral response form tod
e-mail will suffice.
ay. I hope that this
I have now completed my review
of the soils report for Paradise
Ranch and can confirm that the
“interests are unaffected by the
Ministry’s
bylaw”. It is the opinion of the Min
istry that the proposed “correc
well as like for like agricultural cap
ted” zoning as
ability swap as proposed there
is no net loss of agricultural pro
foreseeable future. Ultimately
duction in the
, this decision is the jurisdiction
of the ALC and the Ministry cee
making authourities..
ds to its decision
Should you have questions or con
cerns regarding this note please,
call me at 250 861 7229. Che
ers.
Sacred cows make the best hambur
ger.... Qdark Twain)
Carl Withier P. Ag.
Resource Stewardship Agrolo
gist
Ministry of Agriculture
Interior Region
0
I
SUNINIIT
Report
ENVIRONMENTAL CO
NSULTANTS INC..
ember o the Assod
ated Enginee
Group of companies
Mark Anthony Gro
up
Agriculture Capabil
ity
Assessment Parad
ise
Ranch
-
Project: 2012-8181.00
0
October 2012
1
._
q
ENVIRONMENTAL CO
NS Ut TA N TS
suiJC
cu ca
Summit Environmental
i.
Consultuls Inc.
Suite 200, 2800 29 Stre
el
Vernon. B.C., Canada
V1T9P9
Tel 250.545.3672
Fa 250.545.3
www. summlt-environmenla 654
October 11, 2012
File:
l.com
2012-8181.000
Mark Anthony Group
do Mall Lebedoff
500-887 Great Northern
Way
Vancouver, B.C.
V5T 4TM
Re;
FiNAL REPORT AGRIC
ULTURE CAPABILITY
ASSESSMENT AT PA
NARAMATA, B.C.
RADISE RANCH,
—
Dear Mr. Lebedoff:
Summit Environmental Co
nsultants Inc. is please
d to provide this final
agriculture capability ass
report presenting the
essment at Paradise Ra
results of the
nch, Naramata, BC.
provide information to the
This study was commi
BC Agriculture Land Co
ssioned to
mm
ission (ALC) and the
Similkameen, and is int
Regional District of Ok
ended to accompany an
anagan
application for Agricultura
and exclusion of two pro
l Land Reserve (ALR
perties located on Parad
)
inc
lusion
ise Ranch. The ass
review of existing inform
essnent methodology
ation as well as a
inc
lud
ed a
fie
ld
Inv
estigation that included
characteristics of the su
bject areas.
assessing physiologica
l
We trust this complet
es the assignment to you
r satisfaction. Please
or require further inform
contact me if you have
ation.
any questions
Yours truly,
Summit Environmenta
l Consultants Inc.
Katanna Glavas, P.Ag.
Soil Scientist
KOG
Enclosures: Draft Repor
t
ISO çoo toc. Ct
tid
REPORT
Table of C
ontents
SECTION
Table of Contents
Listof Tables
List of Figures
4
•
ii
iii
I
Introduction and Pr
oject Background
2
Methods
1-I
3
Site Description
2-1
3.1
3.2
3-1
Exclusion Property
Inclusion Property
3-2
3-3
Assessment Results
4.1
4.2
4.3
5
PAGE NO.
4-1
General Soil Observa
tions
Agricultural Capability
Revised Soil Capabil
ity Ratings
4-1
4-4
4-6
Interpretation Disc
ussion
5.1
5.2
6-1
Exclusion Property
Inclusion Property
6
Conclusions
5-1
5-1
7
Closure
6-1
8
Statement of Limita
tions
7-1
References
8-1
Map of Subject Prop
erties
Appendix B Photo
Documentation
I
-
2012413t000 Agd
cufb.re CapiyAsses
smen Pacse Rar ci,
_._tsogoo1&24o
-
o1ceriraed
fl
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
PAGE NO.
Project Location at Pa
radise Ranch, Naram
ata BC
Location of subject pro
perties in relation the
ALR
Penticton: Precipitation
and Potential Evapotr
anspiration
Lower bench and uppe
r bench looking so
utheast on Inclusion
Property
1-2
1-3
3-1
3-3
.
(1
2Ol28181.O A c#
e CaIyftsses
ill
-
_
..
..
.
-__
..
l$O9oo1&4oo1CertifIe
d
)
REPORT
C)
Introduction
and Project Backgroun
d
In September 2012, Mr.
Matt Lebedoff, of Mark
Anthony Group, retain
Consultants Inc. (“Sum
ed Summit Environment
mit”) to complete an agr
al
icu
ltu
ral
and capability assessme
3.99 hectare property
nt on two properties:
and a 3.81 ha property
a
loc
ate
d on Paradise Ranch
Winery), Naramata, BC
(Mission Hills Family Est
(Figure 1-1). The 3.99 ha
ate
property is currently loc
Reserve (ALR). The ow
ated within the Agricult
ners intend to submit an
ure Land
app
lication to the Agricultura
to the Regional District of
l Land Commission (A
Okanagan Similkameen
LC) and
to (RDOS) have the 3.99
exclusion property” Ap
ha area (referred herein
pendix A) excluded from
as “the
the ALR, and the 3.81
property” Appendix A)
ha (referred herein as “th
property included in the
e
inc
lusion
ALR The regional distric
assessment of the study
t requires that a land cap
areas be completed to
abi
lity
inf
orm their review of the app
the results of the agricu
lication. This report pre
ltural land capability ass
sen
ts
essment that will form
Agricultural Land Comm
part of the application
ission and the RDOS.
to the
—
—
The objectives of this stu
dy are to:
1) Determine and comp
are the current agricultural
capability of the lands in
2) Assess the potential
the study areas; and,
of the properties for agricu
ltural land uses.
Descriptions of the metho
ds used for the investiga
tion are in Section 2.0
description and existing soi
and an overview of the
l and agriculture mapping
site
are in Section 3.0. The
provided in Section 4.0
res
ults of the assessment
and the discussion and
are
conclusion are presen
Photo documentation is
ted in Section 5.0 and
presented in Appendix B.
Section 6.0.
.
20124181.000 4cu(ue
Caiabity Asaesiient-
Parad.se Ranch
...
I$O9002&l400lCertified
Mark Anthony Group
.
Figure 1-1
Project Location at Paradise Ranch, Naramata BC
I -2
2O2-a1&lGco ArcuIue Capaby Assessrneil Paradse Rapcb
-
.
roo
mu
1=1
zi
AIR boundaries
Cadasbal bounda
ries
Subject propnr
es
Legend
-
C
CONSULTANTS IN
C.
Mark Anthony
Group
ofCo
EnseeriaGfoup
ENvoNEri
SUNIIT
iue. othiFsaoc
.ted
“
OuTS:
F.E:
2012-8181
Oct2012
naramata.mxd
PROJECT NO.:
FIGURE 1-2
AGRICULTURE
CAPABIUTY AS
SESSMENT
NARAMATA, BC
PROJECT:
REPORT
C,
2
Methods
The agricultural land cap
ability was assessed
by reviewing existing inf
capability, climate and top
ormation including soi
ographic maps; satellite
ls, agricultural
imagery, reports, and
field investigation to verify
data files. This was fol
and refine existing soils
lowed by a
and agricultural informatio
n.
Field investigations we
re completed by Katarina
Glavas, PAg. on Octob
included a foot traverse
er 2, 2012. The field inv
of the two properties. Th
estigation
e physical characteristic
during the traverse: top
s of the properties were
ography, erosion potent
assessed
ial, soil wetness, and soi
l moisture deficit limitat
ions.
A soil pit or bore hole wa
s advanced within each
soil unit/polygons previo
maps, to verify soil ser
usly, delineated in existin
ies and agricultural cap
g soil
ability. A total of ele
augured to an approxim
ve
n
soi
l test pits were hand-du
ate depth of one meter
g or
(see Appendix A for loc
conducted at each full
ations). Soil classificatio
plot according to the Soil
n
was
Cla
ssi
fication System of Ca
Canada 1998). Soil sam
nada (Agriculture and Ag
ples were not collected
ri-F
ood
during the assessment.
soil analysis is available
Additional information
through Mission Hill Fam
regarding
ily Estates.
The soils information
collected on-site was
used to determine the
properties. The capability
agricultural capability
assessment methodolog
of the two
y is based on the syste
Capability Classification
m described in the ma
for Agriculture in British
nual Land
Columbia (MOE/MAE,
1983).
2a12311.aO Agnciur
e Cepabfy Rsse e
2-1
-
se sand,
_
_
_
_
-_
.
I$09o01&l400lCertif,e
d
C)
REPORT
C
Site Description
The two subject prope
rties are located within
the municipal bounda
east of Naramata on No
ries of Naramata, ap
rth Naraniata Road.
proximately 15 km
The nearest climate sta
tion is located in Penti
cton, approximately 25
elevation of 385 m abov
km east of the subject
e sea level (rnasl). Cl
properties at an
imate normal data are
is characterized by wa
available for 1971-2000
rm, dry summers an
. The climate
d
cool winters. The no
temperatures are —1.7°
rmal mean daily Jan
C and 17.4°C respecti
ua
ry and June
vely (Environment Ca
is 332.7 mm, with 67.2
nada, 2012). Mean an
mm of that (water eq
nu
al
precipitation
uiv
ale
nt) falling as snow.
significant soil moisture
The area is characte
deficit. Figure 3-1 sh
rized by a
ows the mean month
potential evapotransp
ly precipitation and
iration for the Penticto
the estimated
n climate station.
estimated using a versi
Potential evapotrarisp
on of the Priestley-Tay
ira
tio
n (PET) was
lor
equation (Shuttlewort
data, and using the alb
h, 1993) and the avail
eclo value for grass
able climate
and pasture (0.23).
agriculture are presen
Implications of this mo
ted in Section 4.0 and
ist
ure deficit for
5.0.
•
180
—.—P’rpin
--
—
H
80
60
4°
20
0
J
F
l
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
Month
0
Figure 3-1
Penticton: Precipita
tion arid Potent
ial Evapotranspiratio
n
Site information for
the inclusion and exclu
sion properties are
description of the gene
described in detail be
ral location of each pro
low, including a
perty, parent material
capability information
s, current land use, so
.
ils and agricultural
.
201 2.8181 000 Agcuftu
ra Ca
patty A
3-1
1e3l.
Par3dse Ral,ch
1509001&l400lCe,I
itied
Mark Anthony Group
.
EXCLUSION PROPERTY
3.1
The exclusion property is situated entirely within the ALR. The property is approximately 3.99 hectares (ha)
in size at an elevation of 352 masl. The site is predominantly west-facing (220° from north) with gentle
slopes (5-10%). It is bounded by Frederick Creek to the east, Okanagan Lake to the southwest, and steeply
sloping land (>70% slope) to the north and west. The soils on this property have primarily formed from
fluvial/alluvial deposits from Frederick Creek. The steeply sloping lands are comprised of glaciolacustrine
sediments.
Approximately 1.82 ha (45%) of the exclusion property is currently in vineyard cultivation. The grape vines
are irrigated using a combination of overhead sprinklers and a drip irrigation system. Mike Malloy, the
Vineyard Operations Manager at Mission Hill Winery, indicated that some improvements have been made
to the property, including upgrades to field drainage to lower the water table. He also indicated that the
slope located to the north of the field was cut and re-contoured to accommodate a farm road. A farm
building was previously located in the southeast section of the property, but it has since been removed and
the soils reclaimed. There is currently one residential building in the southernmost corner of the property,
and an ancillary building located to the east.
The soils are comprised of a combination of Similkameen, Maynard and Winslow soils (MOE, 2012). The
Ministry of Environment (MOE, 2012) agricultural capability mapping identifies a mixture of Class 4, 5 and
7, with subclasses limitations that include soil moisture deficit excess water (W), topography (T) and erosion
(E) (Figure 2, Appendix A).
Table 3-1 outlines the soil series and currently mapped (MOE, 2012) capability ratings for each polygon
within the exclusion property.
Table 3-1
on inclusion property (Current ALC mapping)
ratings
capability
agriculture
and
types
Soil
Polygon
Soil Series
Approximate
Area
(ha)
1.17
1.33
0.53
0.95
Unimproved
Capability Rating
and (limitations)
Class 4A
5A
5WA 4
Class 6
Class 7TE
Class 7TE
2651
Similkameen
Winslow
2649
Maynard
2643
Maynard
2644
Reference: MOE 2012.
Note: Superscript numbers represent percentage of a polygon (e.g
3-2
2J12-t31
Pdse Ract
,
6
Improved Capability Ratings
and (limitations)
Class 1
3AW
2AW 4
Class 6
Not improvable
Not improvable
is equivalent to 60%)
3 Site Description
-
3.2
INCLUSION PROPER
TY
The inclusion property
consists of three block
s of vineyards, locate
and a high bench, Fi
d on two separate be
gure 3-2). Together
nches (a ow bench
th
es
e
blocks measure 3.81
currently in vineyard
ha in size of which 2.3
cultivation. The high
0 ha (60%) are
be
nch is situated along
at an average elevatio
the main access roa
n of 415 masl. It is pre
d
on
Paradise Ranch
dominantly southwe
10%) to strong slopes
st facing (224°from
(15-30%). The low be
no
rth
)
wit
h gentle (5nc
h is predominantly we
slopes. The elevation
st facing (268°) with
is approximately 381
ge
ntl
e to strong
masl. These two area
with slopes ranging fro
s are separated by a
m 40 to 60% that is no
ste
ep
ly
slo
ping area,
t
cu
lti
va
ted. Soils in all three
glaciolacustrine sedim
of these areas are de
ents.
rived from
Upper bench
.
