Sooke Bear-Safe Waste Management Plan

Prepared for: Sam Webb of Wild Wise Sooke

Prepared by: Maggie Mahony, Jordan Ormshaw, Paige Thurston, Kayla Harris

BSc Environmental Science

Royal Roads University

2019

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 5

Executive Summary ...... 6

Glossary of Terms ...... 7

Terminology ...... 7

Abbreviations and Acronyms...... 8

1.0 Introduction...... 9

1.1 Scope ...... 9

1.2 Purpose ...... 9

1.3 Goals...... 9

1.4 Background...... 9

2.0 Research Methods ...... 14

2.1 Review of Documents ...... 14

2.2 Interviews ...... 14

2.3 Surveys ...... 14

3.0 Findings ...... 16

3.1 Survey Results ...... 16

3.2 Current Waste Management Practices in Sooke ...... 18

3.3 Past and Present Initiatives Towards Bear-Safe Waste Management ...... 22

3.4 Public Education ...... 22

3.5 Enforcement ...... 25

3.6 Public Involvement and Approval of Plan ...... 31

3.7 Case Studies ...... 31

3.8 Bear-Resistant Bins...... 33

4.0 Residential Waste Management Tools ...... 35

4.1 Increasing Public Education ...... 35

4.2 Addition of Bear Specific Bylaws in Sooke ...... 37

4.3 Increased Enforcement of Bylaws ...... 40

4.4 Change from Private to Municipal Waste Management ...... 41

4.5 Bear-Resistant Bins for Curbside Pickup ...... 43

4.6 Centralized Waste Pick-Up Locations (Transfer Stations) ...... 46

4.7 Neighborhood Bear-Proof Bins ...... 48

4.8 Use of a Waste Management Mobile App ...... 50

4.9 Pursue Bear Smart Status ...... 51

5.0 Recommendations ...... 53

5.1 Plan 1: Secure Locations Required ...... 53

5.2 Plan 2: Neighbourhood Bear-Proof Bins ...... 57

5.3 Markers of Success ...... 60

6.0 Conclusion ...... 62

9.0 Appendices ...... 64

Appendix I: Survey Results ...... 64

Appendix II ...... 116

Endnotes ...... 117

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the numerous individuals who helped to shape this report. We greatly benefitted from their knowledge and advice and appreciate the time they took to assist us.

We would first like to thank our supervisor, Dr. Jonathan Moran, for his guidance, support, and humour throughout this project.

We would like to thank District of Sooke staff for helping us to gain a better understanding of Sooke, its residents, and the unique challenges this community faces. Deepest thanks to Sooke Bylaw Enforcement Officer Medea Mills for her time and thoughtful insights on Sooke and bylaw enforcement. Thanks to Councillor Jeff Bateman for his insights on this topic, and for his continued support of wildlife-human conflict reduction.

For sharing her expertise in helping communities like Sooke work towards bear-safety, we would like to thanks Crystal McMillan of Bear Smart BC Consulting. Thanks also to Joanna Klees van Bommel for sharing findings from her research with us, and for sharing her wonderful photos with us.

We would also like to thank Conservation Officers Rick Dekelver, Peter Pauwels, and Daniel Eichstadter their time and knowledge on wildlife conflict and conflict reduction. Additional thanks to Human-Wildlife Conflict Manager Mike Badry for his expert advice on this subject.

Many thanks to both Sooke Disposal Ltd. and Alpine Disposal and Recycling representatives for their time and willingness to share with us.

Special thanks to Deb Read for her invaluable insights and for her years of dedication to this topic and to reducing human-wildlife conflict in Sooke.

Finally, we would like to thank our sponsor, Samantha Webb of Wild Wise Sooke, for her contributions to this project and her commitment to championship for wildlife in Sooke.

Executive Summary

Residential waste has been identified as a primary attractant for bears in the District of Sooke. In the interest of both public safety and wildlife conservation, this issue bears consideration. Previous reports written by Royal Roads University students with the support of Wild Wise Sooke have identified the need for a bear-safe waste management plan. This report investigates and presents the best waste management options for Sooke.

Interviews with District of Sooke staff, wildlife experts, Conservations Officers, and waste disposal companies were conducted to gain insight on Sooke, bear-waste conditioning, and waste management practices. A survey was conducted among Sooke residents to assess the current situation, gain insight into resident opinions regarding potential solutions, and to ensure that the recommendations made by this report would be accepted by the community.

In addition to this, research was conducted into other communities in BC and their waste management practices. Based on suggestions from interviewees and research into other communities, a number of waste management tools were thoroughly investigated. An analysis of the efficacy, costs, logistics of implementation, and resident opinion for each tool was conducted.

Having weighed the merits of the various tools available, two potential bear-safe waste management plans were developed for the District of Sooke. Plan 1 requires residents to store their waste in secure locations or to use a bear-resistant bin. This plan would incorporate a waste-related bylaw requiring residents to store waste securely. This plan would also require the purchase and distribution of bear-resistant bins by the District to those residents without a secure location to store waste. Plan 2 would see the implementation and use of neighbourhood bear-proof bins in Sooke, which would involve a shift from privatized waste collection services to a municipal waste collection system. The advantages and disadvantages to both plans are discussed in the report. The implementation of a waste-related bylaw, increased bylaw enforcement, and increased public education were identified as critical components of both plans.

This report is designed to be reviewed by the District of Sooke and its residents, and to provide resources for the implementation for a bear-safe waste management plan.

Glossary of Terms

Terminology Bear-Safe: strategies which consider and mitigate human-bear conflicts.

Bear Smart: a voluntary program which was designed by the BC Ministry of Environment in partnership with the BC Conservation Foundation and Union of BC Municipalities to recognize communities which have effectively mitigated human-bear conflicts.

The District: The District of Sooke.

Habituation: when bears lose their instinctual fear of humans through repeated contact.

Conditioning: when bears associate humans and their settlements with access to food or other resources and begin to actively seek these benefits.

Garbage: municipal solid waste which cannot be composted or recycled.

Plan: a combination of waste management tools.

Tool: one potential component of a bear-safe waste management plan.

Waste: in this report, “waste” will refer to residential municipal solid waste, including kitchen scraps.

Waste Management: the storage, collection and disposal of municipal solid waste.

Abbreviations and Acronyms BC: British Columbia

BEO: Bylaw Enforcement Officers

BRB: Bear-resistant Bin

CRD: Capital Regional District

HBCMP: Human Bear Conflict Management Plan

IGBG: Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee

MOE: Ministry of Environment

NATOBRP: North American Testing of Bear-resistant Products

PBHA: Preliminary Bear Hazard Assessment

RFP: Request for Proposal

RRU: Royal Roads University

WWS: Wild Wise Sooke

ZWS: Zero Waste Sooke

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Scope This project focuses on finding bear-safe solutions to waste management within the District of Sooke, with the principal focus being on residential waste collection for single family dwellings, apartments, condominiums, and mobile home parks. Residences outside of the District of Sooke are not included. Restaurants, grocery stores, schools, parks and campgrounds are not considered in this report.

1.2 Purpose The purpose of creating a bear-safe waste management plan is to limit interactions between bears and humans in Sooke, which will benefit human safety as well as the protection of bears. Secondary benefits could include increased property values and cleanliness in the community as wildlife accessing garbage can leave a mess. The plan may also contribute to Sooke’s waste reduction goals.

1.3 Goals The goal of this research project is to present a report to Wild Wise Sooke detailing waste management plan options which will reduce human-bear conflict in the District of Sooke. The report will identify which methods of residential waste management are the most effective in limiting bear access to waste, as well as the costs of various methods. This report will also consider resident reception and logistical feasibility of the options. In consideration of these factors, two waste management plans will be offered.

1.4 Background 1.4.1 Bear Ecology British Columbia is estimated to have a population of between 120 000 and 150 0000 black bears (Ursus americanus).1 On average, these bears are smaller than a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos). Adult male black bears weigh around 300 kilograms while a grizzly bear can weigh up to 500 kilograms.2 Due to genetic isolation, the black bear population on Vancouver Island has become a distinct subspecies, Ursus americanus vancouveri.3 These bears have similar features to Ursus americanus carlottae, a subspecies found on Haida Gwaii. These features include a particularly large skull and molars, although

100

U. a. vancouveri have smaller teeth than U. a. carlottae.4 While Ursus americanus can be black, brown, white or blue, U. a. vancouveri are exclusively black in colour.

Bears typically den from November to April.5 This behaviour is caused by both changing weather and the decreasing availability of food. When preparing for denning, black bears can consume up to 20,000 calories per day. Bears are omnivorous, naturally eating vegetation, insects, berries, small animals and carrion.6 In the early spring, when bears come out of their dens, they go through a phase called “green-up” where they eat only high energy young shoots and leaves to gain easy energy. Later in summer, black bears use berries as an important food source. Salmon are an important food source for bears on the West Coast as well.7 As bears have a diverse diet, they require a variety of landscape features including forests, meadows, marshes and streams to satisfy their dietary needs.8 However, bears are opportunistic eaters and will eat whatever food is available to them, which means that they often consume human garbage if it is accessible.9 Bears are very intelligent and can easily learn to identify sources of food.

Bears are an ecologically important animal. They are apex predators on Vancouver Island. Bears limit populations of deer and other ungulates.10 Allowing herbivore populations to exist unchecked can result in increasing populations, leading to damage to vegetation due to excessive browsing. Additionally, bears eat salmon and move the carcasses and waste into the surrounding forest, helping to bring marine nutrients onto land.11 Bears also consume berries and disperse the seeds across the forest in their waste.12 For these reasons, the loss of bears from an ecosystem could have many consequences, and maintaining a healthy bear population is beneficial to the overall ecosystem.

1.4.2 Human-Bear Interaction Human-bear interaction can involve both habituation and conditioning. It is important to distinguish between wildlife habituation and conditioning. Habituation can be defined as a diminished response to a neutral stimulus such as not reacting to traffic noise or not acknowledging a smell.13 Bears can have a harmonious, habituated relationship with humans. Conversely, conditioning is associative; associations are made between stimuli and response. The bears are associating human garbage as a food source.14 Wildlife interactions with humans can increase when the wildlife is habituated but become an issue when they are conditioned.15

When human settlements expand into areas which were previously bear habitat, the bears continue to enter these areas for food sources. Once they have identified a source of food, they will continue to return to it, which can lead to unwanted interactions between bears and people. One method of dealing with these bears is to translocate them to a different area; however, the bears will often return to the original area. Bears that do not return to the area often do not survive in the new territory.16 Aside from translocation, the other option is destruction of the animal through euthanasia. Once a bear is food-conditioned, it is very difficult to stop this behaviour. Therefore, preventing bears from accessing human garbage is the best way to prevent food conditioning and consequent destruction of bears.

1.4.3 Community of Sooke The District of Sooke is 40 kilometers southwest of the City of Victoria. As of 2016, the population of Sooke was 13 001.17 There are 5599 private dwellings in the municipality, and the community occupies 56.6 square kilometres of land. From 2011 to 2016 the population of Sooke increased by 12.5%. The District of Sooke is on the territory of the T’sou-ke First Nation and there are two reserves in the community. Sooke is part of the Capital Regional District (CRD) which comprises 13 municipalities and three electoral areas. The District of Metchosin is on the east side of Sooke and CRD Juan de Fuca Electoral Area borders Sooke on the north and west sides.

1.4.4 Human-Bear Interaction in Sooke Vancouver Island has seen a high rate of population increase in recent years, with many people moving to small communities distributed across the island. This creates a very high “human-predator contact zone” where humans are living in close proximity to bears.18 The population in Sooke has been increasing at a greater rate than the rest of BC and Canada and is projected to continue growing.19 Demarais & Krausman found that increasing human populations typically lead to populated areas expanding and encroaching on bear habitat, which leads to increased human-bear interactions.20 Therefore, human-bear interaction could become more prevalent in Sooke as the community continues to grow.

Due to its geographic location, the community of Sooke exists in prime black bear habitat. Hot, dry summers and winters with heavy precipitation create ecosystems rich with prime food sources such as salmonberry, fern, huckleberry and skunk cabbage.21 Additionally, the climate creates coastal forests which provide habitat and cover for the black bears. Furthermore, the District of Sooke is

122 adjacent to the salmon-bearing Sooke River, as well as other salmon-bearing streams which provide a secondary food source for the bears.22 Regarding wildlife corridors in Sooke and surrounding areas, Joanna Klees van Bommel, a UBC M.Sc. student studying human-carnivore coexistence on southern Vancouver Island using camera traps, noted that the bears she has observed in and around Sooke seem comfortable moving through most landscapes.23 As the bears are travelling through both natural and built environments, it may not be relevant to focus on wildlife corridors and instead make changes to the community as a whole.

