Seal Bay Nature Park Parking Improvements:

Environmental Management Plan

PREPARED Brian Allaert

FOR Comox Valley Regional District 770 Harmston Ave. Courtenay, BC

V9N 0G8

February 18, 2021

1 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1 3. REGULATORY SETTING ...... 1 4. BIOPHYSICAL OVERVIEW ...... 2 4.1. Methods ...... 2 4.1.1. Desktop Review ...... 2 4.1.2. Field Assessment ...... 3 4.2. Results ...... 4 4.2.1. Environmental Setting ...... 4 4.2.2. Species at Risk ...... 4 4.2.3. Fish and Aquatic Habitat ...... 7 5. HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES ...... 7 6. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN ...... 8 7. RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 14 7.1. Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) ...... 14 7.2. Prime Contractor ...... 14 7.3. Independent Environmental Monitor (EM) ...... 14 8. COMMUNICATION PLAN...... 14 9. ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORTING ...... 15 10. STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ...... 15 11. CLOSURE ...... 16 12. REFERENCES ...... 18

2 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Exotic species records from the IAPP (2021) within the area of Seal Bay Park...... 4 Table 2. Wildlife Species at Risk likely of occurring within the Project Area...... 5 Table 3. Reportable Spill Criteria...... 15

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Site Overview ...... 17

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: BC CDC Ecosystems Explorer Area Search Results APPENDIX B: Arborist Report APPENDIX C: Spill Response Plan APPENDIX D: Project Contact List APPENDIX E: Invasive Species Identification Tool APPENDIX F: Species at Risk Identification Tool

3 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

1. INTRODUCTION The Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) is proposing to expand the Bates Road parking area of Seal Bay Nature Park (the Project). The expansion proposes to increase the parking capacity from approximately 30 stalls to approximately 60 stalls as well as improve safety for traffic and pedestrians along Bates Road.

This Environmental Management Plan (EMP) describes the environmental performance standards and responsibilities of all contractors in executing this Project.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing gravel parking lot on the east side of Bates Road will be expanded eastwards and designed for improved safety (Figure 1). The expansion will be a one-way drive-through loop that has been routed to retain the large veteran Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees along the edge of the existing parking area and minimize clearing of other mature trees to the extent possible. A vegetation island in the center of the loop will be retained and includes some large trees.

The Project will require approximately 1,650 m2 of clearing and grubbing to accommodate the new parking area and drive-through access and will require some clearing of mature mixed forest. The new parking area will be topped with gravel. At least two culverts will be installed under the east side of the loop to maintain natural hydrology and ensure water does not impound in the vegetated center area. The area is relatively level and drains eastwards. The project has been designed to utilize the existing parking area as well as natural gaps in the mature forest.

Over the course of discussions on site, it has been advised that one or more footpaths be placed through the vegetated island and that large woody debris from the site be positioned to deter pedestrian traffic through the remainder of the vegetated area.

There are no watercourses or wetlands within the Project; however, there are areas where surface pooling is relatively common. It is recommended that drainage be designed to maintain the natural hydrology of the site.

3. REGULATORY SETTING Seal Bay Nature Park is a regional park administered by the CVRD. The BC Ministry of Transportation must approve the parking area design for safety considerations and compliance with provincial and federal regulation. Other environmental acts and regulations potentially relevant to the project include:

 BC Wildlife Act (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations);  BC Park (Regional) Act (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations);  BC Environmental Management Act (Ministry of Environment);  BC Heritage Conservation Act (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations);  BC Wildfire Act (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations);  Canada Migratory Bird Convention Act (Environment and Climate Change Canada);  Canada Species at Risk Act (Environment and Climate Change Canada); and,  Local Government Act and applicable bylaws.

1 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

4. BIOPHYSICAL OVERVIEW A biophysical overview assessment was conducted in order to inform this EMP. Note that First Nation engagement and assessment for archaeological or cultural resources were not included in the scope of this report. It is understood that an archaeological assessment in support of this project was completed by Jesse Morin at the direction of the CVRD. No cultural materials were identified on site during the course of that assessment (Pers. Comm. B. Allaert 2020). The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) provided in Section 6.0 includes general standards and procedures related to protecting archaeological resources.

4.1. Methods

4.1.1. Desktop Review For the purposes of focusing this assessment, the Project Area was defined as the boundaries of the proposed development with an approximately 30 m buffer applied.