Figure 3-2
Lower bench and
upper bench lookin
g southeast
on Inclusion Proper
ty
Cultivated areas of
the exclusion property
are currently in viney
using a combination
ard cultivation. The
of overhead sprinkle
grape vines are irriga
rs and drip irrigatio
bench area was recen
ted
n
system. Mr. Malloy
tly re-contoured us
indicated that the low
ing
ma
ter
ial
grape production. He
from the upper benc
h to improve site
also indicated that nIl
suitability
erosion
is common in both ar
for
steep slopes located
eas due to the surfa
above the inclusion
ce runoff from
property. Areas pro
conveyances have be
ne to nil erosion ha
en constructed to carry
ve been rip-rapped
water away from susce
and
ptible areas and cu
ltivated areas.
.
2Oi2Grcu’
[ue C
abyAsaessrne—L.
ISO
3-3
Parad ae Ranch
Oot&14O
CoIiUd
Mark Anthony Group
.
The inclusion property is compnsed of a combination of Maynard, Naramata and Munson soils, with minor
occurrence of Penticton soils. The agricultural capability mapping identifies a mixture of Class 5 and 7 soils,
with subclass limitations of topography, erosion and soil moisture deficit.
Table 3-2 outlines the soil series and currently mapped (MOE, 2012) capability ratings for the main
polygons within the subject area.
Table 3-2
ratings (Current ALC mapping)
capability
Soil types and agriculture
Polygon
Soil Series
2645
2656
2650
2658
Maynard
Maynard
Naramata
Munson
----
I
Approximate
Area
(ha)
1.65
1.05
0.27
0.84
Unimproved
Capability Rating
and (limitations)
Class 7TE
5TA 3
7TE
Class 7
5A 1
6A
Class 9
Class 5A
Improved Capability Ratings
and (limitations)
Not improvable
7TE
Class 7
3TN 3
61 3
3A
3N 1
2T
3N 2
Class i 3
---
—
44,
34
22-88 OCO Ancu1uce Gapabty Assessment- Paradise Ranch
:
-
.
4
t.
.
REPORT
C,
Assessment Results
This section summarizes the assessm
ent results that were obtained
by reviewing existing information and
maps, supplemented with our field inv
estigation. The next section (Sectio
n 5.0) interprets the results.
4.1
GENERAL SOIL OBSERVATIONS
The existing soil maps indicate that
the subject properties are delinea
ted into several polygons based
soil series, land characteristics, and
on
capability class ratings (Appen
dix
A).
Each polygon is physiologically
unique with differing limiting factors.
The general soil observations for
the exclusion and inclusion proper
are described in the following section
ty
s, as well as the accuracy of existing
soil mapping.
4.1.1 Exclusion Property
A total of four test pits were hand-d
ug or augered in the exclusion pro
perty. Based on information gath
during the field investigation, ther
ered
e are three main soil types: Sim
ilka
meen, Winslow, and Maynard soil
Our on-site investigation indicat
s.
es that soils on the exclusion
property are primarily comprised
Similkameen soils. The Winslow
of
and Maynard soils are less abu
ndant than indicated in the previo
maps. Note that the published
us soils
mapping was completed at a bro
ader scale than the current asse
(see Section 4.2).
ssment
Similkameen Soils
Testpit 1 and 2 (identified in Ma
p 1, photographs in Appendix B)
represent the Similkameen Soil
(Polygon 2651). Similkameen soil
unit
s are comprised of medium text
ure
d
fluvial and fluvial fan deposits. The
are classified as Orthic Brown
y
Chernozems.
Field investigations indicate that
soils are comprised of an Ap hor
izon (p denoting the ploy layer) con
of a brown silt loam, with some
sisting
gravel. This is typically overlai
n
by
dark grayish brown silt loam in the
horizon (k denoting the presence
Ck
of calcium carbonates). The tran
sition between the Ap and Ck
was difficult to distinguish due to
hor
izon
s
very dry soil conditions that wer
e present during the assessment,
attempts to moisten the soils. Thi
despite
s made it difficult to determine if soil
s were Chernozems or Regosols.
underlying stony materials typical
The
ly associated with this soil were
also not encountered; however,
be present at a deeper depth. The
they
may
se soils are considered moderatel
y well drained.
Field investigations indicate that
the extent of these soils is larger
than previously mapped and that
polygon boundary should extend
the
further to the north and east (da
she
d purple line on Figure 2 in Append
A).
ix
4-1
2O12.88tO Agifcutiie Capa
Wj Assessmer pad:s Ranc’,
-
1509002
&ooi
Ceitified
Mark Anthony Group
.
Winslow Soils
Testpit 3 represents the Winslow soil unit (Polygon 2649). Winslow soils are comprised of coarse textured
fluvial fan deposits. They are classified as Rego Humic Gleysols.
Field investigations indicate that these soils are comprised of a gravelly sandy loam in the Ap and Ck
horizons over an olive sand that is not calcareous, indicating a different parent material type (110). Some
very faint mottling was observed in the upper 50 cm of the soil profile. Mottling is indicative of a fluctuating
water table. These soils are considered imperfectly to moderately well drained.
Field investigations indicate that the extent of these soils is smaller than previously mapped and that the
polygon boundary should be moved east of the access road (dashed purple line on Figure 2 in Appendix A).
Maynard Soils
The Maynard soils occur on the steeply sloping areas located to the north of the cultivated areas. These
soils are derived from glaciolacustrine sediments comprised of silt barns. Slopes range from 65-75%.
These soils are currently in native vegetation comprised of sage brush, juniper, and bunch grass.
Field investigations indicate that the extent of these soils is also smaller than previously mapped and that
the polygon boundary should be adjusted to correspond to the slope break (dashed purple line on Figure 2
in Appendix A).
4.1.2 Inclusion Property
A total of seven test pits were hand-dug or augered in the inclusion property. Based on information
gathered during the field investigation, there are two main soil types on this property: Maynard and Munson
soils The Naramata soils were not identified during field investigations, The boundaries of the current soil
mapping are generally consistent, with a few minor adjustments to reflect actual on-site conditions.
Maynard Soils
The Maynard soils primarily occur as gently sloping (5-10%) and moderately sloping (10-15%) with some
extremely sloping (45 -70%) areas. The gently to moderately sloping areas are in vineyard cultivation, while
the extremely sloping areas are not cultivated and under native vegetation. Many of the extreme slopes are
unstable; nIl erosion was evident on the steepest slopes.
Maynard soils are classified as Orthic Regosols, typically consisting of a medium textured soils with an
A horizon less than 10 cm over a calcareous C horizon. Field investigations indicated that the soils in the
gently to moderately sloping areas are comprised of brown to dark grayish brown silt loams. In many areas
the Ap horizon was indistinguishable from the 0k horizon, this is likely due to cultivation which has resulted
in degradation of the A horizon or soil moisture conditions present during the field investigation. These soils
may be saline; however, additional sampling and laboratory analysis would be needed to determine this.
42
2012
8ioeo AGncuIure Capa
tyAssess.ei(- Paradse Ranch
4- Assessment Results
C;
The extent of these soils
is consistent with the ma
pping; however slight
boundaries to account for
adjustments have been
on-site differences (dashe
made to the
d purple lines in Figure
2, Appendix A).
.
4.3
2O2-EStC’3O Ac,2we
Capab Iysesa:iei- aau
de Ranch
,.
JSO9oo&4oo1C
ertifled
Mark Anthony Group
.
Munson Soils
The Munson soils are very similar to the Maynard soils in that they are both derived from glaciolacustrine
sediments. However, they are classified as Rego Brown Chernozems (i.e., they have an Ap horizon that is
greater than 10 cm). The Munson soils tend to occupy gentler sloping areas than Maynard soils, thus the
Munson soils have better soil development and a deeper A horizon.
Field investigations indicate that the soils are comprised of brown to light olive brown silt barns with
medium platy structure. They are weakly calcareous in the A horizon grading to strongly calcareous in the
Ck horizon. The presence of an A horizon was difficult to distinguish in the field under the current moisture
conditions.
The extent of this soil was found to be consistent with the existing mapping.
4.2
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY
Our field findings indicated slightly different capability ratings from the existing mapping; this is largely due
to differences in scale between the original mapping and our on-site investigations. The original soil
mapping was conducted at a scale of 1:20,000. At this scale, small areas such as those located on the
inclusion and exclusion properties may not be included as they represent a small percentage of the
polygon. Thus, the boundaries of the current soil mapping have been adjusted to reflect actual on-site
conditions.
The soils on both properties are primarily limited by a soil moisture deficit, with some topographical and
erosion limitations in areas that are currently in native vegetation. The following section discusses the
agricultural limitations based on our field assessment.
4.2.1 Soil Moisture Deficiency (SMD)
The most recent normal monthly precipitation averages (Environment Canada, 2012) for the closest climate
station located in Penticton, about 25 km to the south. The estimated potential evapotranspiration (PET)
values were used to determine the Climate Moisture Deficit (CMD) and the Soil Moisture Deficiency (SMD)
following methods in MOE/MOE (1983). The PET was estimated using the Priestly-Taylor equation
(Shuttleworth, 1993) using Environment Canada’s Penticton climate normal data. Table 4-1 lists the
resulting SMD subclass for a range of possible soil textures found on the inclusion/exclusion properties.
The unimproved SMD rating for those polygons associated with a silt loam texture is Class 4A. Polygons
with coarser textured soils are limited by a Class 5A. These findings are consistent with the current
published SMD rating at the Site (Map 1), With irrigation the SMD improvements can reach Class 1.
44.
201 2-82lCG0 gncuftre Cepahly Asessient. Paad se Rnli
.
___
___
__
4 Assessment Resu
lts
-
Texture
Sandy Loam
Loam
Silt Loam
Available Water
Storage
Capacity
(mm/cm)
1.2
1.7
2.1
Table 4-1
Soil Moisture Deficit
Subclasses
AWSC for 50
cm (mm)
Soil Moisture
Deficit
(SMD=CMDAWSC)
280
255
235
60
85
105
Unimproved
Subclass
(MOEIMAF,
1983)
5A
4A
4A
Best Improved
Subclass
(1983)
1
1
1
4.2.2 Topography (T)
Slope classes from MOE/M
AF (1983) are as follow
s:
(
Simple
Complex
Class iT <5%
<2%
Class 2T 6-10%
3-5%
Class3T 11-15%
6-10%
Class4T
16-20%
11-15%
Class 5T 21 -30%
16-30%
Class 6T 31 -60% and
currently grazed
Class 7T >30% and
not useable for grazing
The exclusion and inc
lusion proper
ties have topographica
Class 7T. The Class 7T
l limitations that ran
ge from Class 2T
soils are primarily ass
to
ociated with steeply
vegetation.
sloping Maynard soils
under native
It is not practical to impro
ve areas with severe top
ographical limitations.
existing cultivated areas
Mr. Malloy has indicated
(primarily the lower ben
that some
ch
of the exclusion proper
accommodate grape vin
ty) have been re-con
e production. However
toured to
,
additional improvement
either property.
s are not considered
feasible on
4.2.3 Erosion (E)
Areas with steep slopes
have an erosion limitation
of Class YE. These are
steeply sloping Maynard
as are primarily assoc
soils on both the inclus
iated with
ion
and exclusion properties
extremely severely ero
. They are considere
ded as more than 75%
d
of the original solum has
erosion, and the area is
been eroded due to sh
dissected by moderately
ee
t
and nil
deep to deep gullies. Im
farm machinery cannot
provements are not fea
be reasonably or safely
sib
le and
operated.
O
201 2•881 CCC Aarcj
.l Gpabl(yAssessznetd
—
150 9001
45
PaaCe aneh
&4oo1
CertWfed
Mark Anthony Group
.
4.3
REVISED SOIL CAPABILITY RATINGS
Table 4-2 summarizes the revised soil capability and subclass ratings for the Similkameen (2651), Winslow
(2644), Maynard (2643) soil units on the exclusion property, their areal extents and improvement ratings for
each polygon as recorded from the field investigations. Table 4-3 summarizes the revised soil capability
and subclass ratings for the Maynard (2644, 2656) and Munson (2658) soil units on the inclusion property.
Note that a new delineation was created from the existing Maynard soil units on the inclusion property and
the Maynard 2645 soil unit has been split into a lower bench and upper bench for simplicity.