According to Wild Safe BC’s Wildlife Alert Reporting Program (W.A.R.P), there were 183 reports of black bear incidents in Sooke inputted by BC Conservation Officers (COs) in the last year.24 Of these 183 reports, 65 were attributed to garbage alone. The Human-Bear Conflict Management Plan (HBCMP) completed in 2018 noted that COs receive over 400 calls a year with regard to wildlife conflicts in the community.25 Although this number is representative of reports in the community of Sooke, it is likely that similar encounters also occur in the surrounding communities and electoral areas adjacent to Sooke. It is important that the mitigation measures implemented in Sooke be considered for these areas as well.

1.4.5 Waste Management in Sooke In Sooke, residential waste is managed by residents either by transporting the waste themselves or by subscribing to a private curbside waste pickup service. There are two predominant curbside waste pickup services available in Sooke: Alpine Disposal and Recycling and Sooke Disposal and Recycling. Both companies offer bins for rent or purchase, and subscribers can choose their preferred pick-up frequency. Residents who do not subscribe to curbside pickup have the option of either the Hartland Landfill’s public drop-off area north of Victoria, the A&P Disposal and Recycling center in Sooke, or the Alpine Recycling and Waste Depot in Langford. Within the CRD, the curbside pickup of residential recycling is coordinated by the regional district.

1.4.6 Sponsor Information Wild Wise Sooke is a program which was formally started by Debbie Read and hosted by Transition Sooke in 2015, with the mission to “reduce human-wildlife conflicts in communities through education, innovation, cooperation and cooperation.”26 Debbie Read had previously been conducting human-bear conflict education in Sooke since 2010. Wild Wise Sooke operates independently but in cooperation with the District of Sooke and the BC Conservation Officer Service.

A primary focus of the group’s activity is educating residents about the proper storage and handling of waste and other attractants. They attend community events, submit news articles, maintain an educational website and Facebook page, and offer a “Bear Line” that concerned residents can contact. Wild Wise programming is also being offered in the neighbouring District of Metchosin.

144

2.0 Research Methods

2.1 Review of Documents A literature review was conducted to obtain background information on the District of Sooke and human-bear conflict management. Communities in BC that have enacted bear-safe waste management plans or obtained Bear Smart Community status were identified to use as case studies. Previous reports by Royal Roads University (RRU) students regarding human-bear conflict in the District of Sooke were also accessed. Reports, journal articles, and books about black bears, human- wildlife conflict and waste management were also included in the literature review.

2.2 Interviews Potential interview candidates were contacted by email or phone to request their participation in the research. Where possible, interviews were conducted in person. If this was not possible due to scheduling or location, interviews were conducted by phone. Consent forms were signed in person, and verbal consent was given for phone interviews. Some participants requested that their name not be used in the final report. Questions were prepared in advance, with further questions being added as topics arose during the interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed by researchers after the interview. Participants included: District of Sooke staff, BC Conservation Officers, waste disposal company representatives, and experts on bears and human-wildlife conflict.

2.3 Surveys An online survey was created using the SurveyMonkey software. The survey contained a combination of multiple choice and short answer questions related to the current waste-management practices of Sooke residents, and their opinions regarding the proposed bear-safe options. The survey was promoted in Sooke-based community groups on Facebook, through personal connections in Sooke, in the Sooke Pocket News, and by Wild Wise Sooke on their Facebook page. The survey was available online from April 23 to May 27, 2019. Respondents were required to be over age 18, and only Sooke residents were encouraged to participate.

Results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel as well as through the tools available through the SurveyMonkey software. In situations where respondents selected “Other - Please Explain” for a multiple-choice question but their comment indicated that their practices or opinion closely aligned

with one of the multiple-choice answers, these responses were counted as a response for the appropriate multiple-choice answer for numerical analysis purposes. For example, where a respondent commented that they lived in a “stand alone mobile”, this was counted under the existing category “Mobile Home Park”. Trends in comments were noted, and where a particular practice or concept was recurrent these answers were also categorized and tagged. For example, “townhouse” was not included as a choice for types of housing but was added afterwards as five respondents indicated that they lived in townhouses.

Due to the branched structure of the survey, not all questions were asked to all respondents. For example, if respondents indicated that they did not subscribe to curbside pickup, they would not receive further questions regarding curbside pickup. For the same reason, some respondents received similar or the same questions but under a different “path” of the survey. Responses for these questions were combined where appropriate for discussion purposes, and this will be noted where such survey results are referenced in this report. Respondents were also able to skip questions if they preferred not to answer, so not all questions were answered by all respondents.

166

3.0 Findings

3.1 Survey Results General survey results are described in this section, while topic-specific results will be described where relevant in the following sections of this report. The complete, raw results of the survey are included in Appendix I. The survey received 201 responses. Due to the branched nature of the survey, not all questions were answered by each respondent, so some questions have a smaller sample size than others.

The greatest proportion of participants, 42%, were from the 31-50 age category. This was followed closely by the 51-65 age category with 39% of respondents being in this age range (Figure 1). Most respondents (85%) live in single family homes. 31% of respondents reported having had bear-related conflicts in relation to waste. Accessibility was a recurring theme observed in the comments for some open-ended questions. Respondents had concerns about their ability to participate in some of the proposed options. For example, people with limited mobility may have difficulty moving a bear-resistant bin (BRB). Residents who do not own vehicles may have difficulty transporting waste to a central location. Residents who work early mornings or overnight may have difficulty complying with restrictions on when to place their waste at the curb. Another recurring theme was concern of additional cost associated with BRB.

Which age category are you a part of? 45 40 35 30 25 20

15 % of Respondents of % 10 5 0 <18 18-30 31-50 51-65 66+ Age Category

Figure 1. Age demographics of survey respondents, if respondents selected <18 they would have been directed to exit the survey

Type of Housing 100 90 80 70 60 50 40

% of Respondents of % 30 20 10 0 Mobile home park Single family home Apartment Duplex Townhouse

Figure 2. Types of housing that respondents live in. 85% of respondents live in single family homes (n=186).

188

The 201 respondents of this survey are a small fraction of the 13 000 residents in Sooke. It is difficult to say whether the survey results are representative of the greater community of Sooke. As the survey was shared online through Wild Wise Sooke and was clearly advertised as being related to bear conservation, there may have been some bias with those who chose to take the survey being particularly interested in bear conservation. However, for the purposes of analysis in this report, it will be assumed that survey results are somewhat representative of the community of Sooke.

3.2 Current Waste Management Practices in Sooke 3.2.1 Disposal Methods Waste collection in Sooke is currently privatized. Residents have the option to subscribe to a private waste-disposal company for curbside pick-up or to bring their waste to a landfill or transfer station themselves. 77% of survey respondents subscribe to curbside pickup, with 48% of respondents using Sooke Disposal and 25% using Alpine Disposal. 23% of respondents dispose of their waste in another way, with 12% of respondents disposing of their waste somewhere in Sooke (at work or using a friend or relative’s curbside pickup service), and 10% of respondents transporting their waste to a transfer station (Figure 3). Collection days are organized by the waste management companies and residents can decide on the frequency of pickup.

The waste collection system in Sooke is unique and creates certain issues. Residents have more freedom to choose how they dispose of their waste. However, the District has less control over how waste is managed. In a privatized system, different services are offered; collection times contrast and priorities vary. The changes that are suggested in this report must be consistent across the community. For this reason, the current waste system in Sooke is a complexity to consider.

Waste Disposal Method 90

70 Sooke Disposal

50 Alpine Disposal

30 Other/Don't Know

% of Question Respondants Question of % 20

10 Dispose at another location in Sooke

0 Curbside Pickup No Curbside Pickup Transport to dump or transfer station How do you dispose of your waste?

Figure 3. Waste disposal methods for survey respondents. 77% of respondents use curbside pickup, with the majority using Alpine Disposal. 23% of respondents dispose of their waste independently.

3.2.2 Storage of Waste Before Disposal

Whether they subscribe to curbside pickup or transport their waste themselves, residents are storing waste on their property prior to disposal. An average of 38% of residents are currently storing their waste in a garage. 23% are storing their waste outside, not in any type of building (Figure 4). Some respondents commented that they store their waste in some kind of enclosure or structure intended to keep bears away, but COs Peter Pauwels27 and Rick Dekelver28 noted that these structures may not actually be secure enough to be bear-resistant.

If residents subscribe to curbside pickup, the bins may be supplied by the waste disposal companies or purchased by residents. 83% of residents who subscribe to curbside pickup store their garbage in a plastic or metal garbage bin which is not bear-resistant, and a further 4% store their waste in uncontained plastic bags (Figure 5). While most residents do not bring their waste to the curb until the day of curbside pickup, 15% are bringing their waste to the curb the evening before pickup, which allows bears a longer period of time to access the waste (Figure 6).

200

Where Residents Store Waste 40

% of Question Respondants Question of % 10

0 In a garage Outside, not in In a shed In the house Freezer Enclosure Other any building

Figure 4. Locations where survey respondents are storing their waste either between curbside pickup days for those who subscribe to curbside pickup, or prior to disposal for those who dispose of their waste independently.

What type of container do you use to store your waste? 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

10 % of Question Respondants Question of % 0 Garbage bags (not in a A metal/plastic A bin that has been Compost at Home Other can or a bin) garbage bin tested to be bear- resistant

Waste Kitchen Scraps

Figure 5. Type of containment method used to store waste for survey respondents who use curbside pickup and dispose of their waste independently.

3.2.3 Waste Pickup by Private Disposal Companies Alpine Disposal recently began offering bear-resistant bins to their customers for purchase or rent for a slightly higher cost than their regular bins (Appendix II). Sooke Disposal currently rents bins with a locking lid for their customers for food scraps; however, it is not known whether these bins are certified as bear-resistant.29 Alpine is currently offering bear-resistant bins, and Sooke Disposal said they would consider offering them if there were sufficient customer demand. Both companies are willing to pick up waste in bear-resistant containers and are not concerned about this impacting the efficiency of their service.

Alpine Disposal requires their customers to have their bins ready at 7 am and staff will come through the day.30 Weather and traffic permitting, staff members finish their collection routes no later than 4 pm.31 The pickup times are restricted by the Residential Noise Bylaw. Bylaw No. 485 prohibits loading, unloading, delivery, collection, packing, unpacking, or otherwise handling any containers, products, materials, or refuse whatsoever before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. in any residential area.32 Sooke Disposal pickup times are also limited by this bylaw.

3.2.4 Kitchen Scraps As kitchen scraps/compostable materials are banned from the Hartland Landfill, these must be separated from other waste. Therefore, most residents who subscribe to curbside waste pickup have two separate curbside bins, one for waste and one for compostable materials. Kitchen scraps should be managed with the same precautions as other garbage, as they contain a concentrated source of food for bears. A number of residents commented that they are composting their kitchen scraps at home, which is another source of bear attractant which must be managed through education on how to safely compost at home.

3.2.5 Recyclables Recyclables are collected by the CRD and it is mandatory that these are separated from the waste. As recyclables are required to be clean, while they may harbor smells which would attract a bear, they should not contain a food reward and therefore are not considered as much of a factor in food conditioning as garbage or kitchen scraps.

222

3.3 Past and Present Initiatives Towards Bear-Safe Waste Management In 2016, an amendment to bylaw No. 296, Unsightly Premises and Objectionable Situations Bylaw, 2007 was proposed that would require Sooke residents to put garbage out no earlier than 5 a.m. on collection days.33 As will be discussed subsequently, this is a common method of reducing bear access to waste. The status of this proposal is currently unknown. This year, a Notice of Motion was made to direct staff to research and report back on options for moving towards municipal waste collection.34 Municipal waste collection is a key feature of bear-smart communities, as will be discussed subsequently.