An initial list of species of conservation concern and legally-designated species that potentially occur in the Project Area were gathered from BC Conservation Data Center (CDC) Species and Ecosystems Explorer online application (2021) based on the following search criteria:

Animals OR Plants OR Ecosystem Realm-Groups: Mixed Forest; AND Regional Districts: Comox Valley; AND occurring within the CWH Biogeoclimatic Zone

Once this initial list was compiled, the following information sources were reviewed for occurrence records and habitat information:

 iMapBC (DataBC, 2020);  Comox Valley Regional District iMap (CVRD 2020);  Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP 2020);  E-Fauna (Klinkenberg, 2019);  BC Species Summaries (BC CDC 2020); and  Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) reports.

The probability of wildlife species of management concern occurring within the Project Area was assessed using the area-specific species lists compiled from the BC CDC, species information, available federal recovery strategies, Species at Risk Act (SARA) Schedule 1 range maps, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, and previous professional experience in the region. The known distribution and habitat requisites of each species was reviewed and the probability of the species occurrence within the Project Area was assessed based on the mobility of the species, the proximity of known occurrences, and by comparing habitat requisites of individual species with the habitat suitability of the Project Area. Each listed species was then assigned a low, moderate, or high probability of occurrence, based on the following definitions:

Low probability: those species whose known range does not correspond to the Project Area and/or those species whose habitat requisites are absent from the Project Area (e.g., grassland, estuary, tundra);

2 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

Moderate probability: those species whose range and habitat requisites are present in the Project Area but are not known within 5 km of the Project Area (based on the BC CDC [2016b] and professional knowledge of the Project Area); and

High probability: those species whose range and habitat requisites are present in the Project Area and are known to the general area surrounding the Project Area.

Invertebrates in the query results were not assessed. Assessment of vegetation was limited to a desktop search of known occurrence records and an assessment of the Project Area’s likelihood to support rare plants. Due to the season of the field assessment, species-specific surveys were not appropriate and incidental observations of rare species were unlikely.

Ecosystems at risk were assessed in the field based on the species assemblages and biophysical descriptions provided.

The BC Invasive Alien Plan Program (IAPP, 2020) was queried for known records of invasive species that may occur in or around the Project Area. The complete query results are provided in Appendix A.

4.1.2. Field Assessment A site reconnaissance was conducted by Kim Poupard, R.P.Bio. (Calidris Ecological Services Ltd.) on December 31, 2021. This included a site walk and discussion with Brian Allaert of the CVRD and Ryan Murphy, consulting arborist, to review the project design and provide input into the plan.

A second site visit occurred on January 21, 2021 with Mr. Poupard, Mr. Allaert and Mike Hanson, P.Eng of Onsite Engineering Ltd. to review recommendations made during the previous assessment and provide input into the final design.

During the field reconnaissance, specific attention was paid to potential occurrences of the following:

 Habitats likely to support species at risk (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forest);  Ecosystems at risk;  Species at risk;  Invasive plants;  Wildlife habitat features (e.g., wildlife trees, stick nests, dens and burrows);  Important wildlife habitat (.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forest);  Watercourses; and,  Potential adverse environmental interactions from the proposed Project.

A general description of the vegetation communities within the Project Area was compiled. Note that the field reconnaissance was limited to visual observations of land cover types and chance encounters; no species-specific inventories were conducted. Note that the timing of the assessment was outside of the appropriate season for compiling comprehensive vegetation lists.

A geo-referenced PDF on a handheld GPS enabled device was used to navigate the site and georeference important features. Observations were recorded with photographs and field notes.

A professional arborist (Mr. Murphy) was retained to conduct a detailed assessment of the trees implicated in the project and inform this EMP. The arborist report is provided in Appendix B.

3 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Environmental Setting The project is located within the Coastal Western Hemlock Very Dry Maritime (CWHxm1) biogeoclimatic zone (iMapBC 2021). The area is dominated by mature mixed forest dominated by coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with a lesser component of grand fir (Abies grandis), western redcedar (Thuja plicata) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) in the canopy. The understory is dominated by sword fern (Polystichum munitum), regenerating western redcedar, western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and grand fir in the shrub layer. Scattered red alder (Alnus rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) are also present. Other common understory species include Salal (Gaultheria shallon), dull Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).

The site is slightly wetter than zonal within the CWHxm1, with rich soil (site series 04 Fd – Swordfern). The site has been modified by historical forest harvesting.