Table 4-2
Revised Soil Capability Ratings for Exclusion Property
Soils and (Polygon)
Similkameen (2651)
Winslow (2649)
Maynard (2643)
Maynard (2644)
Area
(ha)
Soil
Moisture
Deficiency
(A)
Topography
(T)
Erosion
(E)
Excess
Water (W)
Best Improved
Class Rating
2.58
0.52
0.38
0.51
4A
5A
n/a
n/a
2T
n/a
7T
7T
n/a
n/a
7E
7E
n/a
3W
n/a
n!a
2
3
Not improvable
Not improvable
Table 4-3
F I evised Soil Capability Ratings for Inclusion Property
—
Soils and (Polygon)
Maynard (2645) Upper
bench
Maynard (2645) Lower
bench
Maynard (2656)
Maynard (new
delineation)
Munson (2658)
Approximate
Area (ha)
Soil
Moisture
Deficiency
(A)
Topography
(T)
Erosion
(E)
Best Improved
Class Rating
0.86
4A
2T
n/a
2
0.60
4A
ST
0.89
4A
3T
n/a
0.63
n/a
7T
7E
084
4A
4T
n/a
46
2C12-Th1O Agncture Capabily Assessment
Paad se Rac1i
.
5
-
3
I
Not improvable
4
.
REPORT
C
Interpretation Discuss
ion
Capablilty ratings presented
in this report are generafly
similar to previously publish
minor changes that have res
ed ratings, with some
ulted from additional informa
tion obtained during the
following list presents these
fiel
d investigation. The
ratings by polygon areas and
identifies the reason for the
published ratings. Figure 2 in
changes from current
Appendix A shows the previo
us and updated soil polygo
n boundaries.
5.1
EXCLUSION PROPERTY
Similkameen Soil Polygon
2651 was previously rated
as Subclass 4A with a potenti
Class 1. This was confirmed
al improved rating of
by our field investigation; how
ever a slight topographica
2T) was assigned to app
l limitation (Subclass
roximately 40% of this pol
ygon resulting in an agricul
Irrigation is required to ensure
tura
l capability of 4AT.
agriculture success and pro
ductive crops. Our investi
revision to the Similkameen
gati
on also identified a
polygon boundary, which wil
l increase the total Similkam
1.17 ha to 2.58 ha (denoted
een polygon area from
by purple dashed line of Map
I of Appendix A). The total
soils has therefore increased
area of Subclass 4AT
by 1.41 ha. All climatically
adapted crops are consid
Similkameen soils (Gough et
ered well suited for
al, 1994).
Winslow Soil Polygon 264
9 was previously rated as Su
bclass 6
5WA 4
of 6
5A with a potential improv
2AW 4
3AW. Our assessment gen
ed rating
erally agrees with the previo
usly published ratings; how
simplified the rating to 5AW
eve
r,
we have
(the excess water limitation
was reduced to a subcla
improvements that have bee
ss
3W due to
n made on the property). Fu
rthermore, we have modified
polygon area (indicated by
the western boundary
dashed purple line; Map
1). This modification wou
decrease of Subclass 5AW
ld result in an overall
lands by 0.81 ha for a tota
l of 0.52 ha. Winslow SOIl
Christmas trees, pears, apples
S
are suited to nursery,
, raspberries and strawberr
ies. (Gough et at., 1994).
Maynard Soil Polygon 264
3, 2644 were previously rat
ed as Subclass 7TE (to
limitations) with no potential
pography and erosion
improvement rating. Our fiel
d
slo
pe measurements agree
class. SJopes were measu
with this unimproved
red at 65-75%, which indicat
es a rating of 7T, with no
However, we have modified
practical improvement.
the polygon boundary. This
modification would result
Subclass 7T lands of 059
in an overall decrease of
ha for a total of 0.89 ha. Agr
icul
tural potential for this area
areas for livestock (MOE/MAF
is limited to grazing
1983).
5.2
INCLUSION PROPERTY
Munson Soil Polygon 2658
was previously rated as Subcl
ass 5A with potential improv
from Class 1 to Subclass 3N
ed ratings ranging
(N=Salinity) and 2T. With
the exception of the salinity
confirmed by our field assess
lim
itation, this was
ments. However, due to
the finer textured soils iden
investigation as well as slo
tified during the field
pes, the rating was modifi
ed to Subclass 4AT in
entire (084ha polygon).
an unimproved state for
Where topography ranges
the
between 9 and 15%, suit
ed crops include alfalfa,
5.1
3i26ll.2C3 Agrcu
tue CupabIyP.sse5srent
Parudse Ranu’i
-
.._.15090o1&l4ooltertiUa
ed
Mark Anthony Group
.
annual vegetable crops, asparagus, cereals, corn, forage crops, grapes, nursery, Christmas trees and tree
fruits. Slopes that are 15 to 25% are suited to grapes, Christmas trees and tree fruits only (Gough et al,
1994).
Maynard Soils
Polygon 2645 was previously rated as Subclass 7TE (topography and erosion limitations) with no potential
improvement rating. Slope measurements obtained in the field confirm this rating on the portion of the
polygon associated with the steep slopes that separates the upper bench from the lower bench. We have
delineated a new soil boundary to differentiate these steeply sloping areas from the rest of this polygon.
The ratings for the upper bench and lower bench have been modified to reflect these new boundaries. The
upper bench is now rated as 4AT and the lower bench is rated as 5TA. The total area of Subclass 4AT and
Subclass 5TA soils has therefore increased by approximately 1.4 ha in this soil unit.
Polygon 2656 was previously rated as Class 7
5TA 3
7TE (topography, SMD and erosion limitations) with
potential improvements of 3TN associated with the 70% portion (the remaining area is not considered
improvable). The topography and erosion limitations are generally associated with steeply sloping areas
located downslope of the inclusion property; thus, we have delineated a new soil boundary to the proposed
inclusion area. The agricultural capability has been modified to 4AT for the entire polygon (0.89 ha).
Maynard soils are generally not well suited for agriculture due to adverse topography; however, these soils
more closely resemble the Munson soils than the Maynard soils, Additional salinity sampling is
recommended to determine if soils are limited by salinity. Where topography ranges between 9 and 15%,
suited crops include alfalfa, annual vegetable crops, asparagus, cereals, corn, forage crops, grapes,
nursery, Christmas trees and tree fruits. Slopes that are 15 to 25% are suited to grapes, Christmas trees
and tree fruits only (Gough et al, 1994).
52
2O12-SS1 GG Agncuiure Capaby Asessmet Parede Rand,
.
REPORT
6
Conclusions
This agricultural land cap
ability assessment built
upon existing informatio
generated detail on the stu
n and field investigatio
dy area’s agricultural cap
ns has
ability and limitations.
deficiency (SMD), topogr
Ke
y limitations are soil moistu
aphy, and erosion.
re
Field investigations indica
te that the unimproved
rating in the exclusion are
a is:
• Class 5
4A 4
4AT 2.59 ha or 68%;
• Class 7TE 0.63 ha
or 16%; and,
• Class 5AW—0.60 ha
or 16%.
-
—
Class 4A lands are impro
vable to Class iwith irri
gation. Class 4AT lands
Subclass 7TE lands are
are improvable to Class
not considered improvable.
2T.
Su
bclass 5AW lands are
irrigation. Improvements
improvable to Class 3WA
to drainage have already
with
been made so the W rat
ing remains the same.
Field investigations indica
te that the unimproved
rating in the inclusion are
a is:
• Class 4AT 2.73 ha
0173%;
• Class 7TE 0.63 ha
or 17%;and
• Class 5TA 0.40 ha
or 11%.
-
-
-
Class 4AT lands are
improvable to Subclass
2T to 3T with irrigation
considered improvable. Su
. Subclass 7TE lands
bclass STA lands are im
are not
provable to Class 5T wit
h irrigation.
In general, the two proper
ties are comparable in the
ir agricultural capability
property has slightly more
classes; however, the
Classs 4AT land (unimpro
inclusion
ved) compared to the exd
usion property.
O
6.1
224 fC)3 AQriIu
e Daiaby
_.......,..IS0goo1&14oo1C
erIifIed
REPORT
7
Closure
This agriculture capa
bility assessment is
intended to provide
agriculture capability
more detailed inform
and constraints than
ation on the site’s
what is available from
less intensive field invest
pre
vious maps that were
igations then the curre
likely based on
nt study. Any decision
will be just one of sev
s that may be derived
eral sources of inform
fro
m this report
ation that local governm
decision: land use planning
ent and the ALC will
considerations may pla
us
e
to make their
y an equal or greater
role in any decision.
.
74
2O12-6.OAct,’f
tre Cap aP/Aas
essrnen Paad e
anc-i
-
—-.--
_._.,....t5O9ooa
&1oo2CertiUed
REPORT
\Z
8
Statement of Limitatio
ns
This document is for
the sole use of the ad
dressee and Summit
document contains pro
Environmental Consult
prietary and confidenti
ants Inc. The
al
information that shall
disclosed to or discusse
not be reproduced in
d with any other parties
an
y manner or
without the written pe
Consultants Inc. Inform
rmission of Summit En
ation in this document
vironmental
is to be considered the
intellectual property
ants Inc. in accordanc
of Summit
e with Canadian copyrig
ht law.
This report was prepa
red by Summit Environ
mental Consultants Inc
Lebedoff. The material
. for Mark Anthony Gr
in it reflects Summit En
oup do Matt
vironmental Consultan
the information available
ts
Inc.’s best judgerrient,
to it, at the time of pre
in the light of
paration. Any use which
any reliance on or de
a third party makes of
cisions to be made ba
this report, or
sed on it, are the respo
nsibility of such third
ants Inc. accepts no res
pa
rti
es. Summit
ponsibility for damage
a result of decisions ma
s, if any, suffered by
de or actions based on
an
y
third party as
this report.
.
•
2012
Si.
8.1
gr,c’i.Ui C2pb’
LjMsesseL
- Pcadse R9,ch
509001&t4oalCerLi
Iied
()
REPORT
References
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
. 1998. The Canadian System of
Soil Classification. Third Edition
Publication 1646. NRC Research
.
Press. Ottawa.
Environment Canada. 2012. Can
adian Climate Normals 1971-2000
httD:llwww.msc-smc.ec.Qc.cal
clirnate/climate normals?
Gough, N.A., C. Hughes-Games
, and D. Nikkel. 1994. Soil Manag
ement Handbook for the
Okanagan & Similkameen Valleys
. BC Ministry of Agriculture, Foo
d & Fisheries. Abbotsford.
Malloy, Mike. 2012. Personal com
munication with Katarina Glavas
on October 2, 2012. Vineyard
Operations Manager.
Ministry of Environment and Min
istry of Agriculture & Food (MO
EIMAF). 1983. Land Capability
Classification for Agriculture in Briti
sh Columbia. MOE Manual 1.
Kelowna, B.C.
Ministry of Environment (MOE).
2012. Computer Assisted Planni
ng and Map Production (CAPA
soil mapping at 1:20000 scale last
MP)
updated June 2007. Digital soil
capability polygons
downloaded from the Ecosystem
Branch of MOE: ft:/Ifshftp.env.gov.b
c.caIpubIoutgoingISoil
DaIaICAPAMP.Victoria, B.C.
Ministiy of Environment (MOE).
2012. BC Water Resources Atl
as (WRBC).
http://www.env.qov. bc.ca/wsd/data
searches/wrbcl. Accessed Jun
e 8, 2012.
Shuttleworth, W. J. 1993. Evapor
ation. Chapter 4 j: Handbook
of Hydrology. D.R. Maidment
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
(ed.)
Wittneben, U. 1986. Soils of the
Okanagan and Similkameen Val
leys. Report No. 52. Prepared
Surveys and Resource Mapping
by the
Branch of the Ministry of Environ
ment. Victoria.
.
._...._.._...i5O9ooa&4
oo1Certified
REPORT
C
•Map Of Subject Proper
ties
j
2O12-8181OOAgncuWre
CphihlyAssessiienI
-
Parse Rrnch
REPORT
C
B
Appendix B Ph
oto Documentatio
n
-
•
2Gi2f 3 I 100 Ar
c
ure CapabiIy
Assessrreil Paadse
‘anch
-
1SOgooz&4oo1Certif
ied
Mark Anthony Group
.
Photo 1
View from Testpit I looking west
Photo 2
Simil.karneen Soil on Exclusion Property (Testpit 1)
8-2
2Ci2-1l
grcu Lire Cpabifty Assessment• Parase andi
.
B Photo Documentatio
n
-
0
Photo 3
View of Testpit 3 lookin
ig northeast
Photo 4
Winslow Soil on Exclusio
n Property (Testpit 3)
B-3
Pa’adse Ranc’i
(‘
)
Mark Anthony Group
.
Photo 5
Maynard Soils (sloping terrain in background) on exclusion property
Photo 6
View of Testpit 4 lookiig west
84
2)12-31a1.o Agrcture CapabHy AssssmerL Prd se Ranch
-
.
B Photo Documen
tation
-
.
Photo 7
Maynard soils on Incl
usion Property (i’
estpit 4)
Photo 8
View of testpit 6 look
ing east
.