Zero Waste Sooke (ZWS) is a citizen’s initiative that is affiliated with Transition Sooke. Transition Sooke is part of a larger movement called Transition Network, which aims to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, impacts of climate change, and the vulnerability of global economic instability. ZWS is a waste-focused initiative of Transition Sooke.35 With the partnership of local schools, the District of Sooke, the Capital Regional District and Sooke’s waste removal operators, ZWS aims to educate the next generation on the importance of waste reduction, turn local waste resources into jobs, find a property and support the establishment of a recycle depot, free store, yard- waste depot and composting center, as well as encourage reduction of plastic waste including the banning of single-use plastic bags.36 While this may not be directly related to bear-safe waste management, the reduction of municipal solid waste produced will decrease the volume of waste which needs to be managed in a bear-safe manner.

3.4 Public Education 3.4.1 Current Public Education Initiatives in Sooke WWS conducts a variety of public outreach and educational initiatives in Sooke. They conduct neighbourhood audits to encourage residents to secure their waste, attend community events and visit local schools. They have an active Facebook page where they share wildlife safety information including reports of bear sightings in Sooke and reminders about securing waste. This page has over 1 700 followers.

WWS is a volunteer organization, with Community Coordinator Sam Webb being the one part-time employee. The District of Sooke provides some financial support for the organization but funding for the organization relies primarily on donations and grants. Financing is currently the

limiting factor in the capacity for WWS to conduct educational programming in Sooke. WWS is strictly focused on education and has no power to enforce bylaws. However, District Bylaw Enforcement Officer (BEO) Medea Mills noted that after WWS has run an educational campaign in a particular neighbourhood, they will receive more calls from that neighbourhood regarding residents not storing waste properly.37 A working group consisting of WWS, District staff including councillors, bylaw staff and Parks and Environment staff, and COs has been established. This group meets monthly to facilitate cooperation and coordination between all parties involved with human-wildlife conflict in Sooke.

The Parks and Environment Department of the District of Sooke is also involved with wildlife protection and education in Sooke. They have a campaign called Caution Nature which seeks to remind people to expect to encounter wildlife in Sooke and behave appropriately. However, this is just one component of the responsibilities of this department.

3.4.2 Role of Education in Human-Wildlife Conflict and Changing Human Behaviour As conflict reduction methods focused on altering the behaviour of wildlife have had limited success, research suggests that methods aiming to change human behaviour are becoming more prominent.38 Human behaviour can be changed through either education or enforcement-based methods. Community officials and wildlife-conflict experts agreed that creating voluntary compliance through education rather than enforcement through fines or penalties would be preferred in Sooke. Even if enforcement-based methods are employed, an educational component is essential to any waste-management plan to ensure that residents are aware of their responsibilities and the risks associated with continuing to allow bears to access their waste.

Education campaigns can be an effective tool to change resident behaviour. A 2008 study in New Mexico found that people who had been exposed to an education campaign surrounding bear- safe behaviour had greater knowledge on the topic than those living in an area which had not been targeted by the campaign.39

Even if other methods are used, an educational campaign is viewed as an essential component of any bear-safe waste management plan. Debbie Read, founder of Wild Wise Sooke, emphasized that it is important to ensure that people understand how their behaviour negatively impacts bears and results in them being euthanized.40 This can motivate them to change their behaviour, leading to

244 voluntary compliance. Read also recognized that not all residents will be sympathetic to the fate of wildlife.41 She suggests appealing to these residents by stressing the other consequences of failing to be bear-safe, such as bears becoming aggressive and putting the resident’s family in danger.42 A diverse range of sentiments was observed in the comments left on the resident survey, and efforts must be made to create educational programming which resonates with this broad range of opinions (Figure 7).

Education campaigns must be evidence-based to ensure that the information being communicated is correct. Crystal McMillan, of Bear Smart BC Consulting, stated that all educational materials must be consistent; residents need to receive consistent directions from provincial and municipal sources, and from community groups to avoid confusion and to encourage social conformity.43 To be effective, the success of educational campaigns should be evaluated, and the content and delivery of the message adjusted accordingly. Researchers suggest employing social- science techniques to increase the efficacy of an education campaign. 44

We live in their woods and anyone living here should take the responsibility to protect their lives.

Surely common sense should prevail!! Is this more of a problem today than it was 20 years ago when everything went in the garbage can outside???

We have lived with a bear or bears in our vicinity for 30 + years and had no problem managing our garbage.

Never been a problem.

The bears were here first. We need a system that doesn’t set them up to fail, and ultimately be destroyed. It’s not that hard. People need to make the effort and not be so selfish and lazy.

My bin has worked well for over twenty years -- see no reason to change at all.

Figure 6: Survey comments indicating diversity of perception of risk and human-wildlife conflict in Sooke.

3.5 Enforcement The public education provided by WWS has impacted many residents’ attitudes and practices towards wildlife. However, there are residents in Sooke who continue to manage waste improperly despite the efforts of WWS. Other communities in BC have found success using enforcement-based methods to ensure that bear-safe practices are being followed (see Section 3.7). These communities have coupled education campaigns with enforcement, often increasing enforcement once residents have been given a reasonable amount of time to receive and understand the educational messages. The enforcement of waste-specific bylaws at a municipal level is a key feature of most bear-waste management plans.

3.5.1 Bylaws and Enforcement in Sooke As discussed in both the 2017 Preliminary Bear Hazard Assessment (PBHA) and the 2018 HBCMP, there are no bylaws in Sooke which directly address residential waste management. Additionally, there are no bylaws which mitigate the issue of bear conditioning to human waste. As will be discussed subsequently, such bylaws are a key feature of waste management plans in other BC communities, particularly those that have made reductions in bear-human conflict. There are currently two bylaws in Sooke that pertain to waste and wildlife: Bylaw No. 392, Animal Regulation and Impounding Bylaw, 2009; and Bylaw No. 296, Unsightly Premises and Objectionable Situations Bylaw, 2007. These bylaws are enforced by two District of Sooke BEOs.

The Animal Regulation bylaw prohibits residents of Sooke from providing “any wildlife with food either directly or by leaving or placing in, on or about land or premises any food, food waste, or other materials that is or is likely to be attractive to wildlife for the purpose of feeding those animals.”45 According to the senior BEO in Sooke, it is difficult to apply this restriction to unsecured waste.46 The Unsightly Premises bylaw prohibits the accumulation of “refuse, garbage, or other noxious, offensive, or unwholesome material”47 on Sooke properties. It was noted by the senior BEO that unsecured waste (i.e. a garbage can next to the house) does not meet the definition of “unsightly” under this bylaw.48 Instead, calls pertaining to Unsightly Premises are related primarily to garbage strewn around a property.

The District of Sooke currently employs two BEOs. In Sooke, property-related complaints such as unsightly premises are only investigated if two separate complaints from immediate neighbours of the property are made.49 In the first instance of a complaint, “bylaw enforcement is sought ... through voluntary compliance.”50 If the offence is repeated, a warning is issued. If the offence is

266 repeated a third time, a ticket is issued which may be disputed in court. In this approach to bylaw enforcement, education is the primary focus of Sooke BEOs. As noted by the senior Sooke BEO, officers often assist WWS in an educational capacity with problem residents when requested.51

Due to lack of manpower, BEOs are not currently able to patrol neighbourhoods proactively.52 Due to the complaint-based enforcement system, BEOs are also unable to issue tickets without two complaints having been made. The lack of waste-specific bylaws limits the ability of BEOs to enforce bear-safe waste management practices. These three factors prevent the current bylaw enforcement system in Sooke from being an effective tool towards bear-safe waste management.

3.5.2 Role of Enforcement in Changing Behaviour In most communities, education is preferred as the first method used to change behaviour. However, not all residents will respond to educational methods. A study in Aspen, Colorado compared the efficacy of education-based versus enforcement-based methods of reducing human-bear conflict. The study found that education had little effect on residents’ waste management practices.53 This study also tested two levels of enforcement, the first of which involved increased patrolling of neighbourhoods and the second involving leaving notices of violation where residents were not properly securing their waste. The second option was found to have more effect on resident behaviour, leading researchers to conclude that “proactive” enforcement is the most effective way to alter residents’ waste management practices.54

Research in other fields has also demonstrated the role of both public education and enforcement in changing behaviour. A study comparing the efficacy of education and enforcement in reducing tobacco sales to minors found the enforcement techniques more effective than education alone.55 A 2004 study comparing education and enforcement in the reduction of high-speed vehicle accidents found that both methods had an effect, but the two combined had an interactive effect.56 In 1996, Alder examined the efficacy and cost of education campaigns and enforcement methods to reduce visitor impact on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.57 This research found that while education is generally less expensive and has a greater effect, enforcement may still be necessary to reach certain people who are resistant to education. 58 The two tactics must be employed in tandem, with education being the primary method, and enforcement applied where necessary.

3.5.3 Bylaws Adopted in Other Communities As previously mentioned, waste-specific bylaws are a key feature of bear-waste management plans and have been implemented in a number of BC communities. Table 1 details the bylaws employed by a number of communities in B.C., including the seven provincially-recognized “Bear Smart” communities (see section 4.9 for more details on Bear Smart Community Status). Two other communities (Castlegar and Canmore) were chosen at the suggestion of interviewees. Sooke is included for comparison.

288

Table 1. Waste-management practice and bylaws of the seven provincially recognized Bear Smart communities and two other communities.

off

for for waste/organics

mart mart status

upbylaw time Community -

Bear Public waste collection Central waste drop Pick

Mandatory BRB Mandatory enclosed structure OR BRB for waste/organics Kamloops ✓ ✓ ✓* ✓

Squamish ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Lions Bay ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Port Alberni ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Naramata ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Coquitlam ✓ ✓ ✓

Revelstoke ✓ ✓

Castlegar ✓ ✓ ✓

Canmore ✓ ✓ ✓

Whistler ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Sooke

* Kamloops pick-up time bylaw is only in effect from April 1st – November 30th (City of Kamloops, 2011).

As shown in Table 1, Sooke is the only community of the 10 listed that does not have municipally-funded waste collection services. With the exception of Sooke, every community with curbside pickup has a bylaw stipulating when residents may put their waste out. Only Castlegar

requires all residents to use bear-resistant bins,59 which they provide at no cost and which were initially paid for by a Gas Tax reserve.60 Most of the communities (seven of ten) require that residents store their waste in a bear-resistant bin or in an enclosed structure (such as a closed garage or in a house).

Whistler and Canmore do not offer municipal curbside pickup. While Whistler has two “solid waste depots” where residents may dispose of waste,61 Canmore provides bear-resistant bins in each neighbourhood. For these communities, there is a still a bylaw that requires residents to keep their waste either in a bear-resistant bin or enclosure before dropping off their waste.

3.5.4 Potential for Additional Bylaws or Enforcement in Sooke As discussed previously, Sooke lacks many of the bylaws employed by other communities working to reduce bear-waste issues. As a community with curbside waste pickup, there are two issues that Sooke could address with a bylaw and/or bylaw amendment: when waste is put out and how waste is stored. A single bylaw could address both of these issues. Alternatively, the existing Unsightly Premises bylaw could be amended to include a stipulation about when residents may put out their waste. One such amendment was put forth to Council in 2016, as discussed in Section 3.3. McMillan suggested that a including a scheduled curb-side pickup time along with a proper storage regulations that prevents access by bears would open up avenues for public compliance through education, warnings and subsequent enforcement.62

According to a number of bear-expert interviewees, a bylaw requiring residents to store their waste is an important first step for communities. Such a waste storage bylaw could take a number of forms, as shown in Table 1. If Sooke were to model their requirements after the majority of Bear Smart communities, such a bylaw could require that residents store their waste in either a bear-resistant bin or secure enclosure (i.e. a house or garage). It was noted by McMillan that communities surrounding Sooke should be consulted regarding this issue. If peripheral communities and/or regional district governments were to implement and enforce similar bylaws, the opportunity for bears to become human food-conditioned in these communities and then “follow their noses into Sooke” would be reduced.63

As discussed by the senior BEO in Sooke, one obstacle to the creation of a new bylaw is the increased manpower and work hours it would require.64 Currently, there are only two BEOs in Sooke,

300 which has a fast-growing population and a myriad of bylaw issues in addition to waste. This issue could be mitigated by increasing BEO staff in Sooke.

While research shows that enforcement can be an effective tool in changing human behaviour, some interviewees and survey comments suggested that increased enforcement may not be well received in Sooke due to the social culture and demographics of the community. Public consultation in the development of such bylaws may mitigate this issue. As stressed by one of our interviewees, “conversations need to happen before these decisions are made.”65

3.5.5 Role of Conservation Officers Two COs are responsible for the portion of the South Central Zone which includes Sooke. Officers from the BC Conservation Service sit on the WWS working group and are an important component in managing human-wildlife conflict in Sooke. However, their role comes with some limitations which prevent them from being the primary enforcers of bear-safe waste management in Sooke.

At the provincial level, COs have jurisdiction to enforce provincial legislature such as the Wildlife Act. The primary mandate of COs includes fish and wildlife and environmental issues.66 COs are not able to enforce municipal bylaws. The Wildlife Act prohibits B.C. residents from placing or leaving attractants where they might be accessed by dangerous wildlife.67 According to a CO interviewed, difficulty arises in ticketing residents under this act due to the nature of the legislation. In order for a ticket to be valid, the attractant must be shown to have attracted wildlife. In this regard, proactive measures cannot be taken for attractants observed to be unsecure. As stated by our interviewee, “by the time [the Wildlife Act] kicks in, usually the conditioning and habituation has already started”68

While tickets cannot be issued proactively under the Wildlife Act, a “dangerous wildlife protection order” may be issued where the presence of attractants may pose a risk due to dangerous wildlife.69 Such an order requires the resident to remove the attractants in a reasonable timeframe. Failure to comply with this order results in a fine. However, the order is specific to the given instance; in this regard, the resident could make a mess, clean it up as per the order, and remake a similar mess without being fined until the order process was repeated. In the past, it was common for COs to conduct “audits” of problematic areas, whereby officers would go door-to-door educating residents.70

Due to the increasing population and subsequent increased workload to COs on the south Island, auditing is currently not conducted.

COs have a matrix process for responding to large carnivore.71 When a call has been made in regard to a bear accessing waste, the response matrix considers the animal’s levels of food conditioning and habituation in assessing risk. With this in mind, the CO decides whether or not the bear needs to be destroyed. While COs are an important component in managing human-wildlife conflict in Sooke, their role is different from that of a BEO and they cannot be expected to be the sole managers of human-wildlife conflict within a municipality.

3.6 Public Involvement and Approval of Plan Human-wildlife conflict experts agreed that the plan will only be successful if all residents adopt bear-safe practices. Secure waste storage must be consistent across the community to prevent food conditioning. Many interviewees stressed the need for public involvement and approval of a waste management plan prior to its implementation. All residents may not be in favour of the chosen plan. In other communities where such plans have been adopted, resident resistance to the plan has decreased over time. Other communities have found that plans were more successful when the public felt that they had more agency in their design. To this end, working groups or town hall forums should be considered when designing facets of the plan, such as bylaws or bins.

3.7 Case Studies In this section, three other communities and their efforts to reduce bear-waste conditioning will be discussed. These communities are Port Alberni, Squamish, and Canmore.

3.7.1 Port Alberni The City of Port Alberni first developed its management plan to reduce human-bear conflict in 2008. At that time, the City was providing waste collection services for 6,250 residences.72 In 2011, Port Alberni purchased 3,542 bear-resistant bins for use by residents at no additional cost.73 In total, $1.5 million was invested into this bear-resistant waste management system, including the cost of a side-loader to switch from manual to automatic collection. In 2013, Port Alberni earned Bear Smart status. Adopted in 2015, the Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Bylaw No. 4790 required that residents “place all … garbage in a securely stored contained within the principle building, an animal resistant accessory building, or in an animal resistant container.”74 It also states that waste must be secured at

322 all times until the morning of collection at 7 a.m. Today, residents still have the option to use the municipally-provided bear-resistant bins or to store their waste in an enclosure as described above. According to a Port Alberni CO, bear-resistant bins are now the more popular option.75 Bear Smart brochures with information on the waste management system are distributed in utility bills to residents. Additionally, COs and BEOs work together to carry out proactive patrols the night before pickup to reduce instances of garbage being left out overnight. According to a Port Alberni CO, the City continues to face challenges but there has been progress in gaining compliance from the community.76

3.7.2 Squamish After 27 bears were destroyed in Squamish in 2004, the District began to take measures to reduce human-bear conflicts.77 By means of a grant issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) under the Bear Smart Community Program, Squamish began to retrofit residents’ existing waste bins.78 The bins were not provided to all residents. Like Port Alberni, Squamish uses bins outfitted with two metal clips on the lid. In 2009, the District adopted Wildlife Attractant Bylaw No. 2053, which requires residents to store their waste either in a wildlife resistant container or within a wildlife resistant enclosure. These must be locked or secured at all times with the exception of collection day,79 at which time the bins must be placed out no earlier than 5 a.m. and not later than 7 p.m.80

Squamish continued to have major issues with bear waste-conditioning and habituation.81 To remedy this, all existing and future waste bins (including District bins) were retrofitted. Additionally, a stricter approach to bylaw enforcement was taken. As part of this, WildSafe Squamish runs a bin tagging program whereby volunteers patrol neighbourhoods the night before waste collection and apply warning stickers to unsecured bins. Upon a second “sticker” offence, the address is passed on to the BEOs and a fine is issued. Despite their successes, the bear-resistant residential garbage bins used by Squamish continue to suffer from improper usage and mechanical issues.82

3.7.3 Canmore The Town of Canmore is situated in the Bow Valley, two kilometers from the entrance to Banff National Park.83 As the town experienced rapid population growth in the 1990s, instances of bear waste-conditioning and habituation increased. As a result of mounting public pressure, a Waste Management Committee consisting of concerned citizens was established by the Town. In 1996, this committee was tasked with investigating ways to animal-proof Canmore’s waste management systems.

Canmore piloted the Haul-All system in 1997 under suggestion of the Committee. With this system, communal metal bear-proof bins were distributed within neighbourhoods across Canmore. Complimentary to this, the Town’s Waste Control Bylaw was amended to include the stipulations that: waste be stored in a secure enclosure (house or garage) between collection days if residents opted to continue using curbside pick-up; and that waste for collection could not be placed out earlier than 6 a.m. on pick-up days. Six months into the pilot program, it was found that the community preferred the Haul-All system over curbside collection. By the fall of 1998, it was found that only 23% of households were still using curbside collection. Canmore completely discontinued its curbside waste collection in favour of the Haul-All system in 1999. Today, there is one communal bear-proof bin per 20 homes in the town.84 The success of this system has been noted by many interviewees and extensively in literature. Upon implementation of the neighbourhood bin system, only one bear was destroyed over the following two years. The number of garbage-related human-bear encounters dropped from over 50 in 1998 to below 10 in 2000; since implementation of the neighbourhood bin system, yearly instances have never exceeded 12.85

3.8 Bear-Resistant Bins As discussed, many Bear Smart communities offer or provide bear-resistant bins to residents. To be considered “bear-resistant,” a bin must be tested and certified by the North American Testing of Bear-Resistant Products group (NATBRP).86 Bins are tested at the BC Wildlife Park in Kamloops, BC, where they are exposed to black bears and grizzly bears. Bins are considered bear-resistant if a bear cannot access the food within after 1 hour of contact. Bins can also be certified through a similar test by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) in the United States.87 While there are a number of uncertified bins on the market, they may not be as effective as certified bin. Residential bins may either be retrofitted (as in the case of Squamish) with clips, such as those provided by Rollins Machinery, or new bins may be purchased (Table 2).

344

Table 2: The manufacturers and costs of some residential bear-resistant bins available in North America. The size, specifications, and cost per unit are also listed. These are models that have been used in other communities, but this research cannot comment on their efficacy.

Manufacturer and Model Specifications Cost Location Rollins Machinery, Schaefer USD65 Plastic with metal clips $150 + taxes Langey (existing bins may be retrofitted) Rehrig Pacific, ROC, 65 - 95 gallons Plastic with metal $265 - $285 U.S.A. gravity locking mechanism Bearicuda, STL496, 64 gallons Plastic with metal $329 + $15-20 Connecticut gravity locking shipping mechanism

4.0 Residential Waste Management Tools

There are a number of tools which communities frequently employ in their bear-safe waste management plans. These tools will be described below, with analysis of efficacy, cost, resident reception, methods of implementation and an overall summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

4.1 Increasing Public Education 4.1.1 Description All interviewees emphasized the importance of education as a key tool for a successful waste management plan. This can be done by targeting youth in schools, informing the community and engaging neighborhoods. New resident orientation packages could help inform residents on Sooke- specific waste services, the current bylaws, and methods to mitigate bear encounters.

Currently residents receive this information primarily from WWS, which leads to some residents believing that it is not a priority of the District. If bear-safe practices were also communicated through the District, or if the District were to further communicate their association and endorsement of WWS, this would help residents to understand that this is a community-wide issue.

4.1.2 Efficacy An educational campaign can be an effective way to change resident behaviour in many cases. As some residents will be uninterested or opposed to making the necessary changes to their waste management practices, education-based methods may not be able to change the behaviour of everyone in the community. An effective bear-safe waste management strategy requires participation of everyone in the community; if a small portion of residents are not responding to the educational campaign, this will decrease the efficacy of the waste management plan.

As not all education efforts are equally effective, researchers suggest using social-science techniques to effectively market the concepts. This may require consultation or employment of professionals in this field to maximize the efficacy of the campaign.88 It may be prudent to investigate the level of bear-safe knowledge that residents have and identify demographics which are lacking this information and make a plan to target these people specifically.

366

4.1.3 Financials The cost of continuing education is minimal compared to other options. Social media and the internet are a free communication platform, although some costs are associated with advertising and maintenance. Costs may also be associated with employment of professionals to ensure the efficiency of an educational campaign.

WWS is currently operating as a volunteer-based service to the community of Sooke. The District currently makes a small contribution to WWS but the rest of their budget is sourced from grants and donations. If the District is relying on WWS to conduct the required educational programming for a successful bear-safe waste management plan, it would be appropriate for the District to contribute additional funding to WWS. WWS has stated that their optimal annual operating budget would be around $50 000. This would likely increase slightly were WWS to take on the additional efforts required to educate residents regarding the bear-safe waste management plan. The extent to which this was funded by the District would be at the discretion of the District and WWS, but for analysis purposes in this report, a contribution of $25 000 will be assumed. The District could also conduct their own educational programming regarding the bear-safe waste management plan. This would likely have similar costs to funding the efforts of WWS.

4.1.4 Resident Opinions Comments from Sooke residents from the survey results outlined the need for more education. Multiple residents do not believe in the implementation of more bylaws or bear-resistant bins but think there is a need for further education on the current practices. The resident survey did not have a specific question related to education but some respondents felt it was important and included it in the comments.

Other residents did not appreciate the efforts of WWS. There seemed to be some perception that WWS is a small group of extremists. Some survey respondents and interviewees seemed unaware of the association between WWS and the District, which leads to residents doubting the legitimacy of the educational campaign. The lack of engagement from residents can be encouraged through the support of the District. To ensure a truly successful educational campaign the District of Sooke needs to provide the information themselves or be an advocate for WWS. Resistance to the plan will be mitigated through the support of the District.

4.1.5 Implementation Increased education could be implemented two ways. The District could increase the capacity of WWS through additional funding or support to allow WWS to expand their current programming. The District could also provide more of their own educational programming, although consistent messages and programming through one source may be more effective. The District of Sooke could increase community recognition of WWS by publicizing their endorsement of the program, for example by including information about WWS on the District website.

4.1.6 Summary A continued educational plan focusing on bear-safe practices and waste management is critical for the success of the management plan. Associated costs are relatively low and there is an increase in community engagement through volunteer opportunities. Support from the District of Sooke is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of an educational campaign for a bear-safe waste management plan.

4.2 Addition of Bear Specific Bylaws in Sooke 4.2.1 Description There are a number of bylaws that the District could implement to mitigate bear-waste issues in Sooke. The first would be an amendment to Bylaw no. 296, Unsightly Premises and Objectionable Situations Bylaw 2007, which would restrict residents from putting garbage and organics at the curbside before 5 a.m. on pick-up days. This amendment was first put forward in 2016 and remains on the table today. Additional to this, the District could implement a waste-specific bylaw similar to those which exist in Bear Smart communities (Table 1). Such a bylaw would require that residents store their waste in a secure manner (i.e. in a bear-resistant bin or in a house or garage). The details of such a bylaw could be tailored to the needs and preferences of Sooke residents.

4.2.2 Efficacy As discussed, waste-specific bylaws which consider wildlife attractants are a key feature of all bear-safe communities. For a number of the residential waste management options presented in this section, a bylaw of some sort would be required. For instance, the requirement that residents use bear- resistant, neighbourhood bins, or a centralized waste depot would require a complementary bylaw.