B5
Paradse Ranch
.JSO9OoI&I400lCert
iIie
d
Mark Anthony Group
.
Photo 9
Munson Soils on Inclusion Property (Testpit 6)
B6
Ranch
2C 24181 CO Agcicuture Capa1j Assessment Pacad,se
Gok!er
Associates
June 15, 2012
Matt Lebedoff
Mark Anthony Group
887 Great Northern Way
Vancouver, BC
V5T4T5
Reference No. 11 149202
24-RevO-4000
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGA
TION, PROPOSED RESID
ENTIAL BUILDING, 7449
ROAD, NARAMATA, BC
NORTH NARAMATA
Dear Sir,
As requested, Golder Assoc
iates Ltd. (Golder) has con
ducted a geotechnical inv
proposed residential buildin
estigation in support of the
g located at the above ref
ere
nced site in Naramata,
investigation was to identify
BC. The purpose of the
the subsurface soil and gro
undwater conditions within
The following report provid
the
proposed building area.
es the factual results of our
geotechnical investigation
comments and recommenda
along with our geotechnical
tions for building set back
requirements, site prepar
design, and retaining wall des
ation, foundation and roa
ign.
d
It should be noted that the
scope of this report is limited
to the geotechnical invest
residential building and doe
igation for the proposed
s not include any investigatio
n,
ana
lytical testing or assessme
groundwater contamination,
nts of possible soil and
archaeological or biological
considerations or sediment
control measures.
The report should be read
in conjunction with the “Im
portant in formation and
(Appendix A). The reader’s
Limitations of This Repor
attention is specifically dra
t”
wn to this information, as it
and interpretation of this rep
is
essential for the proper use
ort.
1.0
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located on the
east shore of the Okanagan
Lake approximately 11 km
shown on Figure 1. It is und
north of Naramata, BC, as
erstood that the proposed
res
idential building will be loc
same area of an existing
ated approximately in the
house which is to be demoli
shed. Along the west and
ground slopes down to the
sou
th sides of the site, the
Okanagan Lake. Along the
east side of the site, the ter
slope and a ridge.
rain comprises of a rising
The proposed layout of the
residential building is shown
on Figure 1. Further des
the proposed building were
ign and construction details
unknown at the time this rep
of
ort was prepared.
Golder Associates Ltd.
220- 1755 Spnngtield Road
, Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada VIY 5V5
Tel 4-1 (250) 660 8424 Fax
+ 1(250)8609874
www.9oIder cotri
Gc4derssociatx,s: Cror
attons st Africa, 4sia, 4skr
atasra. Burope, Norih Ame
rica nd South America
Golder. Golder Associates
and he GA globe design are
trademarks cl Golder Asso
cralea CorporaSon.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Matt Lebedoff
Mark Anthony Group
2.0
1114920224-RevO-4000
June 15, 2012
FIELD WORK
The field work was carried
out on May 18, 2012 and inc
luded the excavation of two
below the existing ground sur
test pits to depths of 2.7 m
face at the approximate locatio
ns shown on Figure 1. Th
using a Hitachi 70 excavator
e test pits were excavated
owned and operated by Sco
tt Contracting. Prior to exc
buried utility near the propos
avating the test pits the
ed test pit locations were iden
tify to clear the test pit locatio
ns.
The field work was carried
out by a member of our geotec
hnical engineering staff, who
field, visually examined and
located the test pits in the
logged the subsurface condit
ions encountered, and collec
samples for detailed examinat
ted representative soil
ion and laboratory testing as
described below.
Laboratory testing of soil sam
ples consisted of moisture
content determinations on
results of which are shown in
all samples collected, the
the attached Record of Test
Pit summary sheets.
3.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITION
S
Detailed descriptions of the
subsurface conditions encoun
tered in the test pits are pre
Record of Test Pit Summary
sented on the attached
Sheets (Appendix B). The
following presents a brief des
conditions encountered at the
cri
ption of the subsurface
building site. It should be
noted that variations in the
observed between test pits
sub
surface conditions were
and with depth. Similar or gre
ater variation may occur bet
locations.
ween or beyond the test pit
Test pit TP12-01 located
on the northeast side of the
proposed residence encoun
consisting of an upper lay
tered about 0.8 m of fill
er of about 0.3 m of sand
and
gravel followed by a lower
containing a trace of gravel
layer of stiff clayey silt
and sand. This fill was und
erlain by stiff native clayey
which the test pit was terminat
silt
con
taining trace of sand in
ed at a depth of about 2.7 m
face.
Test pit TP12-02 located on
the west side of the propos
ed
residence encountered abo
loose silty sand containing som
ut 0.8 m of fill consisting of
e gravel and miscellaneou
s
debris. The fill was underl
native silty sand to a depth
ain by a loose to compact
of 1.4 rn. The silty sand wa
s followed by a soft to firm
amounts of sand and gravel,
clayey silt containing variab
This test pit was terminated
le
in the soft to firm clayey silt
at a depth of about 2.7 m
face.
No groundwater seepage wa
s encountered in the test pits
at the time the investigatio
n was conducted.
4.0
GEOTECHN!CAL COMMEN
TS AND RECOMMENDATiO
NS
Based on the results of the
investigation, it is our opinio
n that the site is suitable
building provided the followi
for the proposed residenti
ng geotechnical comments
al
and recommendations are tak
en into consideration.
4.1
.
Geotechnical Setback
Geotechnical setback distan
ces for residential constru
ction behind the crest of the
the west of the site was est
slope located to the south and
ablished by extending a 2 hor
izontal to 1 vertical line
the ground surface behind
up from the toe of the slope
the crest. The setback is loc
to
ated where the line inters
approximate distance of 5 m
ects the ground surface at an
from the crest of the slope.
216
WAssociates
Malt Lebedoff
Mark Anthony Group
..
1114920224-RevO-4000
June 15, 2012
No permanent structures are allo
wed to be constructed within this
setback zone. Light weight stru
decks that encroach into the setb
ctures such as
ack zone should be cantilevered
from the house. If permanent
be located in the geotechnical set
stru
ctures are to
back zone, foundation structur
es should be lowered below
vertical line
the 2 horizontal to 1
4.2
4.2.1
Site Preparation
Stripping
It is recommended that all surficia
l organic soils and fill materials
be completely sub-excavate
proposed building footprint. The
d from beneath the
test pits indicate that the depth
of subexcavation could be up
should be noted that local are
to about 0.8 m. It
as not investigated by the tes
t pits may be underlain by
deleterious materials.
deeper deposits of
It should be noted that the expose
d subgrade conditions will be
susceptible to disturbance und
and construction traffic. It is ther
er wet conditions
efore recommended that pro
visions be made to protect
especially in the proposed footing
the
subgrade soils
and slab-on-grade areas by plac
ement of a minimum of 150 mm
19 mm minus crushed gravel.
thick layer of
4.2.2
•
Excavation and Dewatering
Temporary unsupported excava
tion slopes within the soils
encountered at the site sho
angles no steeper than 1 horizon
uld be developed at
tal to 1 vertical for dry conditions
. If groundwater is encountere
may be required. Steeper slop
d, flatter slopes
es can be considered provided
suitable shoring is used. It is
the exposed slopes be covered
reco
mmended that
with sheets of heavy plastic or
equivalent to prevent saturation
could result in subsequent rav
from rainfall that
elling and sloughing. The hor
izontal limits of the excavation
building should extend bey
for
the proposed
ond the building perimeter, a
distance equal to the depth
Stockpiling of materials as wel
of the excavation.
l as equipment traffic should
not be permitted within 2.0 m
crest so that the stability of the
from
the excavation
excavation side slopes is not com
promised.
Should groundwater seepag
e be encountered in the excava
tions, it is anticipated that it
conventional sump pump tech
can be handled by
niques.
4.2.3
Structural Grade Fill
Structural grade fill should con
sist of 150 mm minus pitrun san
d and gravel having less than
the 0.075 mm sieve size. Prio
8 percent passing
r to placement of grade fill, it is
recommended that the expose
proof-rolled by several pas
d
sub
grade be static
ses of a heavy vibratory stee
l drum roller. Any soft or yiel
subexcavated and replaced wit
ding areas should be
h approved granular fill placed
and compacted as described
below.
Grade fill should be placed in hor
izontal lifts not exceeding 300
mm in loose thickness and sho
to 100 percent of standard Pro
uld be compacted
ctor maximum dry density (AS
TM D698). It should be noted
conditioning may be required
that soil moisture
to achieve the specified degree
of compaction.
No organic soils or frozen mat
erial should be placed in the
fill section. In addition, fill mat
placed on the foundation sub
erials should not be
grade or on previously placed
fill, if these surfaces are froz
fill material should not be plac
en. Furthermore,
ed in ponded water or on excessi
vely wet soil surfaces or on
snow.
surfaces covered with
Fill surfaces should be crowne
d or sloped during and after con
struction to avoid ponding of
water.
3/6
Associates
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Matt Lebedoff
Mack Anthony Group
4.3
4.3.1
111492 0224Rev0-4000
June 15, 2012
Foundation Design
Conventional footings
The loose to compact silty san
d or stiff clayey silt deposits will
provide a suitable subgrade
the residential building on con
on which to support
ventional strip and/or spread
foo
ting
s. Alternatively, the building
on structural grade fill placed
can be founded
and compacted in accordanc
e with the recommendations
4.2.3.
presented in Section
As discussed in Section 4.1,
foundation structures located
within the geotechnical setbac
below the 2 horizontal to I ver
k should be lowered
tical imaginary line from the
toe
of the slope to the ground sur
of the slope.
face behind the crest
Footings founded on the abo
ve subgrade conditions can
be designed using a Serviceabil
soil bearing resistance of 150
ity Limit States (SLS)
kPa. The recommended Ult
imate Limit States (ULS) fact
resistance is 225 kPa which
ored soil bearing
is based on an ultimate bearing
resistance of 450 kPa with a
factor 0.5 to compute the fact
res
istance modification
ored resistance for use in Lim
it States Design (LSD).
Provided that the foundation
materials have not been loosen
ed or disturbed, it is anticipated
designed for the above soil bea
that the foundation
ring resistance will be subjec
t to settlements less than 25
that the minimum footing wid
mm
.
It should be noted
th should be in accordanc
e with the current British Col
requirements.
umbia Building Code
The foundation subgrade sho
uld be inspected by experienc
ed geotechnical personnel and
prior to footing form constructio
confirmed as suitable
n.
.
Based on the anticipated sub
surface conditions at depth, the
site classification for seismic
response is Site Class
Based on a freezing index
of 247.8 degree-day Celsius
for the Penticton area, it
footings should be provided
is recommended that the
a minimum of 750 mm of soil
cover for frost protection pur
poses.
The slabs-on-grade should
be supported on at least 150
mm of 19 mm minus crushe
material. This material should
d gravel base course
be compacted to at least 100
percent of standard Proctor
(ASTM D698). The slabs on
maximum dry density
grade should be structurally sep
arate from all foundation ele
provided a cross joint system
ments and should be
to control post construction crac
king. A vapour barrier should
the concrete slab as per BC
be installed beneath
Building Code requirements.
4.3.2
Helical Piles
Where the building encroache
s the riparian area, it is sugges
ted that helical piles be use
and minimize the construction
to support the structure
disturbance to the riparian are
a.
It is recommended that the
piles be installed with the heli
x bearing in the clayey silt dep
fill, or at a minimum depth
osits identified below the
of I m, which ever is greater.
If the piles are located within
the piles should also be lowered
the geotechnical setback,
below the 2 horizontal to 1 ver
tical imaginary line from the
the ground surface behind the
toe of the slope to
crest of the slope.
.
The geotechnical axial cap
acities will be dependent on
specific helix configuration
helical piles. A soil unit weight
and actual length of the
of 20 3
kN/m an undrained shear stre
,
ngth of 100 kPa and an effe
internal friction of 26 degree
ctive angle of
s may be used in design calculat
ions.
4/6
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Matt Lebedoff
Mark Anthony Group
11 l4920224Rev04000
June 15, 2012
Estimated settlement for a single pile is not expe
cted to exceed 10 mm. This estimate does
not include elastic
compression of the pile itself.
4.4
Retaining Walls
The proposed layout suggests that the residentia
l building wilt encroach on the ridge located
on the east side of
the site and that a retaining watt may be requ
ired. The retaining wall should be desig
ned
considering a
coefficient of earth pressure at rest of 0.45.
Retaining walls that are not restrained or can
toler
ate
deftections of
25 mm in 3.0 m of wall height may be designed
using a coefficient of active earth pressure
of 0.3. A soil unit
weight of 20 3
kN/rn may be used in design calculations.
These coefficients assume a level back
fill. A
geotechnical engineer should be consulted if the
actual site conditions differ.
Backfill behind walls should consist of free
draining pitrun sand and gravel. A positive
drainage system should
be provided behind the walls to eliminate the pote
ntial build up of hydrostatic pressures, and
to prevent water
ponding at the base of the wall.
4.5
Surface and Subsurface Drainage
It is recommended that the site grade during
and after construction be such that surface
water is directed away
from the construction and finished building areas
. Perimeter foundation drains should be inclu
ded in the building
design especially if a basement is part of the desig
n as per the BC Building Code requirements.
Under no circumstance should the roof drain
s be connected to perimeter drains, but
rather to a separate
discharge system that directs runoff to a suitable
surface discharge location which could eithe
r be splash pads or
to a rock pit.
If rock pits are considered for disposal of wate
r from the perimeter foundation drains or from
the roof, these rock
pits should be located at least 5 m from the foun
dation elements of the structure.
4.6
Winter Construction
In the event that the construction schedule exten
ds into the winter months, certain precautio
ns will be necessary.
In our experience, it is difficult to conduct
foundation preparation and earth works in
temperature colder than
-5 C; however, temperatures of -1 C to -2 C
usually do not seriously inhibit earth work
s.
The requirements for
winter construction are as follows:
•
Structural fill should be comprised of unfro
zen mineral soil, free of snow, ice and
other deleterious
materials.
•
The foundation subgrade soils should be kept
free of frost before, during and after construct
ion, and water
should not be permitted to pond on the subg
rade.
Concrete should not be poured on frozen grou
nd or allowed to freeze during curing.
Footing excavations and concrete should
be adequately hoarded and heated,
•
.
5/6
,
Assodates
_
_
_
_
Matt Lebedoff
Mark Anthony Group
11 14920224-RevO-4000
June 15, 2012
4.7
Gravel Surface for Parking Area and
Roadways
Based on the anUcipated subgrade cond
itions, the following gravel surface struc
ture should be considered for
parking areas and roadways.
Materials
Recommended Minimum Structure,
mm
Crushed Surfacing Aggregate
150
Crushed Base Course
100
Select Granular Subbase
150
The base and subbase courses and aggr
egate should he placed and uniformly
compacted in maximum 150 mm
thick lifts to a minimum of 100 percent of
the standard Proctor maximum dry dens
ity (ASTM D698).
The gravel surface should be sloped to prev
ent ponding of water.
5.0
CLOSURE
We trust the foregoing provides you with
the information that you require at this
time, Should you require
additional information or have any ques
tions, please do not hesitate to contact
the
unde
rsigned at your earliest
convenience.
Yours truly,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORIGINAL SIGNED
Magalie Levasseur, M.Sc., PEng.
Geotechnical Engineer
Gerald Imada, P.Eng.
Principal, Senior Geotechnical Engineer
ML/Gl/jc
Attachments: Figure 1: Site Plan
Appendix A: Important Information and
Limitations of This Report
Appendix B: Record of Test Pit Summary
Sheets
n:acv&2O1 1 U 492U I 1 492-0224 parads
e ranch rarldeliverablesU II 4920224-t-rev
O-400
0-9eotechrccal nestigaIon I 5jun_ 12 docx
.
6/6
(Ga
Associates
-
—--—-‘S
. tZ*
•
;
APPEI\IDIX A
C
Important Information and Limitations of This Report
June 15, 2012
Reference No. 11 14920224-RevO-4000
Colder
%Lt’Associates
0
0
-
-
important Information and Limitations of This Report
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Colder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent
with that
level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions
currently
practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the
time limits
and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made.
Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design
objective,
development and purpose described to Golder by the Client. The factual data, interpretation
s and
recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable
to any other
project or site location. Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project
is not initiated
within eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder can not be
responsible
for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary,
revise the
report.
,
The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the
Client. No
other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder’s express written consent.
If the
report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable
request of
the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved
User
for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this
report by
others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Colder. The report, all plans, data, drawings
and other
documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Colder are considered its professional work
product and
shall remain the copyright property of Colder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved
Users to make
copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report
by those
parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the
report or any
portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledge
s that
electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility
and therefore the
Client can not rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder’s report or other work products.
The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions
given
to Golder by the Client, communications between Colder and the Client, and to any other reports
prepared by
Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly
understand the
suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to
the whole of
the report. Colder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to
the entire report.
Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are
intended only
for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail
of investigations,
including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions
which may affect
construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes.
Contractors bidding
on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretation
s of the
factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including
but not
limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.
Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks,
and geologic units
have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical
engineering and
related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials
or units involves
judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional
rather than
abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions.
June 15, 2012
112
(Goider
\d’Associates
-
important lnforrnaon and Limitations of This Raport
(cont’d)
Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions
and
even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain
subsurface
conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions
that Golder
interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist.
In addition to
soil variability fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site
or on
adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the
geotechnical
aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and
identified in
the report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination
resulting from
previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials
from off-site
sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed.
Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the
observed
conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions
form the
basis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond
reported
locations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the
soil, rock
and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater
level
lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils
to changes
due to wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes
during
construction.
C
Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days
following issue of
this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated sampTes and materials at
the Client’s
expense. in the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are
inferred to be
present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for
proper disposal.
Follow4Jp and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time
of submission of
Golder’s report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents
prior to
construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder’s report.
During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations
of encountered
conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those
interpreted
conditions considered in the preparation of Golder’s report and to confirm and document that
construction
activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained
in Golder’s report.
Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to
be able to provide
letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases
where this
recommendation is not followed, Golders responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately
the information
encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measuremen
t during the
preparation of the Report.
Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly
from those
anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction
activities, it is a
condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity
to review or
revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions
requires
experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency
to detect if
conditions have changed significantly.
.
Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations
for the
project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequence
s. Golder
takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed
design and
construction monitoring of the system.
June 15, 2012
212
“Goidcr
Associates
N
C
:r4*;
APPENDX B
Record of Test Ph Summary Sheets
June 15, 2012
Go1de
5
‘
1
r
Associates
0
PROJECTNo.
0
RECORD OF TEST PIT:
1.14920224(4000)
LOCA11ON: See Figure 1
INCLINATION
OWL PROWLS
—-
TP12-O1
sHEET i o I
EXCAVATION DATE: May 18 2012
HYDRAUUC CONDUCTIVITY,
(2
a-
DESCRIPTION
0
20
40
60
80
15
1E
ro
io
PIEZOMETER
I.L
STANDPIPE
INSTALLATION
—-±----—-‘-—-—_____
SHEARSTRENGTH
Crc kPa
DEPTH
5’)
20
Local
-90
SAMPLES
E
DA1TJM
nalV. + Q- I
rein V. S U
40
60
80
-
0
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
Wp
—H WI
C
10
15
G
<
20
000
(SW/OW) SAND and GRAVEL, race
non-plaslic linen, brown compact.
(FILL)
0,30
(MH) CLAVEY SILT, race line gravel,
I
trace sand, trace ciayey sill nodules,
olive brown, cohesive, wuPL. sLIt.
(FILL)
OS
0
—
o as
2
.
05
5
I
S
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, race sand, light
brown olive cohesive, wvPL, slill.
No seepage observed
El lime encavation
3
0
(2
(p
ci
(2
0
—
405
(2
)MH) CLAYEY SILT, race gravel, tracE
sand, olive brown, cohesive, WvPL.
still.
0
—
2so
(2
9
500
0
End ol TEST PIT
Lii
I
•3
DEPTh SCALE
1
15
Golder
Associates
LOGGED JS
CHECKED: RR
RECORD OF TEST PIT:
PRDJECTNo,: 1114920224 (4000)
0
LOCATiON: See Figure 1
TP12-02
SHEET 1 OF 1
EXCAVATiON DATE: May 18, 2012
DATTJM. LosI
INCLIIIAiTCN: -90
0
w
SOIL PROFILE
0
uJ
mm
—
su
(3
0
0
I
uJ
SAMPLES
I
a
0
0
DESCRIPTION
0
ELSV.
DEPTH
(as)
0
Lu
U
0
DYNAMIC PENETRATION
HYDRAULIC COND1ICT1VITr’,
k, cnW
RESISTANCE, BLOWErs 3m
2p
dD
SHEAR STRENGTh
Cu kPa
0
8,5
narV + 0- I
remV 19 U- 0
tyL
:o
io
OF-
io
Os)
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
Wp F
5
F-h
WI
(SM) SiLls’ SAND, Some gravel,
brown, contains rooted material,
bottles and bricks, loose. (FILL)
(SM) SILTY SAND, light brown,
conlains rootlets, non-cohesive, moist,
.
loose to compact
D
No seepage sbseivad
at time of eecsvetion
(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand,
contains clsyey silt nodules, ighi
brows olive, cohesive,
Eras
wvPL
0
sott is
Ca
F—
0
q
z
-a
(S
ml
Q
(3
a
q
(MN) CLAYEY SILT, some gravel,
some sand, light brown olive, contains
cobbles and bosiders, wvPL firm.
>-
-a
(5
(3
0
F
5-
F—
End of TEST PIT.
C’S
U
F—
5FCi)
CCI
F-
DEPTH SCALE
15
LOGGED JS
tes
CHECKED: RR
F
-
---
erAIaswdbuE
mpan,especiaIizing
dié and
rnnmL.ervi
[jZ -Emp1oëôwnecf
abth 196D,jhavcruafed auniu
reiivitttide in a
fiieüIhnin
mforginiznalstabilitj
Go]er p
aI take the time to bd iuñdoandinof-dientZnë
and of thspeciffa nv
nintiinbfchihey
I
I!
-
-
-
-
-
aicaahffefre,çed
_wpera from
ae
.
220 1755 Springfield Road
-
Kelowna, British Columbia, VIY 5V5
Canada
T: +1(250) 860 8424
(I Golder
!Associates
-:
C
Golder
Associates
September 19, 2012
Project No. 111 4920224-L-RevO-2000
Malcolm McNaughton, MCIP
Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen
101 Martin Street
Penticton, BC V2A 5J9
PARADISE RANCH HABITAT COMPENSATION AND RESTORATION PLANTING PRELIMINA
RY OPIN IONOF PROBABLE COST FOR BONDING
-
Dear Malcolm
As per your request please find attached our opinion of probable cost (OPC) for planting,
maintenance and
monitoring costs (Table 1) to undertake the habitat restoration and compensatinn works on the
Paradise Ranch
Project as per the Golder Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) Assessment Report dated July 20, 2012.
.
This OPC is prepared based on the following assumptions.
•
This OPC does not include trails and pathways, fences, retaining wall or other hardscape structures.
•
The OPC is based on constructed costs in the Okanagan area market.
•
Final pricing may vary depending on local construction climate, material availability, and site conditions.
Quantities and sizes are based on Golder RAR assessment dated July 20, 2012.
Table 1: Paradise Ranch Habitat Compensation and Restoration Planting Preliminary
Opinion of
Probable Cost for Bonding
•
-
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QTY
Site Clearing Grubbing and Grading
Removal of old building and construction debris
1.1
from restoration areas
Re-grading and smoothing grades to match
1 2
existing
Removal of trees and weeding (as per RAR
1.3
assessment)
Subtotal
1
1
1
f
UNIT
Lump
sum
Lump
sum
Lump
sum
PRICE
TOTAL
$1,500.00
$1,500 00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
220- 1755 Spnngfleld Road, Kolowna, Oritish Columbia, Canada V1Y 5V5
Tel: +1(250) 860 8424 Fox: 4-1 (250) 860 9874 wwwgslder.corn
Solder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America
and South Amenca
Golder, Solder Associates and the GA glbe design are trademarks of Golder Associstos
Cornsrulion
$4,500.00
Malcolm McNaughton, MCIP
Regional District of Okanagan Snilkameen
ITEM
11 14920224-L-RevO-2000
September 19, 2012
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
Planting
2.1
Flex Streamside Protection and Enhancement
Area (SPEA) Additions —200mm native topsoil
seeded with native grasses and perennials
162
2
m
$35.00
$5670.00
2.2
Black cottonwood trees minimum 2 m tall
including soil, compost and mulch
6
each
$50.00
$300.00
7
each
$250.00
$1750.00
113
2
m
$20.00
$2,260.00
-
5
each
$200.00
-
6
each
$150.00
$1,000.00
$900.00
-
Conifers minimum 1 .5 m tall including soil,
compost and mulch
Vegetation enhancement area -rose, snowberry
2.4
and Douglas fir at #2 pot size
2.5
Deciduous trees minimum 1.5 m tall
2.6
Deciduous trees minimum 1.0 m tail
Subtotal
2.3
.
-
Monitoring, Maintenance & Inspections
Inspections and reporting visits (construction,
3.1
substantial completion, total completion and end
of warranty)
Temporary irrigation system for establishment
3.2
period (2 years)
Fertilising, mechanical and hand weeding
4 visits per year, 3 years maintenance period
Subtotal
$11,880.00
6
each
$1,400.00
$8,400.00
1
Lump
sum
$3,000.00
$3 000.00
12
each
$450 00
$5,400.00
TOTAL
$16,800.00
$33,180.00
$38,157.00
115% BONDING TOTAL
12% HST
TOTAL BONDING AMOUNT (INCL TAX)
$4,578.84
$42,735.84
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call the undersigned.