388

A bylaw that requires residents to secure their waste could increase the enforcement capacity of BEOs. As discussed in 3.5.1, the currently existing Unsightly Premises and Animal Regulation bylaws do not expressly grant BEOs the ability to warn or ticket residents with unsecured waste. As discussed in Section 3.5.4, one obstacle to the creation of a new bylaw is the increased manpower and work hours it would require. Moving forward, this issue could be mitigated by increasing BEO staff in Sooke. Another obstacle to the success of a new bylaw is public attitude and opinion. To mitigate this, public opinion could be included in the design and implementation of the bylaw.

4.2.3 Financials The costs associated with this option are related to the hours required to research, formulate, and write a new bylaw. The cost of educating the public about the bylaw must also be considered. Additionally, a new bylaw would increase the workload of BEOs in the District. However, a bylaw which reduces instances of bears accessing waste could ultimately reduce costs to the District in the long term. For instance, the costs associated with cleaning up garbage strewn on public property would be reduced.

4.2.4 Resident Opinions As shown in Figure 8, the majority of survey respondents (60%) were in favour of a bylaw requiring residents to store their waste in a secure place during the week. 44% of respondents were in favour of a bylaw requiring bear-resistant bins. It should be noted that while less than half (40%) of respondents were in favour of a pick-up time bylaw, 82% of survey respondents already bring their garbage to the curb on the morning of pick-up (Figure 7).

Which new bylaws would you be in favour of? 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

% of Respondants of % 20%

10%

0% Requiring residents to use bear- Requiring residents to store their Dictating the time of day waste I am not in favour of new bylaws resistant bins waste in a secure place such as a may be brought to the curb for being enacted related to bear-safe garage or shed during the week pickup waste management Figure 7: Survey respondent opinions regarding the addition of bear-/waste-specific bylaws in Sooke,

4.2.5 Implementation The provincially-legislated Community Charter gives municipal councils the powers to create and enforce bylaws.89 Before a bylaw can take legal effect, it must pass three readings. Under section 9(1)(c) of the Community Charter, it is required that ministerial approval be obtained when implementing bylaws related to the provincially-legislated matter of wildlife.90 For this reason, ministerial approval may be required prior to implementing these bylaws. To implement a pick-up times bylaw, the existing amendment to the Unsightly Premises Bylaw as it was put forth in 2016 could be adopted. Additional to this, a bylaw requiring the secure storage of waste in either or a garage, building, or bear-resistant bin could be developed.

4.2.6 Summary The creation and amendment of new and existing bylaws to mitigate bear-waste issues in Sooke is economically feasible and supported by the public. According to a number of bear-expert interviewees, a bylaw requiring residents to store their waste is an important first step for communities. For many of the options presented in this section (residential bins, neighbourhood bins, centralized drop-off), a complimentary bylaw of some sort would be necessary.

400

4.3 Increased Enforcement of Bylaws 4.3.1 Description The District of Sooke currently uses bylaws as an educational tool, rather than for enforcement. While bylaw enforcement officers may visit residents and educate them about bylaws or issue warnings, they do not typically issue tickets. Additionally, the complaint-driven model for bylaw enforcement in Sooke prevents proactive enforcement. In other communities, bylaws are enforced through active patrolling and ticketing rather than through a complaint-driven process.

If bear-specific bylaws were enacted in Sooke, as described in Section 4.2, there would be the option to continue using bylaws as an educational tool, or to proactively enforce the bylaws. Doing this would require the District of Sooke to change the bylaw enforcement system to a discretionary model where bylaw enforcement officers are able to actively patrol and write tickets for residents who are not complying with bylaws.

4.3.2 Efficacy As described in Section 3.5.2, research has found that proactive enforcement can be an effective tool in changing public behaviour. As Wild Wise Sooke has been conducting public education in Sooke for many years and the problem still exists, enforcement may be an effective tool to reach those whose actions are not being affected by the education campaigns.

4.3.3 Financials The additional time required for patrolling and proactive enforcement would require the District of Sooke to employ additional bylaw enforcement officers, as the existing staff are kept very busy with their current duties. According to a 2018 job posting, the hourly rate for the Bylaw Enforcement Officer I position in Sooke is $36.31/hour, which would equate to an annual salary of $75 525.91 Other factors, such as Canada Pension Plan contributions, Employment Insurance, benefits and vacation pay also contribute to the cost of an additional employee. Using the guideline of the total cost of an employee to the organization being 1.2 to 1.4 times the annual salary, each additional Bylaw Enforcement Officer would cost the District $90 630 to $105 735 annually.92

4.3.4 Resident Opinions When asked whether they would be in favour of additional, bear-specific bylaws in Sooke, some respondents commented that they would prefer to see increased enforcement of existing bylaws,

while others felt that education is more effective and important than enforcement. Some residents were resistant to increased bylaws or enforcement, stating that this would be “government overreach” or not wanting to be told what to do. Therefore, there would likely be mixed reception to increasing enforcement.

4.3.5 Implementation This option would likely require the District to employ additional bylaw enforcement staff to allow for enough time to proactively enforce the bylaws. Many communities have chosen to begin their bear-safe waste management plans with an adjustment period consisting only of education, following this with the implementation of enforcement efforts. Active patrolling, with bylaw officers first issuing warnings, followed by tickets if necessary, would be the most likely method of action. The patrolling would not necessarily need to occur constantly. For example, in communities where bear- resistant bins are required for curbside pickup, a survey of a neighbourhood on the morning of pickup would confirm that residents are using the bear-resistant bins.

4.3.6 Summary In summary, this option would be used to reach those residents who are not changing their behaviour despite education. It would likely be controversial, but some residents are in favour of increased enforcement. The cost of hiring additional bylaw enforcement officers would be considerable, making this option more expensive than some other options identified. For the officers to be able to actively patrol and issue tickets for violations, Sooke would need to change their bylaw model from complaint-driven to discretionary. The increased patrolling would consist first of educational efforts, followed by the issuing of tickets.

4.4 Change from Private to Municipal Waste Management 4.4.1 Description Sooke currently has private waste management practices. Residents have the option to choose between various companies for curbside pick or manage their waste on their own. Some residents are choosing to store it or simply transport it themselves. Generally, communities concerned about their bear-safe waste management practices have public waste collection and can be seen in the case studies conducted for other communities (Section 3.7). Curbside pickup, centralized drop-off locations, or transfer stations are all options for a municipal waste management service.

422

4.4.2 Efficacy The municipal waste management strategy would ensure consistency throughout the community. Consistency is crucial for a bear-specific waste management plan. Bears in Sooke are currently food-conditioned to garbage. Switching from a privatized to a public bear-safe waste management plan would eliminate any opportunity for inconsistencies that encourage bears to become food-conditioned, thus being more effective than a privatized system.

4.4.3 Financials The costs associated with a public waste collection could be included in municipal taxes for the residents in the form of a tax increase. A District staff member suggested fees could be sent in the form of a bill directly to the residents. The District is required to open a bid to companies for a contract and the company that offers their services at the cheapest rate while agreeing to the conditions is awarded the contract. A municipal system would require all residents to contribute taxes toward the system, regardless of their current waste disposal methods.

4.4.4 Resident Opinions Survey respondents were not given the opportunity to provide their opinion regarding a change to municipal waste management. However, it is likely that this would be a controversial action as residents are currently able to choose which services they wish to use according to their needs or budget.

4.4.5 Implementation A District staff member noted a change from privatized waste to public waste management would need to be included in a long-term plan. Companies interested would be given the opportunity to compete for a contract. No additional actions would be required in terms of large infrastructure in Sooke.

4.4.6 Summary A municipal waste management approach will ensure there is more control and consistency that is critical for preventing bears from becoming food conditioned. This is a long-term strategy that needs to be investigated further but is a viable option for the increasing population.

4.5 Bear-Resistant Bins for Curbside Pickup 4.5.1 Description Bins for curbside waste pickup that are marketed as being bear- or wildlife-resistant are used in several other BC communities (see Table 1 in Section 3.7). There are a number of ways to incorporate bear-resistant bins into a waste management plan. As in Port Alberni, the District could purchase a number of bins and offer them to interested residents. In this scenario, bins could also be distributed to those without a secure location to store waste or in areas with frequent bear visits. Alternatively, bins could be provided to all residents, as in Castlegar. Both options will be discussed in this section.

4.5.2 Efficacy When evaluating the efficacy of using bear-resistant bins in Sooke, there are a number of factors to consider. For one, the possibility of improper usage by residents needs to be accounted for. Additionally, the merits of bear-resistant bins versus waste storage in a secure location should be considered. All bins are not constructed equally, so care must be taken to select an effective bin which has been certified by either the NATBRC or IGBC. Finally, all residents must be properly securing their waste for the bins to be effective.

As McMillan mentioned, improperly used bear-resistant bins will be no more effective than ordinary bins. In order for bear-resistant bins to be effective, residents must be informed on their correct usage. Residents must diligently lock and maintain the bins between scheduled pick-up times. Effective communication and education by the District or the provider may prevent these issues. It should also be noted that the bin type used may mitigate this problem. For instance, bins with gravity latches (see Table 2) may be easier for residents to use than those with locking cables.

From our survey, 25% of respondents disclosed that they did not have a secure indoor location to store their waste. Bear-resistant bins may be a good option for these residents. However, it should be noted that these bins are bear-resistant and not bear proof. Therefore, it would ideal for residents to store their waste in a secure location (i.e. a garage) even when using a bear-resistant bin.

The exposure of bins on collection day is another factor to consider. Even if residents are currently storing their waste in a secure location, their waste is still being left outside and unsecured on the day of pickup. If the collection provider agrees to unlatch the bins upon pickup, bear-resistant

444 bins would provide an added level of security on collection days. According to a representative from Alpine Disposal, it is possible for their haulers to unlatch the bins upon collection.

According to a number of bear expert interviewees, waste management plans are most successful when change happens consistently. It would likely be ineffective to provide the bins only to high-risk neighbourhoods as the bears would continue to explore the community to find a new source of food. Whether bear-resistant bins will be effective is largely dependent on how many residents will use them properly and consistently.

4.5.3 Financials As shown in Table 2, there is a wide range of prices for bear-resistant bins. At the low end of this price range, bins may cost $150. At the high end, bins may cost up to or more than $300. If the District were to purchase a number of bins to be offered to residents, the percentage of Sooke residents without secure waste storage should be accounted for. From our survey, 25% of respondents reported that they would not have a secure location to store their waste. Based on the number of private residences in Sooke (5599),93 it could be assumed that roughly 1400 Sooke households would benefit from a bear-resistant bin. Based on the costs in Table 2, the cost of 1400 bear-resistant bins could range from $210 000 to $490 000. In contrast, if the District were to provide bear-resistant bins to all Sooke households (as in Castlegar), the cost could range from $839 850 to $1 697 700. Grant funding may be available to assist with the cost of this.

4.5.4 Resident Opinions 86% of residents who subscribe to curbside pickup said they would be interested in using a bear-resistant bin. 15% of respondents said that they would not be interested in using a bear-resistant bin; 2% of these people left comments indicating that the bins would not be effective, 10% felt that it would be unnecessary, and 3% had another concern, such as the bins being too heavy for people with limited mobility to use or being difficult to clean.

It has been suggested that residents may be able leave compost and garbage sorted in bags but in a single bin at the curb for pickup, but 75% of respondents who would be interested in using a bear-resistant bin said that they would prefer to have separate bins for compost and garbage.

54% of the survey respondents who were interested in using bear-resistant bins felt that if their use were to become mandatory in the District of Sooke they should be provided by the District (Figure 8).

How would you prefer the bins be obtained? 60

30 resistant Bin resistant

- 20

Bear 10

0 Resident covers entire cost Subsidized by the District of Rented from disposal Provided by the District of % ofRespondants Interested in Using a a in Using Interested ofRespondants % Sooke companies for a small Sooke to residents monthly fee

Figure 8: Residents’ preference for obtaining bear-resistant bins if their use were to become mandatory. This chart combines answers for those who would prefer to obtain two bins (75% of question respondents) and those who would prefer to use a single bin for garbage and kitchen scraps (25% of question respondents).