Best Regards,
COLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
I
I/1
DarrylArsenault, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.
Senior Aquatic Biologist
Geradlmada, P.Eng.
Principal, Senior Geotechnical Engineer
DJAIGNtc
CC:
Matt Lebedoff, Mark Anthony Group of Companies
n:\act]ve\.201 1\1492\1 1-1492-0224 paradise ranch rar\devorablea\1 I 1492022 -I-rev0-2000_bsnding etteri9sep_12
docx
2/2
Go1der
Associates
-
4
C
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
•DD
Development Services Department
OKANAGAN
SIHILKAHEEN
DATE:
05/02/2013
TO:
Bill Newell, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM:
Malcolm McNaughton, Planner
RE:
Delegated Watercourse Development Permit
Applicant: Mark Anthony Properties Ltd.
Legal Description: District Lot 86s SDYD
FILE NO.: E12-01363.000
It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer approve watercourse
development permit E12-01363.000 in accordance with the conditions outlined in the
12/02/2011 Riparian Area Regulation Assessment Report and the WDP guidelines in
Section 20.3 of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen Electoral Area ‘E’, Official
Community Plan Bylaw No. 2458, 2008.
Development: single family dwelling
SPEA:
MOE:
Determined to be 15Cm (reduced tom 1Cm with compensation planting)
On 07/20/2011 staff received a notice that the Riparian Areas Regulation
Assessment report for this development has been filed with the province. This
report is attached as a condition of the WDP.
Security:
$42,735.84
Covenant:
Not Required
Implementation of the recommendations in the RAR assessment report will be carried out by the
applicant and it is the QEP’s responsibility to monitor that the recommendations are met.
The Regional District relies on the professional recommendations made by the QEP on this
development for the protection of the riparian area.
Under Bylaw No. 2509, 2010, delegation of approval to the Chief Administrative Officer:
approved
U not approved
Date:
/1
/-d/
Chief Administrative Offi
Bill NeWell,
0
C
L:\Folio\Area E\E0 1363 .000\WDP EDMS\WDP Memo.docx
f.
.fj
Watercourse Development Permit
OKANAGAN
S H L KAM EEH
FILE NO.: E-12-01363.000
TO: Matt Lebedoff
Vancouver, BC V5T 4T5
ADMINISTRATION
1.
2.
3.
This Development Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the bylaws of the
Regional District Okanagan-Similkameen applicable thereto, except as specifically
varied or supplemented by this Permit.
The land described shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and
conditions and provisions of this Permit, and any plans and specifications attached to
this Permit that shall form a part thereof.
This Development Permit is not a Building Permit.
APPLICABILITY
4.
•
This Development Permit applies to and only to those lands within the Regional District
described below, and any and all buildings, structures and other development thereon:
District Lot 86s SDYD as shown on Schedule X’.
CONDITIONS
5.
Development Guidelines
a.
In accordance with Section 20.3 of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen
Electoral Area ‘E’, Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2458, 2008, the proposed
clearing, grading and foundation development shall be in general compliance with
the guidelines for Watercourse Development Permit Areas.
b. The Owner shall not do anything, omit to do anything, knowingly allow anything to be
done, or allow the omission of anything, that does or could reasonably be expected
to destroy, impair, diminish, negatively affect, or alter the features, functions and
conditions of the streamside protection and enhancement area and its existing or
potential streamside vegetation, in accordance with the “Riparian Area Regulation
(RAR) Assessment Report” prepared by Darryl Arsenault,, dated July 10th, 2012,
attached as Schedule ‘Y’.
6.
Covenant
Not Required
7.
Security
$42,735.84
8.
Riparian Assessment Area
—
As documented in Schedule ‘Y’
Development Variance
Development Permit E-12-01363.000
Page 1 of 4
C
a. Section 7.6 of the Regional District of OkanaganSimilkameen Electoral Area ‘E’,
Zoning Bylaw No 2459, 2008, is varied as follows:
i from: 30.0 m to 10.0 metres from the high water mark to the closest projection of
the structure or disturbance, whichever is closer, as indicated in the attached
Schedule ‘X’.
9.
Schedule
The development shall be carried out according to the following schedule: if the holder of
the Permit does not substantially start any construction with respect to which the permit
was issued within two years after the date it is issued, the permit lapses.
In accordance with the authorization to execute under the Regional District of Okanagan
Similkameen Delegation of Local Government Authority Bylaw No 2509, 2010:
(
dbvelopment Services Manager
\
Date
http:/fportaL rcios.bc.ca/departments/foliofAreaA/A06379. 1 00/Development Permiti /A201 2.022-WDPM/DP Draft.docx
C
.
Development Permit E-12-01363 DDO
Page 2 of 4
Regional District Okanagan-Similkameen
101 Martin St, Penticton, BC V2A 5J9
Tel: (250) 492-0237 Fax (250) 492-0063
r- (
F
OKANAGAt4
SlML(AMEEN
Watercourse Development Permit
C
.
}
Dev&opment Permit E-1 2-01363.000
Page 3 of 4
0
Regional District Okanagan-Similkameen
101 Martin St, Penticton, BC V2A 5J9
Tet. (250) 492-0237 Fax (250) 492-0063
Riparian Area Regulation (RAR) Assessment Report
Schedule ‘Y’
C
.
Development Permit E-1 2-01 363.000
Page 4 of 4
C
FORM 1
Riparian Areas Regulation Qualified Environmental Professional Assessment Report
-
TTi7
-
-(iF41 P1 iT1TiThi
Date
I. Primary QEP
First Name
Last Name
Designation
Registration #
Address
City
Prov/state
2012-07-10
Information
Darryl
I Middle Name
Arsenault
R.P.Bio.
Company Golder Associates Ltd.
1088
Email darsenaultgolder.com
220-1755 Springfield Road
Kelowna
Postal/Zip V1Y 5V5
Phone
250-860-8424
BC
Country
Canada
II. Secondary QEP Information (use Form 2 for other QEPs)
First Name Magalie
Middle Name
Last Name Levasseur
Designation P.Eng.
Company Golder Associates Ltd.
Registration # 33958
Email mlevasseurgoIder.com
Address 929 McGill Road
City Kamloops
Postal/Zip V2C 6E9
Phone #
250-834-8421
Prov/state BC
Country
Canada
Ill. Developer Information
.
First Name
Last Name
Company
Phone #
Address
City
Provfstate
Matt
Lebedoff
Mark Anthony Properties
778-995-9876
Vancouver
BC
I
Middle Name
I
I
Postal/Zip
Country
Email [email protected]
V5T 4T5
Canada
IV. Development Information
Development Type Construction: Single Family Residential
Area of Development (ha) 0.15
Riparian Length m) 11930
Lot Area (ha) 258.99
Nature of Development Redevelopment
Proposed Start Date 2012-09-05
Proposed End Date I 2013-05-15
I
V. Location of Proposed Development
Street Address (or nearest town)
I 7449 North Naramata Road
Local Government Regional bistrict of Okanagan
City Naramata, BC
Similkameen
Stream Name Okanagan Lake
Legal Description (PID)
005-931-479
I Region 8 Okanagan
Stream/River Type Lake
I DFO Area Okanagan
Watershed Code 310
Latitude 49
I 39 I 45 I Longitude 119 I 38
I 40
-
Completion of Database Information includes the Form 2 for the Additional QEPs, if needed.
Insert that form immediately after this page.
.
Form 1
Page 1 of 24
FORM 1
Riparian Areas Regulation
-
Qualified Environmental Professional Assessment Report
-
Table of Contents for Assessment Report
Page Number
1. Description of Fisheries Resources Values
3
2. Results of Riparian Assessment (SPEA width)
7
3. Site Plan
9
4. Measures to Protect and Maintain the SPEA
(detailed methodology only).
1.
Danger Trees
Windthrow
2.
3.
Slope Stability
Protection of Trees
4.
5.
Encroachment
6.
Sediment and Erosion Control
7.
Floodplain
8.
Stormwater Management
14
14
15
15
15
16
17
17
5. Environmental Monitoring
18
6. Photos
19
7. Assessment Report Professional Opinion
24
0
Form 1
Page 2 of 24
C.
FORM 1
Riparian Areas Regulation Qualified Environmental Professional
-
-
Assessment Report
Section 1. Description of Fisheries Resources Values and a Description of the
Development proposal
Description of Site and Proposed Development:
The subject property is located in a rural area north of Naramata and is bounded by Okanagan
Mountain Provincial Park to the north and east, agricultural land to the south, and Okanagan Lake
to the west (refer to Figure 1). The development site has been a ranch for the past 100 years and
had a small cabin (north of Frederick Creek) and a house built on it in the 1 960’s It was an
orchard until the year 2000 upon which time it was converted over the next few years into a
vineyard. The cabin was renovated on its existing footprint following a Riparian Areas Regulation
Assessment conducted by Golder Associates Ltd. dated July 21 2010. A development permit
was not triggered by the cabin renovation and no RAR assessment was submitted. The subject of
this assessment report is the re-development of the residence (he old house) located on the
south-west point of land (the Site) (refer to Figure 2). A 1500 m residence, including pool, paths,
decks and connecting corridors, will replace the existing residence, which was built circa 1960.
•
Portions of the Riparian Assessment Area (RAA) of the Site have been disturbed by previous
land use activities including the construction of a residence, two unpaved access roads, and an
access path to Okanagan Lake located east of the residence, Vegetation next to the lake is
mainly intact and in a natural state. Large trees including ponderosa pine, interior Douglas fir,
black cottonwood, pacific willow, and introduced Siberian elm grow along the lakeside. The elm
trees are clustered around the house on the south point.
The current project involves the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new
residence, mainly outside the SPEA. There will be a small amount of SPEA bending (flex) and
natural vegetation enhancement as part of the project. Three floor slab areas totalling 58 m
,
2
which will be cantilevered over the slope, will encroach into the SPEA in areas that have been
previously disturbed. No part of the development will encroach closer than 10 m from the lake’s
high water mark (HWM). Shrubs will be planted below the cantilevered building components. In
addition, 162 m
2 of area outside of the calculated 15 m SPEA will be flexed into the setback and
restored with native vegetation (figures 2 and 3). The large silt bluffs north and east of the
residence constrain the development due to their height and according to the developer the
residence cannot be pushed any further northeast without affecting the bluffs and slope stability
The Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen does not supply letters of support for flexing the
SPEA. Instead, they rely on the QEP to determine the appropriate flex and enhancement
program. As discussed later in this document (sections 2 and 4), the QEP has determined that
the project will result in a net gain in fish habitat over the existing conditions, particularly with the
replacement of the culverts on Frederick Creek with a bridge. There will not be harmful alteration,
disruption or destruction of fish habitat from the proposed development.
The existing residence is accessed from two driveways, one coming from the north along the
shoreline and the other also from the north (but a little east) through a vineyard. The shoreline
road was recently compromised by Frederick Creek when it avulsed from its channel and washed
out about 40 m of the road (see attached photo). The road washout has created an opportunity to
restore fish access in the creek. The existing crossing consists of two 900 mm diameter culverts
that hang about 800 to 900 mm above the water surface and would act as a barrier to fish
swimming upstream. The developer is in the process of acquiring a clear span bridge design to
Form 1
Page 3 of 24
C
FORM 1
-
Qualified Environmental Professional
-
Assessment Report
replace the culverts and to restore the road surface to a cart path. This will result inanarrower
road (2.2 m as opposed to 3+m) with a re-graded/restored riparian edge (see Figure 4), and will
remove the existing culvert barrier to fish migration.
Beach access near the new residence is expected to occur along the existing path to the east of
the house (Figure 1). This path will be narrowed to 1.5 m maximum width and surfaced with an
environmentally friendly product such as that available at
http://www.enssolutions.com/AppRoadYardStablization.html.
The proposed development is located on a silt bluff overlooking Okanagan Lake. A field
reconnaissance of the Site and its existing features was conducted December 14, 2011 by Jason
Marzinzik (B.Sc.) and again on May 18, 2012 by Darryl Arsenault. Photographic documentation
collected during the survey is provided in Section 6.
Description of Fisheries Resource Values:
Okanagan Lake supports a diverse and highly valued mix of resident fish species. A query of the
Fisheries Information Summary System was conducted December 15, 2011 and the results are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Fish species with likelihood of occurrence in Okanaqan Lake.
Expected in
Fish Species
Fish Species
Okanagan
Lake
(Common name)
(Latin name)
near_Development
Kokanee
Oncorhynchus nerka
Yes
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Yes
Prickly sculpin
Cottus asper
Yes
Burbot
Lota Iota
Yes
SlImy scupin
Cot/us cognatus
Yes
Chistlemouth
Acrocheilus alutaceus
Yes
Carp
Cyprinus carpio
Yes
Largescale Sucker
Catostomus macrocheilus
Yes
Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clark/i
No
Brook Trout
Salvelinus font/na/is
No
Leopard Dace
Rhinichthys fa/catus
Yes
Longnose Dace
Rhinichthys cataractae
Yes
Longnose Sucker
Catostomus catostomus
Yes
Lake Trout
Sa/velinus namaycush
No
Lake Whitefish
Coregonus clupea form/s
Yes
Mountain Whitefish
Prosopium wihiamsoni
Yes
Northern P ikem inflow Ptychocheilus oregonensis
Yes
Peamouth Chub
My/chef/us caurinus
Yes
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Yes
Pygmy Whitefish
Prosopium cou/terii
Yes
Redside Shiner
Richardson/us ba/teatus
Yes
Steelhead trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
No
Yellow Perch
Perca flavescens
Yes
-
.
.
.
.
.
—
——
-______
,
According to the Okanagan Region Foreshore Protocol completed in May 2009, the proposed
project is located within a no color zone, which represents areas where no recent or historic shore
spawning is known to occur. The proposed development is not considered to be a risk to this
foreshore area as this type of work is not listed in the risk assessment table for development
Form 1
Page 4 of 24
.
FORM 1
-
-
Assessment Report
activities (proposed development will be outside the SPEA). The outlet to nearby Frederick
Creek (located approximately 200 m to the north) occurs in a yellow habitat zone. A yellow zone
has generally moderate with some high value habitat for the long term maintenance and recovery
of kokanee productivity in Okanagan Lake.
Foreshore Inventory and Mapping (FIM) and Aquatic Habitat Index (AHI) ranking has been
completed for Okanagan Lake and Segment 23 describes the Site as having a medium level of
impact and a high AHI ranking. ElM indicates that this segment does not contain fish staging,
migration, salmon spawning, or mussel presence but has high juvenile rearing rating. Sensitive
Ecosystem Information (SEI) indicates that 100% of this segment belongs to the priority
conservation area designated as other important conservation areas.
The lake substrate at the Site consists primarily of gravels and cobble along the shoreline with
fines below approximately 343 m above sea level (asl). No shore spawning habitat was observed
during either the December or May field surveys. Fragments of Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum) were observed along the shoreline; however, no rooted watermilfoil was
observed. Two mature ponderosa pines were recently bug-killed and have fallen into Okanagan
Lake south-east of the residence and provide valuable fish habitat.
The riparian vegetation surrounding the proposed development area includes a mix of mature
native plant species as well as some exotic invasive weed species. Emergent vegetation occurs
along the shoreline south and east of the residence. A summary of some of the plant species
observed within the project area is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Plant species observed on Site, with provincial rankina*.
Plant Species
Plant Species
(Common name)
(Latin name)
Trees
Black cottonwood
Pop u/us balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa
Interior Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca
Ponderosa pine
Pinus ponderosa
Siberian elm
Spruce sp.
Water birch
Ulmus pumila
—
Status
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Exotic
Picea sp.
Betula
Yellow
occidentalis
Shrubs
Common
rabbit-brush
Common snowberry
Prickly Rose
Red-osier dogwood
Ericameria nauseosa
—
Symphoricarpos a/bus
—
Rosa acicu/aris
Cornus stolonifera
Tall Oregon grape
Mahonia aquifo/ium
Willow sp.
Sa/ix sp.
Herbs
Great burdock
Great mullein
Arctiurn /appa
Mustard sp.
Russian knapweed
Scouring-rush
Thistle sp.
Form 1
Verbascum thapsus
Sisymbrium sp.
Acropti/on repens
Eguisetum hyemale
Cirsium sp.
j
j
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Yellow
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Exotic
Yellow
Exotic
J
Page 5
of
24
FORM 1
Riparian Areas Regulation Qualified Environmental Professional Assessment Report
-
Two mature Siberian elm trees and one dead Douglas fir tree located at the south-west corner of
the residence present a danger to workers and must be felled and replaced following the BC Tree
Replacement Criteria; refer to Section 4.1 below. A Siberian elm located along the foundation on
the north side of the residence will also be removed: however, it is located outside the SPEA and
does not require replacement trees.
.
Form 1
Page6of24
FORM 1
Rparian Areas Regulation
.‘
-
-
Assessment Report
Section 2. Results of Riparian Assessment (SPEA width)
Form 3 results below
Date:J2012-07-lO
Description of Water bodies involved (number, type)
Stream
Wetland
Lake
Ditch
Number of reaches
Okanagan Lake
Reach #
Channel width and slope and Channel Type (use only if water body is a stream or a
ditch, and only provide widths if a ditch)
Site Potential Vegetation Type (SPVT)
Yes
SPVT Polygons
No
L
X
Tick yes only if multiple polygons, if No then fill in one set of SPVT data boxes
I, Darryl Arsenault, hereby certify that:
a) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas
Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act;
b) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal
made by the developer Matt Lebedoff,
c) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is
set out in this Assessment Report; and
d) In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the
assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation.
.
Polygon No:
LoLi
LC
SPVTType
Method employed if other than TR
SH
TR
lx
I
F
Polygon No:
LC
SPVT Type
Polygon No:
SPVT Type
SH
TR
L_____________
L
I
_j
Zone of Sensitivity (ZOS) and resultant SPEA
Segment
If two
No:
LWD, Bank and Channel
Stability ZOS (m)
Litter fall and insect drop
ZOS
sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water
bodies multiple segments occur where there are multiple SPVT polygons
15
15
(m)
Shade ZOS (m) max
30
South bank
Yes
I
Ditch
Justification description for classifying as a ditch (manmade,
[
Form 1
No
X
Page
7
of 24
.
FORM 1
-
-
Assessment Report
I no significant headwaters or springs, seasonal fTc
Ditch Fish Yes
Bearing
SPEA maximum
Segment
If two sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water
No:
Stability ZOS (m)
ZOS
Shade ZOS (m) max
SPEA maximum
(m)
I
South bank Yes
(For ditch use table3-7)
No
Segment
If two sides of a stream involved, each side is a separate segment. For all water
No:
Stability ZOS (m)
ZOS (m)
Shade ZOS (m) max
South bank Yes
I No
SPEA maximum
(For ditch use table3-7)
I
I, DarrA Arsenault, hereby certify that:
a)
I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection
Act;
b)
I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the developer Matt
Lebedoff:
c)
I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this Assessment
Report; and
d)
In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have followed the assessment methods set out
in the Schedule to
the Riparian Areas Regulation.
Comments
The high water mark was established at 342.5 masl and was based on a site survey provided by
McElhanney Associates Ltd. The portion of the lakeshore adjacent to the subject property is
curved such that the entire shoreline is generally south to west facing. The resulting shade ZOS
is generally zero so does not affect the 15 m SPEA. Refer to Figure 2 for detailed placement.
Development that occurred on the site over 50 years ago resulted in impacts within the 15 m
SPEA. Although the impacts, such as parking areas, driveways, and house with foundation would
be considered grandfathered, the redevelopment presents an opportunity to restore some of
these areas. Parking is not desired within the SPEA and an access management plan will result
in the driveway along the lake being reduced to a cart path. The driveway will now approach from
the north. The new building has been designed so that there is no removal of trees and shrubs
within the SPEA, except where they currently present a danger to workers (and where these
same trees are invasive exotic species). Tree replacement will occur.
Flexing of the SPEA has been considered by the QEP to provide an opportunity to require
enhancement within the SPEA. Portions of the building (about 58 mj will be cantilevered over the
SPEA and those areas will be planted with native shrubs. The SPEA will be bent out 162 m
2 to
result in more SPEA area. One roof-line that is over 5 m above the ground surface was not
considered as encroachment into the SPEA. Large shrubs, such as Saskatoon, will be planted
under the overhang. Enhancement of the SPEA, as shown in figures 3 and 4, is expected to
result in a net gain in productive riparian fish habitat (enhancement of —932 m
). A Water Act
2
application will be tendered for replacement of culverts on Frederick Creek (Figure 4) with a clear
soan bridoe. which should result in a substantial net gain in fish habitat.
Form I
Page 8 of 24
e 0
MAP
NANAMATA
SITE LOCATiON
SITE PLAN
-
EXISTING CONDITIONS
MARK ANTHONY GROUP
OF COMPAMES
RIPARIAN AREAS REGULA
7449 NORTH NARAMATA TiON ASSESSMENT
RD NARAMATA B.C
REFERENCES
LEGENP
OVERALl. LOCATION
SLNEMKRLNC
‘it.
7
&
V\
•
-
.
•1
.,
7
\
\
..‘,\_
\-•
\
-
\
,\
//
/
--
---
NAAMflT*
/SflEIS1CATtN
I
I
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAN SHOW
ING
RAR FEATURES AND SOME MEASURES
MARK ANTHONY GROUP OF
COMPANIES
RIPARIAN AREAS REGULATION
ASSES
7449 NORTH NARAMATA RD.. NARA SMENT
MATA B.C.
REFERENCES
c:.:
LEGEND
OERALL LOCATDN ?.P
e
SUIEPtA)
0
S3NflIV3d NOl1vJoi 3dV3SONV,
ONIMOHS NY9d AAèlflS DIHdViOdO1
x
D VLLVvN Gd VlwqvdvN HIdON
6t’VL
1N3SS3Sgy NOW9flD3d SVGNV
NVIdVdId
S]INVdJQ3 JO dflOdD ANOHLNV
NdW
10fl903W1N34)De,n,h, o10110A
QNaOG-1
1
-
I,
,f
\
/
/
\
/1
IlLl
d! 01 30030
(B1 300J1’5
I
0/” /
I /
‘0
//
//
I
I
/
I
0
/
0
0
VENiCE 10 PTA)? VAlET
WITH IN 2 2’.(PAIN V.CrH,c 100)
‘N
N
EN
s’..
—
:: ‘N. N’: N
\
0
6
PENT1CTON
•
,-.SITE LOCATiON
VEQEIAIClEk,CEMANIk,EA.SaFO.PM,fl,IN
S
•1
Gok
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAN
SHOWING
LANDSCAPE RESTORATION FEA
TURES
MARK ANTHONY GROUP OF COMP
AMES
RIPARIAN AREAS REGULAT(ON
ASSES
7449 NORTH NARAMATA RD., NARA SMENT
MATA BC.
REFERENCE
0 0
LEGEND
HiS)
OVERALL LOCATiON M4P
C
PETAIILA
0
0
0
/
/
/
/
//
//
// 7
Ill
ii’
EEL
\\\
--:
•flf
E
*
IDRAFTI
SPM!OSOPY
PPROX$SATtC€OrEQ*ICAJS€TIAX
PENSCTON
_-SITELCCAIICN
b’
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
RAR AND GEOTECHNICALPLAN SHOWING
SETBACKS AND
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTRO
L PLAN
MARK ANTHONY GROUP OF
RIPARIAN AREAS REGULATIO COMPANIES
N ASSESSMENT
7449 NORTH NARAMATA RD.
NARAMATA E
REFERENCE
LEGEND
HIS)
OVERALL LOCATION MAP
S
*
SEflAUERUJS
a
-
FORM 1
0
-
-
Assessment Report
Section 4. Measures to Protect and Maintain the SPEA
1. DangerTrees
There are two Siberian elm trees on the Site that have defects and one dead Douglas fir, which must be
removed for safety concerns. The elms are part of a mature cluster of four elms (dbh 0.30 to 0.45 m)
located south of the southwest corner of the existing residence (refer to figures 2 and 3) and show signs
of defects including stem damage (rot), dead limbs (widow maker), and tree lean (>10% toward work
area). The Douglas fir is approximately 0.30 m in diameter and will require replacement with four trees.
The two elm stems leaning toward the residence must be felled and replaced following the BC Tree
Replacement Criteria; refer to Table 3 below for recommended species (4 replacement trees per stem).
Table 3 contains native tree species observed on Site; eight (8) trees will be selected from this list to be
planted within the SPEA of the Site.
In addition, bending of the SPEA to accommodate cantilevered decks and roof lines requires
enhancement plantings. An additional 16 trees and 64 shrubs will be required for planting and the areas
are shown on figures 3 and 4. Substitutions may be allowed based on QEP approval.
Table 3: Tree species to be planted on site
Tree species
Tree species (Latin name)
(Common Name)
Black cottonwood
Popu/us balsamifera ssp.trichocarpa
Interior Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii var glauca
Pacific willow
Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra
Paper birch
Betula papyrifera
Ponderosa pine
Pinus ponderosa
Scouler’s willow
Salix scouleriana
Water birch
Betula occidental/s
Number
6
Minimum height required
3
3
2 m
2 m
1 .5rn
2
1.5 m
4
4
2
2 m
1 m
1 m
—
Total: 24
e) I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made
under the Fish Protection Act;
f) I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the
developer Matt Lebedoff;
g) I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this
Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have
followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas Regulation
2. Windthrow
All trees appeared windfirm and stable during the field surveys and the risk of windthrow damage to
trees in the SPEA is considered to be low. However, following the removal of the two Siberian elms
mentioned in Section 4.1 the remaining two stems should be inspected for stability as they share a
common root system. It should also be noted that a mature ponderosa pine has recently fallen to the
east of the existing residence and the ponderosa pine east of it (dbh 0.55 m) was dead and had been
felled by the second field visit (May 18, 2012).
I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made
a.