4.5.5 Implementation The first step in implementing this option would likely be a trial, whereby a number of bins could be purchased by the District for use in high-risk areas in Sooke. How residents and bears respond to the bins could help determine their likelihood of success in Sooke. If a bylaw were to be enacted that required the secure storage of waste, bins could be offered for a fee or at no cost to residents by the District. The bins could be supplied to all residents, or only those without a secure place to secure their waste.

4.5.6 Summary While most experts consulted agreed that bear-resistant bins are not as secure as waste stored in a solid structure, they can be very effective if used properly. Many communities have opted to use this method and have seen reductions in wildlife accessing waste.

466

4.6 Centralized Waste Pick-Up Locations (Transfer Stations) 4.6.1 Description Transfer stations are facilities where municipal solid waste is dropped off, usually in small vehicles (i.e. by the residents themselves), briefly held, and then transferred to a larger capacity vehicle for transport to an off-site facility for further processing or disposal.94 There are many options for the style of transfer station to employ which is largely based on the waste needs of the community and the amount of waste generated.

4.6.2 Efficacy The efficacy of this option relies heavily on the proper management of the transfer station, as well as how the residents store their waste in between drop-offs. If residents were to continue storing their waste in unsecured locations prior to drop off at the transfer station, it would ultimately defeat the purpose of this option. However, if combined with a bylaw requiring the secure storage of waste, this problem would be mitigated. As previously mentioned, the management of the transfer station would be paramount to its efficacy. If the waste was held for a minimal amount of time, removed daily, and had proper containment and fencing, this option would likely reduce the availability of residential waste to bears, and therefore help in reducing further food conditioning. On the contrary, if poor management methods were practiced, this may act to increase food conditioning by providing a central location for the bears to access waste.

4.6.3 Financials The costs associated with a transfer station depend on the type of transfer station, as well as the quantity of waste produced by the residents. Options include but are not limited to, a direct-dump station, a compaction roll-off station, or using hydraulically tippable bins. According to The Conference Board of Canada, BC residents produce an average of 573 kg of waste per capita, per year.95 With a population of roughly 13 000, Sooke would need a transfer station with the ability to handle 7449 tonnes of residential waste per year. In order to ensure the transfer station is not at 100% capacity, financial details are provided for a transfer station with the ability of accepting 10 000 tonnes of waste per year. For a direct-dump style transfer station, the total capital cost would be approximately $1 784 800 while the yearly operating costs are around $256 700.96 This includes land acquisition, staffing and other ancillary costs. For a compaction roll-off bin style of transfer station, the total capital cost would be approximately $955 900 while the yearly operating costs are

around $406 500.97 As with the previous option, this includes land acquisition and staffing. For the last option, a hydraulically tippable bin style of transfer station, the total capital costs would be approximately $1 132 300 while the yearly operating costs are around $290 600.98 As with the last 2 examples, this includes land acquisition, staffing and other costs.

4.6.4 Resident Opinions 52% of survey respondents said that they would be interested in using a centralized drop-off location for their waste rather than using curbside pickup or disposing of their waste independently while 48% of respondents said that they would not be interested in this option. Reasons for this include concerns about abuse of the facility, mobility issues, the effort required, and concerns about having such a facility near their home. 40% of survey respondents who were interested in centralized locations said that they would be willing to transport their waste further than 500 metres away from their home, while the remaining 60% preferred a location less than 500 metres away from their home. Therefore, having a single transfer station in Sooke would likely not be favoured by residents.

4.6.5 Implementation The implementation of this option would come with a high initial capital and high yearly operation cost. However, if managed correctly, this option has the ability to improve the current situation and decrease the availability of residential waste to bears in Sooke. As noted above, this option would be most successful if combined with a bylaw requiring the secure storage of waste in between drop offs at the transfer station. The implementation of this option also requires the acquisition of commercially zoned land, which may be difficult in an area like Sooke according to interviewees.

4.6.6 Summary In summary, if managed and engineered correctly, this option has the ability to significantly reduce the availability and access of residential waste to the bear population in Sooke. As previously mentioned, without proper bylaws requiring the safe and secure storage of waste in between transfer station visits, the bears may still be able to access the waste at the residents’ homes. Although effective, this option comes with a high price tag compared to some of the other options available. Not only this, the willingness of residents to use the transfer station must also be taken into account. Given these factors, it is likely that this option will not be suitable for Sooke.

488

4.7 Neighborhood Bear-Proof Bins 4.7.1 Description Neighbourhood bear-proof bins are a communal waste collection system where bear-proof bins are located in convenient locations in each neighbourhood or on each street. This type of bin is often characterized as being completely bear-proof with tight sealing lids that lock and are self-closing, as well as latches that must be impenetrable by a bear. Not only this, these bins should be sufficiently stable and have the ability to be anchored to the ground and withstand several thousand pounds of force.99

4.7.2 Efficacy The efficacy of this option is very high as it is the only bear-proof residential waste management option being suggested and reviewed. That being said, resident participation is paramount in the efficacy of this option as improperly stored waste between drop-offs may diminish its effectiveness. However, if residents deposited their waste regularly and did not accumulate waste on their properties, this problem would be mitigated. As with the transfer station option, this option is best combined with a bylaw requiring the proper storage of waste between drop-offs. Communities such as Canmore, Alberta, who have a similar system, reported that immediately after implementation, the number of bear-waste incidents dropped to zero.100

4.7.3 Financials Although various bear-proof bin options exist, those commonly used for communal use are similar to Haul-All Hyd-a-way 3 m3 hydraulically tippable bins. These bins cost approximately $3500 each.101 It is tough to estimate the number of bins necessary for Sooke; however, Canmore employed a system which saw 1 bear-proof bin for every 20 homes.102 This density of bins allowed all residents to have easy access to a bin in their neighbourhood. With this criterion in mind and considering there are 5599103 private dwellings in Sooke, it would cost roughly $980 000 to have a bear-proof bin for every 20 homes. The residential density of Sooke is 99 private dwellings/km2, which is just slightly lower than the Town of Canmore at 115 dwellings/km2. Therefore, more bins may be required in Sooke than in Canmore to ensure that there is a bin near every residence, although this would need to be determined through further spatial analysis. As Sooke continues to expand, additional bins would need to be provided. Ongoing costs associated with this option include maintenance and cleaning of the bins, and the addition of new bins. The cost associated with pickup service would be included in

municipal taxes. The pickup service would be contracted out to a private company. A compatible side- loading truck would be required to empty these bins.

4.7.4 Resident Opinions Residents were not given the opportunity to provide their opinion for centralized waste pickup with regard to neighborhood bear-proof bins specifically as compared to a transfer station. However, it is likely that residents would view this option similarly to the transfer station option noted in Section 4.6.4 above.

52% of survey respondents did say that they would be interested in some kind of centralized pick-up option. Other communities using this system have found that residents ultimately enjoy the convenience of being able to dispose of their waste at any time of day, and not need to worry about bringing a can to the curb or driving to a transfer station. A potential issue with implementing this option is siting the bins in appropriate locations which will be accepted by residents. Residents may be concerned about unsightly bins, odours, and reduced property value which may make siting the bins difficult in Sooke.

4.7.5 Implementation As current curbside pick-up service is privatized in Sooke, this option would be slightly more complex to implement in Sooke than in other communities. The District of Sooke would need to purchase and site the bins, and contract a private disposal service to empty the bins. It may be challenging to encourage residents to adopt using the new bins rather than curbside pickup. However, if the cost of waste disposal using the neighbourhood bins were incorporated into municipal taxes, and residents were aware of this, they would likely be inclined to use the neighbourhood bins rather than subscribing to a separate service. As kitchen scraps are separated from the waste stream in Sooke, additional bins may be required to accommodate the sorted waste. Bins are also available which contain separate compartments. These could be to separate waste and kitchen scraps.

4.7.6 Summary In summary, this option would have a high initial capital, but relatively low operating costs moving forward. Furthermore, with resident participation, this option has the ability to become highly effective at reducing the bears’ access to waste and will likely prevent further food conditioning. As previously mentioned, finding suitable locations for the bins may be challenging.

500

4.8 Use of a Waste Management Mobile App 4.8.1 Description There are a number of waste collection- or management-related mobile applications, websites or other media services. These services provide residents with calendars showing pickup days or times, and send messages regarding waste management, sorting and collection. The ReCollect Systems service is currently being used by the CRD Blue Box program, Saanich and the City of Victoria. The ReCollect Systems service was pursued for this research as it appears to offer the most options for customization. The tool is primarily used to communicate regarding pickup times, waste sorting and collection; however, ReCollect staff indicated that the service could also be applied to bear-safe waste management practices.104 The District of Sooke could use this service as an educational tool to send residents information about bear-safe waste management practices, and could send messages to residents living in certain neighbourhoods to alert them of bear sightings in their area and to remind them to secure their waste.

4.8.2 Efficacy This would serve as another educational tool for residents. As a number of professionals consulted with noted, it is important for residents to receive consistent information from multiple sources. Using an alternative form of communication such as this would be an additional source for bear-safe messaging. Resident use of the service is voluntary, so this option would not reach all residents. However, residents may subscribe to the app because they are interested in the pickup day reminders or other services, and these users would still receive the communication regarding bear-safe waste management so it could be an effective way to engage with residents who might not otherwise be interested in the topic.

4.8.3 Financials The cost of providing this service to Sooke residents would depend on which of the available optional features were selected by the District. However, ReCollect staff estimated that the cost in communities with a similar population size to Sooke would be approximately $3000 per year.

4.8.4 Resident Opinions When asked whether they would be interested in using a free mobile app to stay up to date on your garbage pickup day or time, and to receive information on bear-safe waste management, 54% of

survey respondents said that they would be interested, while 46% said that they would not. Of those who were not interested, comments indicated that many felt the service would be unnecessary as they did not have difficulty remembering their pickup day. Others did not have smartphones or cell reception or were not interested in receiving more information on bear-safe waste management.

4.8.5 Implementation The implementation of this option would be initiated by the District of Sooke, who would subscribe to the service and facilitate its operation.

4.8.6 Summary In summary, this option would be a useful tool for communicating with residents and providing an additional avenue for increased education. Residents may be reached with this tool who would not otherwise be interested in educational tools specifically regarding bear-safe waste management. This option would be provided at the expense of the District of Sooke and some person- hours would be required to facilitate set-up.

4.9 Pursue Bear Smart Status 4.9.1 Description The Bear Smart Community Program started in 2002 and is a province-wide management plan to minimize human-wildlife conflicts.105 The MOEs Bear Smart program is aimed at municipalities and governments. Certain criteria must be achieved prior to being recognized as being Bear Smart. It is a voluntary initiative for a community and can be an asset in reducing and managing conflict.

4.9.2 Efficacy Communities that are pursuing or have achieved Bear Smart status have seen a decline in number of bears destroyed annually.106 Currently, more than 20 communities in BC are working towards Bear Smart status. Each program is designed to be community specific. Bear Smart status indicates that a community has taken the required steps to implement an effective bear-safe waste management plan. Bear Smart is a provincial program, so tourists and visitors may be more likely to recognize and understand this program.

522

4.9.3 Financials Pursuing Bear Smart status is more cost effective than the destruction of bears.107 Royal Roads students and Wild Wise Sooke have already worked towards some of the criteria required. Some of the associated costs are from the implementation and maintaining a bear-safe waste management plan. If the District is already planning to implement a bear-safe waste management plan, attaining Bear Smart Status would likely not have a significant additional cost.

4.9.4 Resident Opinions Many residents are passionate about protecting the bears in Sooke. The feedback from the survey shows that 86% of residents that participated are interested in using bear-resistant bins. Additionally, 60% of residents believe that a bylaw specific to storing waste in a secure place is important for the bear-safe management plan. The results from the survey show engagement and support from the community to meeting some of the Bear Smart criteria.

4.9.5 Implementation To achieve status the District needs to revise planning and decision-making documents to ensure commitment to the Bear Smart Community Program. Bear-safe bylaws need to be implemented and enforced. Sooke is already on track with a Bear Hazard Assessment prepared by Royal Roads students in 2017. In 2018 a Human/Bear Conflict management plan was prepared by Royal Roads students. This report, a bear-safe waste management plan, was submitted in 2019 by Royal Roads Students. The actions recommended in these documents would need to be implemented to attain Bear Smart status. Finally, WWS is already focusing on implementing an educational program.

4.9.6 Summary Sooke is on track to achieve Bear Smart status from the Ministry of Environment. This provincial standard would ensure the entire community is truly committed to protecting bears and all wildlife. There is a need for more support from the District as the Bear Smart practices need to be incorporated into community documents. Attaining Bear Smart status would coordinate efforts from the District and WWS towards a common goal.

5.0 Recommendations

Based on the analyses in Section 4, it is clear that no single option will be able to satisfy all of the factors considered. The options vary in efficacy, cost, resident opinion, and complexity of implementation. Therefore, two options will be presented as potential waste management plans for Sooke. Plan 1 may have the best resident reception and be slightly more cost effective, but may not be the most effective in preventing bears from accessing waste. Plan 2 is likely the most effective way to prevent bears from accessing waste, but will be slightly more expensive, complex to implement, and resident reception may vary. Both plans will require a complimentary bylaw along with continuing education and enforcement efforts. Both plans would also satisfy the requirements for Sooke to achieve Bear Smart status. Any action taken towards bear-safe waste management will require ongoing assessment of success and adaptive management to ensure that the plan is actually effective.

5.1 Plan 1: Secure Locations Required Plan 1 utilizes waste management tools described in sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.7 and 4.8

This plan would be based on a bylaw requiring that waste be stored securely at all times. This could mean that waste must be secured inside of a secure location such as a garage, or in a bear- resistant bin. This bylaw would apply to those who use curbside pickup and those who dispose of their own waste. Townhouses, mobile home parks, and apartment buildings would ideally be required to provide a secure location such as a bear-resistant dumpster or enclosure for their residents. The bylaw may require that future multi-unit dwellings incorporate such structures into their development plans. The bylaw would also need to stipulate the time of day when residents are allowed to bring their waste from the secure location to the curbside for pickup. Residents who have access to a secure indoor location to store their waste would be encouraged to use that location, while those who do not have access to a secure indoor location could use a bear-resistant bin which would be provided by the District.

544

An example of how the bylaw associated with Plan 1 could be worded is included below:

“residential waste” means any matter discarded from a residential property, not including recyclables.

“wildlife resistant container” means a waste container that is designed to prevent access by wildlife and which has a sturdy cover with a latching device.

“wildlife resistant enclosure” means a fully enclosed structure designed to prevent access by wildlife, and which has four enclosed sides, a roof, a door, and a latching device.

Residential waste must be secured in either a wildlife-resistant bin or in a container within a wildlife-resistant enclosure at all times, except after 5 a.m. and before 7 p.m. on collection days for those who receive waste collection services.

This plan would be somewhat economical as it would not require the District to provide bear- resistant bins to every resident, just those who do not have a secure indoor location. It is difficult to estimate the final cost of this program, as the bins range in price, and it is unknown how many residents would require bins. 25% of survey respondents said that they did not have a secure indoor location to store their waste. This would be approximately 1400 residences, requiring the District to purchase and provide approximately 2800 bins to accommodate for separation of garbage and kitchen scraps. Using an estimate of $200 per bin, the purchase of 2800 bins would cost approximately $560 000. Ideally, apartments and mobile home parks would provide bear-safe waste storage facilities for their residents, which would reduce the number of bins needing to be purchased by the District. As Sooke continues to expand, additional bins would need to be provided. Using a growth rate of +.023/year,108 Sooke will gain an additional 130 households annually. Purchasing bins for 25% of these households would cost $6500 annually. Bins or hardware may need to be replaced over time, so there would be some ongoing costs related to this option.

The implementation of this plan would require a consistent program of public education to be administered by WWS in cooperation with the District. The annual contribution to WWS from the District will be assumed to be $25 000. The mobile waste management app option could also be

pursued as an educational avenue at an annual cost of $3000. Additionally, bylaw enforcement would be necessary to ensure that residents are complying with the bylaw. Employing an additional bylaw officer would cost approximately $100 000 annually. The estimated initial and ongoing costs of this plan are summarized in Table 3. The initial cost of this plan would be $560 000, and the annual ongoing cost would be $136 000.

Table 3: Estimated initial and ongoing costs to the District associated with implementing Plan 1.

Ongoing Annual Cost Asset Initial Cost ($) ($/year)

Bear-resistant Bins (purchase 560 000 8000 and maintenance)

Bylaw Enforcement Officer - 100 000

Ongoing Public Education - 28 000

Total 560 000 136 000

This plan would likely be more positively received by residents than other options, as it would allow for considerable flexibility in the method of waste storage or disposal. This plan would also allow the District to continue using the private waste disposal system.

This plan would have a number of weaknesses. There may be some discrepancy regarding what qualifies as a secure location, and who is eligible to receive a free or subsidized bin from the District. These concerns would need to be clearly outlined in the bylaw and communicated to residents. Residents who store their waste in a secure location would still be bringing their waste to the curb in a non-bear-resistant bin, which would allow bears to access the waste at this time. Enforcement of the pickup time bylaw would limit this issue but it would still be a weakness of the plan. The efficacy of the bins themselves would also be a concern. Considerable thought should be given to which bins will be the most effective.

In conclusion, this option allows for more flexibility, but would not be the most effective choice. An action plan showing the steps required to implement this plan is shown in Figure 9.

566

Figure 9: Action plan showing the steps required to implement Plan 1.

5.2 Plan 2: Neighbourhood Bear-Proof Bins Plan 2 utilizes waste management tools described in sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.7

This plan would again be based on a bylaw that waste is secured at all times. In this plan, the District would provide neighbourhood bear-proof metal bins in each neighbourhood as described in Section 4.7. Residents would have no need to store waste on their properties, as they could bring their waste to the neighbourhood bin at any time. This plan would have similar requirements for education and bylaw enforcement as Plan 1. However, as there would be no curbside pickup, the use of the mobile app described in Section 4.8 would likely be irrelevant. An example of how the bylaw associated with Plan 2 could be worded is included below:

“residential waste” means any matter discarded from a residential property, not including recyclables.

“waste” means any discarded matter.

“wildlife resistant container” means a waste container that is designed to prevent access by wildlife and which has a sturdy cover with a latching device.

“wildlife resistant enclosure” means a fully enclosed structure designed to prevent access by wildlife, and which has four enclosed sides, a roof, a door, and a latching device.

Residential waste must be secured in either a wildlife-resistant bin or in a container within a wildlife-resistant enclosure at all times.

This plan is considered to be the most effective, as the metal neighbourhood bins are actually considered bear-proof. As the bins close using gravity, there would be very little opportunity for user error. The consistency offered by this plan would decrease the extent of enforcement required. The neighbourhood bins allow residents to dispose of waste at any time of day, and there is no need to remember pickup days or carry full bins up and down a driveway. Payments are made through municipal taxes, eliminating the need to pay for a separate service.

588

52% of residents said that they would be interested in a centralized waste collection option. Using the Canmore case study as an example, residents began to prefer the convenience of the neighbourhood bin system over time. Hopefully in time, residents who are not in favour of the option would also see the advantages of such a system.

The siting of the bins would be the biggest challenge in deploying this system. Many of the residents who said they would not be interested in such a system commented with concerns about abuse of the facility, smells or the bins being unsightly. Increased presence of BEOs may help to limit abuse of the facilities. The metal bins are actually engineered to control odours. As in Canmore, the District would need to identify suitable locations for bins, and then allow for public feedback on the proposed locations and find alternatives where necessary. A complication of this plan is that it would require the District to move toward a public waste collection system. While the move toward public waste collection is a short-term difficulty in implementing this plan, it is something that the District is already considering in their long-term plans.

Once the system was put into place, residents would likely begin to use it gradually, as occurred in Canmore (Section 3.7). As the service would be paid for by municipal taxes, residents would likely prefer to use the bins rather than continue to pay for their own services. For any residents who continued to use curbside pickup services, the bylaw that waste be secured at all times would still apply to them, and they would be required to store their waste indoors or use a bear-resistant bin.

It would cost roughly $980 000 to have a bear-proof bin for every 20 homes. Ongoing costs associated with this option include maintenance and cleaning of the bins, as well as regular pickup which would require a compatible garbage truck. As Sooke continues to expand, additional bins would need to be provided. If Sooke gains 130 households annually, 7 additional bins would need to be purchased. The pickup costs would be funded through municipal taxes. The initial and ongoing costs of this option are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Estimated initial and ongoing costs to the District associated with implementing Plan 2.

Asset Initial Cost ($) Ongoing Cost ($/year)

Neighbourhood Bins 980 000 26 000 (purchase and maintenance)

Bylaw Enforcement Officer - 100 000

Ongoing Public Education - 25 000

Total 980 000 151 000

In conclusion, this plan has the potential to be very effective in Sooke. It would require a bit more logistical planning than Plan 1, but the long-term consistency and simplicity of the plan would ultimately outweigh these difficulties. Residents may find this option difficult to accept, but over time would likely adjust to the change and may even begin to prefer it. While the cost of this plan is higher than that of Plan 2, it is considerably more effective as it includes creating a secure waste storage location for all residents while Plan 1 only provides bear-resistant bins for 25% of residents. An action plan detailing the phases of implementing this plan is shown in Figure 10.

600

Figure 10: Action plan showing the steps required to implement Plan 2.

5.3 Markers of Success Once implemented, an indicator or combination of indicators should be used to evaluate the success of the waste management plan. There are a number of indicators which may be used, including: instances of unsecured waste; the number of calls made to the Conservation Officer Services regarding bears accessing waste; and the number of bears destroyed as a result of food-conditioning and habituation. There are limitations to each of these metrics.

In the event that Plan 1 is chosen, instances of unsecured residential waste could be used as an indicator of success. In Squamish, there is a volunteer-led program whereby unsecured waste is stickered the night before waste collection. Instances of unsecured waste are recorded and measured

over time. This is only a viable metric if the manpower exists to run such a program, as it would likely be too large a task for BEOs.

Calls made to COs regarding bears accessing waste are another commonly used means of measuring success. There are a number of limitations to this metric. For one, the frequency of bears in populated areas isn’t solely dependent on waste accessibility. The availability of natural food sources (i.e. berries, salmon) varies seasonally, and this can influence bear habituation. For instance, regardless of whether or not residents are securely managing attractants, bear presence in populated areas may decrease in seasons when natural food sources are highly abundant. This is also a factor influencing the frequency of bear destruction.

Another factor to consider is human response to bears. Whether or not an individual calls COs upon seeing or interacting with a bear varies greatly. Many residents wish not to cause bear destruction by alerting a CO. As a result, both the number of calls made regarding bears accessing waste and the number of bears destroyed may not be indicative of bears accessing waste. Subsequently, these measures may not accurately depict the success of a waste management plan. A combination of these indicators may be the most accurate means of measuring the plan’s success. Factoring in natural food availability may also increase the accuracy of the chosen metric.

622

6.0 Conclusion

Properly managing residential waste can minimize human-bear conflict and reduce food conditioning, thus reducing the number of bears being destroyed. Sooke is a unique community and developing a waste management plan which suits the needs of its residents is a complex task. This project investigated other BC communities to look at commonly used methods, consulted with a number of experts to gain insight, and conducted a resident survey to assess public opinion. Ultimately, resident and District support will determine the effectiveness of the plan. The needs and nature of Sooke were kept in mind throughout this project.

Through careful consideration, this report presented two bear-safe waste management plan options:

1. Plan 1: Secure Locations Required 2. Plan 2: Neighborhood Bear-Proof Bins

Both plans are viable options for the community. While Plan 1 is the most flexible, it may not be effective. Plan 2 may have a greater cost, but it will likely be more effective. Plan 2 will require the transition from a privatized waste system to a municipal system. Though two plans are presented, each can be adapted to meet the requirements of the District. The District of Sooke will need to assess these options based on the needs of the community, and decide which actions will be most appropriate. Both Plan 1 and Plan 2 are designed to protect citizens and bears through improved waste management.

Increased education and enforcement are critical to the success of a waste management plan and to the safety of the community. New bylaws specific to waste are fundamental when implementing a bear-safe waste management plan. Obtaining the support of the community is also vital and this can be done through education. There is need for more programs targeting new residents, children and resistant residents. Additionally, it is necessary to have the full support of the District of Sooke to integrate bear-safe precautions into public documents and increase the credibility of the plan.

Restaurants, grocery stores, schools, parks, and campgrounds were not considered in this report. However, these industries and areas are high risk in Sooke and need to be addressed along with the residential waste management plan considered in this report. Another obstacle to the success

of the plan may be the waste management methods employed in neighbouring areas which may continue to attract bears to the area.