I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the
c.Ihave carried out an assessment of the development proposa dmy assessment is set out in this
b.
Form 1
Page 14 of 24
0
FORM 1
-
3. Slope Stability
A slope stability assessment has been conducted by an appropriately qualified professional engineer
due to the steep silt bluff conditions observed at the Site The geotechnical report is attached.
A
geotechnical setback has been established by extending a 2:1 slope back from the toe of
slope by the
lake to behind the top of slope. In summary, slope stability concerns can be addressed through
design
by cantilevering the building slab over the geotechnical setback area or by extending the foundation
through the 2:1 line. The foundation design has been adjusted based on the geotechnical assessment.
Pile supports and cantilevered slabs will be used where indicated.
Retaining walls are indicated on building plans along the east side, adjacent to a ridge of land Design
recommendations are provided in the attached geotechnical assessment report.
I, Maqalie Levasseur, hereby certify that:
a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation
made
b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made
by the
c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment
is set out in this
4. Protection of Trees
There will be no impact to the existing trees within the SPEA except for those deemed as
hazard trees;
these trees will be removed and replacement of new trees will occur according the BC Ministry
of
Environment (1996) tree replacement citeria. The trees that will be planted as replacement
trees will
be protected from any damage. Protective cages will be placed around the planted trees
for beaver
protection along with mouse guards to protect from any rodent damage. Sediment and erosion
control
structures (i.e. silt fencing) will be established outside the drip zone of trees to avoid potential
damage
to tree root structures.
The two large Douglas fir trees that are close to the southwest corner and west corner will
require tree
protection during construction. A highly visible cage should be placed around the trees
to keep
equipment operators aware of their requirement for protection
It is recommended that a long-term vegetation maintenance plan is created by Mark Anthony
Properties
to continue a weed management and vegetation watering program. A landscape maintenance
company
is often the best option to ensure regular care and long-term survival. Weed species
targeted for
management must be approved by a QEP.
a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation
made
b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal
made by the
c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment
is set out in this
Assessment Report; and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal,
I have
—
—___________
5. Encroachment
I
Due to the steep slope from the proposed residence to the foreshore area (65-85% slope)
and the
presence of a single existing access path, no further encroachment is anticipated into the
SPEA.
However, in order to avoid the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD)
of fish habitat under
the federal Fisheries Act and maintain the integrity of the SPEA during the more permanent
occupation
Form 1
Page 15 of 24
FORM 1
-
-
Assessment Report
of the residence, Golder recommends the following during development and occupation of the Site:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Silt and snow fencing will be staked in along the edge of the SPEA to delineate the area where
equipment cannot enter the SPEA. In addition, soil and other building materials may not be
stored in the SPEA.
Waste material must be removed from the Site the same day as it is generated.
The use of herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers is not permitted within the SPEA.
The addition of new tree or shrub plantings in the SPEA must be native riparian species and
planted under the consultation of a QEP.
Removal or modification of existing native riparian vegetation located within the S PEA, except
where specified in this report, is not permitted under RAR.
Trimming of trees within the SPEA, except where specified in this report, will not be allowed
I, Darryl Arsenau[t, hereby certify that:
a. I am a qualified environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made
b. I am qualified to carry out this part of the assessment of the development proposal made by the
c. I have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and my assessment is set out in this
6. Sediment and Erosion Control
As stated in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 above, silt fencing will be required along the length of the SPEA
beside the residence (Figure 5) In addition, works will be conducted during dry weather, as much as
possible. During times of heavy precipitation and wet site conditions, construction will be avoided and/or
delayed. Checking the weather forecasts prior to commencement of works will help avoid delays.
—________
I
The release of silt, sediment or sediment-laden water or any other deleterious substance (i.e., fertilizers
or hydrocarbons such as gasoline or oil used by equipment) will be prevented from entering the lake.
Equipment and machinery used on the subject property will be maintained in good operating condition
(power/pressure washed) and free of leaks or excess oil and grease.
Cleared areas will be vegetated with native species and kept clear of invasive weeds. Re-vegetation will
include the tree species listed above in Section 4.1 (Danger Trees) and will also include the following
shrubs. Plants should be purchased from a local nursery specializing in native plants (list available from
QEP on request) Substitutions may be considered based upon approval from the QEP.
Table 4: Shrub species to be planted on site
Shrub species (Common
Shrub species (Latin
Name)
name)
Prickly rose
Rosa ac/cu/ar/s
Saskatoon
Amelanchieralnifolia
Mallow ninebark
Physocarpus malyaceus
Choke cherry
Punus virginiana
Pin cherry
Prunus pensylvanica
Ocean spray
Holodiscus discolor
Common rabbit-brush
Ericameria nauseosa
Tall Oregon grape
Mahonia aquifolium
Common snowberry
Symphoricarpos a/bus
Red-osier dogwood
Cornus ste/onifera
4 shrubs can be replaced
—
Form 1
.
Number
15
10
6
6
6
4
10
15
j.
10
Total: 97
.
.
Minimum size required
—
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
-
pot
pot
pot
pot
pot
pot
pot
pot
I
#1 pot
Page 16 of 24
—
——
—
O
FORM 1
-
-
by I tree
I, Darryl Arsenauft, hereby certify that:
a. I am a qualifled environmental professional, as defined in the Riparian Areas Regulation made
7. Stormwater Management
Stormwater resulting from development within the proposed subdivided properties will be returned to
natural hydrologic pathways (i.e., into the ground) prior to entering the SPEA, Stormwater generated
from impervious surfaces on the site (i.e., roofs) will be captured (i.e. rain barrels) or infiltrated back to
ground via French drains, a soak-away pit, or a combination of the two systems Impervious surfaces
on the Site will be reduced by leaving driveway and parking areas unpaved. Stormwater generated on
the site post-development will not enter the SPEA but roof rains may be directed via point source
discharge to the lake. Care will be taken to capture or redirect storm water from the driveway access
through the vineyard (Photo 10),
The provincial government document entitled Stormwater Planning: A Guide for British Columbia (2002)
provides a reference for achieving stormwater objectives and examples on how to develop measures to
achieve this goal. Golder recommends incorporation of a green roof and rain barrels into the site plan.
Assessment Report: and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have
8. Floodplain Concerns (highly mobile
channel)
Not applicable. The residence will be situated at least 4 m above the 343.66 masl floodplain elevation.
Assessment Report: and In carrying out my assessment of the development proposal, I have
Form 1
Page 17 of 24
FORM 1
-
-
Assessment Report
Section 5. Environmental Monitoring
The owner will retain an environmental monitor to be present at regular intervals (at least twice
per month) during construction activities and to provide direction to the contractor(s) on how to
implement sediment and erosion control measures and encroachment prevention measures
prior to commencement of construction activities It is anticipated that a minimum of twelve
site visits would be required during the construction period. Regular environmental monitoring
reports will be provided to the developer and contractor(s) during construction.
A post-development review by a QEP is required under RAR to determine if the SPEA and
measures implemented onsite are consistent with recommendations provided in this RAR
assessment report. A post-construction review report, which will include a summary of all the
inspections, photographs, and a confirmation that the measures implemented are consistent
with this RAR report, will be submitted to the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource
Operation’s (MFLNRO) electronic filing system within 60 days of the completion of
construction and a copy will be submitted to the developer.
In addition, the environmental monitor will conduct a one-year post-restoration site visit to
determine the success of the riparian plantings. This post-restoration site visit will be
summarized in a report which will include a summary of the inspection, photographs, and a
report on the survival of all riparian plants. If it is determined that there is less than 100%
survival, the report will recommend replacement and re-planting of the species lost. A
subsequent site visit would be required to report on success and total completion of the
project. Each report must be submitted to the MFLNROs electronic filing system
Form 1
Page 18 of 24
FORM I
-
Qualified Environmental Professio
nal Assessment Report
-
Section 6. Photos
Photo 1: View of the existing residen
ce facing south-east. The exotic
Siberian elm located on the
north side of the residence wHl be
removed. Two stems of the Siberia
n
west corner of the residence have
elm overhanging the south
rot at the base of the stem and
will require removal. Replacemen
trees will be planted within the SPE
t
A as shown on Figure 3.
,
.i
Dead ponderosa pine has
been felled.
Siberian elm to be removed.
Two overhanging stems of this
Siberian elm
require removal. Third arrow poin
ts to dead
Douglas fir, which also requires
removal.
Photo 2: View of residence facing
north from Okanagan Lake. The
south-east corner of the existing
residence extends into the SPEA;
this area will be restored during
the proposed development.
Vegetation enhancement area
(approximate).
.
Form 1
Page 19of24
FORM 1
Riparian Areas Regulation Qualified
Environmental Professional Assessme
nt Report
-
-
Photo 3: Main access road to redevelop
ed house. Stormwater managemen
t is required.
Photo 4: Cart access path to redeve
loped house. To be repaired, narrow
ed, and surfaced with
crushed rock (surface to be determi
ned). Driveway was damaged by
Frederick Creek avulsion.
.
Form 1
Page2Oof24
FO
RM 1
Riparian Areas Regulation Qual
ified Environmental Professional
Assessment Report
-
-
Photo 5: Culverts at driveway
over Frederick Creek. Recommen
d replacing with a clear span
bridqe
/
Photo 6: Foot access path to
beach east of house. To be nar
rowed to 1.5 m and surfaced
crushed rock (surface to be dete
with
rmined).
.
I
.
Form 1
Page 21 of24
FORM 1
-
Assessment Report
-
Photo 7: New residence to be situ
ated on, or further from the lake than
, the footprint of the existing
residence. Riparian area left of the
house to be protected (except whe
re danger tree assessment
warrants).
Two overhanging stems of this Sibe
rian elm
require removal
Photo 8: New residence to be plac
ed on the previously disturbed flat
area behind the large Douglas
fir trees, which will be protected.
.
Form I
Page 22 of 24
FORM 1
Riparian Areas Regulation Qualified Environmental Profes
sional Assessment Report
-
-
Photo 9: Riparian enhancement area at the northwest corner
of the old house. Concrete wifl be
removed
Concrete to be removed and natural
vegetation planted
Photo 10: Erosion protection must consider potential
for upsiope silt transport by rainwater,
especially where driveway descends to new house.
.
Improve erosion protection measures
in existing ditch line and create larger
sediment detention pond
.
Form 1
Page 23 of 24
FORM 1
-
-
Assessment Report
Sec tion 7. Professional Opinion
Assessment Report Professional Opinion on the Development Proposal’s riparian area.
Date
1 I/We Darryl Arsenault and Magalie Levasseur
in
Please list name(s) of qualified environmental professional(s) and their professional desionation that are involved
assessment.)
hereby certify that:
a) I am/We are qualified environmental professional(s), as defined in the Riparian
Areas Regulation made under the Fish Protection Act;
b) I am/We are qualified to carry out the assessment of the proposal made by the
developer Matt Lebedoff, which proposal is described in section 3 of this
Assessment Report (the “development proposal’),
c) I have/We have carried out an assessment of the development proposal and
my/our assessment is set out in this Assessment Report; and
d) In carrying out my/our assessment of the development proposal, I have/We have
followed the assessment methods set out in the Schedule to the Riparian Areas
Regulation: AND
2. As qualified environmental professional(s), I/we hereby provide my/our professional opinion that:
if the development is implemented as proposed by the development
a)
proposal there will be no harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of natural
features, functions and conditions that support fish life processes in the riparian
assessment area in which the development is proposed, Q
(Note: include local government flex letter, DFO Letter of Advice, or description of
how DFO local variance protocol is being addressed)
b)
protection and enhancement areas identified in this
LX1 if the streamside
Report are protected from the development proposed by the
Assessment
development proposal and the measures identified in this Assessment Report as
necessary to protect the integrity of those areas from the effects of the
development are implemented by the developer, there will be no harmful
alteration, disruption or destruction of natural features, functions and conditions
that support fish life processes in the riparian assessment area in which the
development is proposed.
‘qualified environmental professional” means an applied scientist or technologist, acting alone or
[NOTE:
together with another qualified environmental professional, if
(a) the individual is registered and in good standing in British Columbia with an appropriate professional
organization constituted under an Act, acting under that association’s code of ethics and subject to disciplinary
action by that association,
(b) the individual’s area of expertise is recognized in the assessment methods as one that is acceptable for the
purpose of providing all or part of an assessment report in respect of that development proposal, and
(c) the individual is acting within that individual’s area of expertise.]
Form 1
Page 24 of 24

Public Hearing Minutes - FTP Directory Listing

Transcription

Similar documents

Angiosperm Latin Name: Cyperus involucratus Common Name

Angiosperm Latin Name: Clivia miniata Common Name: Kaffir Lily

Technical Sheet - Microbes Biosciences

Nursery making water work, Vernon Morning Star

Colleen Farrow - All Occasions Management

Angiosperm Latin Name: Euphorbia ingens Common Name

Project Profile: Horasan Kurtozu Sarıkamış Highway

PDF view - Woody Plants Database

Hillsider Winter 2014

managing ackee cvr fnl