This report and the previous reports completed by RRU students help Sooke to begin achieving the criteria for Bear Smart status. If the recommendations made in these reports are implemented, along with increased educational programs and District support, Sooke will be on track to obtain Bear Smart status. Attaining Bear Smart status would ensure the entire community is committed to reducing bear conflicts.

Based on the research discussed in this report, it is recommended that either Plan 1 or Plan 2 be implemented for the safety of the residents and bears. The exceptional environment of Sooke needs to be protected and bears are part of Sooke's identity. Residents are moving to Sooke to be surrounded by wilderness and every measure possible should be taken to preserve this sensitive landscape. The implementation of a bear-safe waste management plan is a necessary step to maintaining the connection to nature that is so important in Sooke.

9.0 Appendices

Appendix I: Survey Results

666

688

700

722

744

766

788

800

822

844

866

888

900

922

944

966

988

1000 0

101

1020 2

103

1040 4

105

1060 6

107

1080 8

109

1101 0

111

1121 2

113

1141 4

115

1161 6 Appendix II

117

Endnotes

1 WildSafe BC. (n.d.). Black Bears. Retrieved from https://wildsafebc.com/black-bear/

2 WildSafe BC, n.d.

3 Rounds, R.C. (1987). Distribution and Analysis of Colourmorphs of the Black Bear (Ursus americanus). Journal of Biogeography, 14(6), 521–538.

4 Taylor, D. (2006). Black Bears: A Natural History. Markham, Ontario: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Limited.

5 WildSafe BC, n.d.

6 North American Bear Center. (n.d.). Food and Habitat. Retrieved from https://bear.org/food-and-habitat/

7 Taylor, 2006.

8 Demarais, S., & Krausman, P. (2000). Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

9 Moncour, M. (n.d.). Bears in Tofino. Retrieved from https://raincoasteducation.org/portfolio-item/bears-in- tofino-living-with-the-wild

10 Zager, P., & Beecham, J. (2006). The Role of American Black Bears and Brown Bears as Predators on Ungulates in North America. Ursus, 17(2), 95-108. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/stable/3873087

11 Reimchen, T. E., & Fox, C. H. (2013). Fine-scale spatiotemporal influences of salmon on growth and nitrogen signatures of Sitka spruce tree rings. BMC Ecology, 13(39), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-13-38

12 Enders, M. S., & Vander Wall, S. B. (2012). Black bears (Ursus americanus) are effective seed dispersers, with a little help from their friends. Oikos, 121(4), 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19710.x

13 Zinn, H.C., Manfredo, M.J., & Decker, D.J. (2008). Human Conditioning to Wildlife: Steps Toward Theory and Research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13(6), 388-399. 10.1080/10871200802427972

14 Zinn, Manfredo, & Decker, 2008.

15 Zinn, Manfredo, & Decker, 2008.

16 Demarais & Krausman, 2000.

1181 8

17 Statistics Canada. (2016). 2016 Census Profile: Sooke, District municipality. Retrieved from http://tiny.cc/pb0t9y

18 Campbell, M., & Lancaster, B.L. (2010). Public Attitudes toward Black Bears (Ursus americanus) and Cougars (Puma concolor) on Vancouver Island. Society and Animals, 18(1). 40–57. 10.1163/106311110x12586086158448

19 Laird, K. (2019). Census: Sooke faces challenges of growth. Sooke News Mirror. Retrieved from https://www.sookenewsmirror.com/news/census-sooke-faces-challenges-of-growth/

20 Demarais & Krausman, 2000.

21 Gouett, M., Millard-Martin, R., Rypien, B., & Wheeler, A. (2017). Ursus Praesidium Preliminary Bear Hazard Assessment Final Report. Royal Roads University.

22 Gouett, Millard-Martin, Rypien, & Wheeler, 2017.

23 Joanna Klees van Bommel, personal communication, 2019.

24 WildSafe BC (2019). W.A.R.P. Retrieved from https://warp.wildsafebc.com/warp/

25 Angus, T., Coleman, M., Erickson, A., & Hanna, C. (2018). Community of Sooke, BC: Human-Bear Conflict Management Plan. Victoria, BC: Royal Roads University.

26 Wild Wise Sooke Facebook Page (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/wildwisesooke/

27 Peter Pauwels, personal communication, 2019.

28 Rick Dekelver, personal communication, 2019.

29 Sooke Disposal, personal communication, 2019.

30 Alpine Disposal, personal communication, 2019.

31 Alpine Disposal, personal communication, 2019.

32 Alpine Disposal, personal communication, 2019.

33 Jeff Bateman, personal communication, 2019.

34 District of Sooke. (2019). Meeting Minutes: Regular Council Meeting, April 23, 2019. Retrieved from https://sooke.civicweb.net/filepro/document/31350/Regular%20Council%20- %2023%20Apr%202019%20Minutes.pdf?widget=true

35 Transition Sooke. (n.d.). Zero Waste Sooke. Retrieved from https://transitionsooke.org/zero-waste-sooke/ 119

36 Transition Sooke, n.d.

37 Medea Mills, personal communication, 2019.

38 Baruch-Mordo, S., Breck, S. W., Wilson, K. R., & Broderick, J. (2011). The Carrot or the Stick? Evaluation of Education and Enforcement as Management Tools for Human-Wildlife Conflicts. PLoS ONE, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi- org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1371/journal.pone.0015681

39 Dunn, W., Elwell, J., & Tunberg, G. (2008). Safety Education in Bear Country: Are People Getting the Message? Ursus, 19(1), 43-52. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/stable/20204099

40 Debbie Read, personal communication, 2019.

41 Debbie Read, personal communication, 2019.

42 Debbie Read, personal communication, 2019.

43 Crystal McMillan, personal communication, 2019.

44 Baruch-Mordo, Breck, Wilson & Broderick, 2011.

45 District of Sooke, Bylaw No. 392, Animal Regulation and Impounding Bylaw (2009). Retrieved from https://sooke.ca/wp-content/uploads/392-Animal-Reg-2015-May-27.pdf

46 Medea Mills, personal communication, 2019.

47 District of Sooke, Bylaw No. 296, Unsightly Premises and Objectionable Situations Bylaw (2007), s. 2(a). Retrieved from https://sooke.civicweb.net/document/4015

48 Medea Mills, personal communication, 2019.

49 District of Sooke. (2009). Complaint and Bylaw Enforcement Policy. Retrieved from https://sooke.ca/wp- content/uploads/policies/9_6-Complaint-and-Bylaw-Enforcement-Policy.pdf

50 District of Sooke, p. 2, 2009.

51 Medea Mills, personal communication, 2019.

52 Medea Mills, personal communication, 2019.

53 Baruch-Mordo, Breck, Wilson & Broderick, 2011.

54 Baruch-Mordo, Breck, Wilson & Broderick, 2011. 1

1202 0

55 Feighery, E., Altman, D.G., & Shaffer, G. (1991). The effects of combining education and enforcement to reduce tobacco sales to minors. A study of four northern California communities. Jama, 266(11), 3168-71. 10.1001/jama.1991.03470220084032

56 Tay, R. (2004). The Relationship Between Public Education and Law Enforcement Campaigns and Their Effectiveness in Reducing Speed-Related Serious Crashes. International Journal of Transport Economics, 31(2), 263–268.

57 Alder, J. (1996). Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, Cairns Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environmental Management, 20(4), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01474654

58 Alder, 1996.

59 City of Castlegar, Bylaw No. 1248, Solid Waste and Recycling Regulations and Rates (2016). Retrieved from http://www.castlegar.ca/dmsdocument/670

60 City of Castlegar. (2015). City garbage strategy explained. The Castlegar Source. Retrieved from https://castlegarsource.com/news/city-garbage-strategy-explained-40158#.XS7E2VNKjOR

61 Resort Municipality of Whistler. (n.d.). Waste Depots and Facilities. Retrieved from https://www.whistler.ca/services/waste-management/depot-locations

62 Crystal McMillan, personal communication, 2019.

63 Crystal McMillan, personal communication, 2019.

64 Medea Mills, personal communication, 2019.

65 Crystal McMillan, personal communication, 2019.

66 Rick Dekelver, personal communication, 2019.

67 Wildlife Act, RSBC 1996, c. 488, s. 33. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96488_01

68 Rick Dekelver, personal communication, 2019.

69 Wildlife Act, 1996, s. 88.1(1).

70 Rick Dekelver, personal communication, 2019.

71 Rick Dekelver, personal communication, 2019.

72 Paquet, M.M. Bear-People Conflict Management Plan (Proposed) for City of Port Alberni, BC. 121

73 Slepian, K. (2015). Get smart about bears. Alberni Valley News. Retrieved from https://www.albernivalleynews.com/news/get-smart-about-bears/

74 Port of Alberni, Bylaw No. 4885, Solid Waste Collection Bylaw (2015). Retrieved from https://www.portalberni.ca/solid-waste-collection-and-disposal-bylaw-garbage

75 Daniel Eichstadter, personal communication, 2019.

76 Daniel Eichstadter, personal communication, 2019.

77 District of Squamish. (2007). Council Report from Bear Aware. Retrieved from https://www.portalberni.ca/solid-waste-collection-and-disposal-bylaw-garbage

78 District of Squamish, 2007.

79 District of Squamish (n.d.). Black Bears. Retrieved from https://squamish.ca/our-services/wildlife/bear- initiatives/

80 District of Squamish, Bylaw No. 2053, District of Squamish Wildlife Attractant Bylaw (2009). Retrieved from http://squamish.ca/our-services/wildlife/bear-initiatives

81 District of Squamish, 2007.

82 Crystal McMillan, personal communication, 2019.

83 BearSmart. (n.d.) Town of Canmore Solid Waste Services. Retrieved from http://www.bearsmart.com/docs/canmorebearproofwaste.pdf

84 Davis, H., Wellwood, D., & Ciarniello, L. (2002). “Bear Smart” Community Program: Background Report. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/conservation-officer- service/bearsmart_bkgdr.pdf

85 Ashthorn, H. (2018). Bear Smart Communities. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a7bfd942f5526d03005cb6/t/5ac793902b6a28519cf24347/1523028910092/Be ar+Smart+Communities+Scan+2018.pdf

86 WildSafe BC. (n.d.). Bear-Resistant Product Testing. Retrieved from https://wildsafebc.com/bear-resistant-bin- testing/

87 WildSafe BC, n.d.

88 Baruch-Mordo, Breck, Wilson & Broderick, 2009. 1

1222 2

89 The Office of the Ombudsperson. (2016). Bylaw Enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.bcombudsperson.ca/sites/default/files/Special%20Report%20No%20- %2036%20Bylaw%20Enforcement%20-%20Best%20Practices%20Guide%20for%20Local%20Governments.pdf

90 Community Charter, SBC 2003, c. 26, s. 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/consol28/consol28/03026_02#section9

91 District of Sooke. (2018). Bylaw Enforcement Officer I. Retrieved from https://sooke.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/05/Job-Ad-Bylaw-Enforcement-Officer-I.pdf

92 Quickbooks. (n.d.). How to calculate the true cost of a new employee. Retrieved from https://quickbooks.intuit.com/ca/resources/managing-people/how-to-calculate-the-true-cost-of-a-new- employee/?fbclid=IwAR1MTffNt8xb1ezMzE0qKetGnQONSUNDecV8g_b_LIsSXgPQtUgmLIiAK68

93 Statistics Canada, 2016.

94 UMA Engineering. (n.d.). Guidelines for Establishing Transfer Stations for Municipal Solid Waste. Victoria, BC: Government of BC.

95 The Conference Board of Canada. (2015). Waste Generation. Retrieved from How Canada Performs: https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/environment/waste.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

96 UMA Engineering, n.d.

97 UMA Engineering, n.d.

98 UMA Engineering, n.d.

99 Town of Canmore Solid Waste Services. (2000). Bear Proof Waste Handling System ñ The Town of Canmore Experience. Canmore, AB: Town of Canmore.

100 Town of Canmore Solid Waste Services, 2000.

101 UMA Engineering, n.d.

102 Town of Canmore Solid Waste Services, 2000.

103 Statistics Canada, 2016.

104 ReCollect staff, personal communication, 2019.

105 Davis, Wellwood, & Ciarniello, 2002.

123

106 Davis, Wellwood, & Ciarniello, 2002.

107 Davis, Wellwood, & Ciarniello, 2002.

108 Population City. Sooke. Retrieved from http://population.city/canada/sooke/