A review of the Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP) online map for known occurrences of invasive species resulted in the identification of eight species in the vicinity of the project including four that are listed as ‘noxious’ under Schedule A of the Weed Control Act Regulation. These are mostly located along the park boundaries with the exception of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) which has been recorded within the park. A list of these occurrences is provided in Table 1. Note that none of these were noted on the project site during the field visits.

Table 1. Exotic species records from the IAPP (2021) within the area of Seal Bay Park.

Common Name Scientific Name Noxious1

Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus No

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare No

Japanese knotweed Reynoutria japonica Yes

Giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum Yes

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius No

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Yes

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare No

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Yes 1. As defined by the Weed Control Act. The act puts a duty on the ‘land occupier’ to control species designated as ‘noxious’ on Schedule A of the Regulation.

4.2.2. Species at Risk The BC Conservation Data Center (CDC) online mapping tool was queried for marked known occurrence records of species at risk in the vicinity of the Project. None are shown within 1 km of the project. The

4 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021 nearest occurrence record is approximately 1.2 km west of the Project. This record is a red-listed ecological community: Trembling Aspen - Pacific Crab Apple / Slough Sedge (Populus tremuloides - Malus fusca / Carex). This is described as a deciduous wetland within Seal Bay Park occupying approximately 9.4 Ha (BC CDC 2014a). No interaction with the project is anticipated.

The next nearest occurrence record is the provincially blue-listed yellow sand-verbena (Abronia latifolia) along the foreshore at Little River approximately 4.4 km southeast of the Project. There is no habitat for this species in the Project area and no interaction is anticipated.

There are records of Western Screech-owl (Megascopes kennicotti kennicottii) approximately 6.7 km west-northwest of the Project. This species is provincially blue-listed and also listed as Threatened on Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act. Habitat for this species may be present in and around the Project Area. Work should be conducted outside of the breeding season for this species (late January through May; Cannings et al 2020). If clearing during this period is unavoidable, a pre-clearing survey should be conducted.

Other wildlife species with a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ likelihood of occurrence within the Project Area based on the criteria above and previous professional knowledge of the region, are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Wildlife Species at Risk with ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ likelihood of occurring within the Project Area. Likelihood BC Class Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC SARA1 of List Occurrence 2 Amphibian Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora Blue Special Concern 1 High

Amphibian Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Yellow Special Concern 1 High Coccothraustes Birds Evening Grosbeak Yellow Special Concern 1 High vespertinus Great Blue Heron, fannini Ardea herodias Birds Blue Special Concern 1 High subspecies fannini Northern Goshawk, laingi Accipiter gentilis Birds Red Threatened 1 Moderate subspecies laingi Bird Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Blue Special Concern 1 High Megascops kennicotti Bird Western Screech-Owl kennicotti Blue Threatened 1 Moderate

Mammals Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Yellow Endangered 1 High Cervus elaphus Mammals Roosevelt Elk Blue Moderate roosevelti Corynorhinus Mammals Townsend's Big-eared Bat Blue Moderate townsendii Wolverine, vancouverensis Gulo gulo Mammals Red Special Concern 1 Moderate subspecies vancouverensis 1. SARA = Species at Risk Act 2. Note that this species did not occur in the search results but was added based on professional knowledge of the region

There is no suitable breeding habitat for northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora) or western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) in the Project Area. However, these species may also inhabit upland forest areas outside of the breeding season and may be present in the Project Area.

5 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) use a range of habitat types including coniferous and mixed forest as well as riparian areas (BC CDC 1995). They are year-round residents in the region and may occur in the project area.

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias fannini) may use large trees for nesting though none were noted during the field assessment. Nests are usually conspicuous and relatively easy to detect, particularly if active. There is no forage habitat for this species within the project area.

The Laingi subspecies of Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) are associated with mature and old growth forest. On Vancouver Island home ranges tend to be donated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock with good canopy closure (BC CDC 2005). There is suitable habitat for this species within the Project Area; however, the relatively small size of the forest and patchy nature are likely limiting for this species.

The habitat within the Project Area is suitable for Band-tailed Pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata). Attention for the presence of these birds will be required during pre-clearing sweeps and/or breeding bird surveys.

Western Screech-owls (Megascops kennicotti) are generally associated with large diameter mixed forest near water and commonly use riparian areas (Cannings et. al. 2020). For nesting, they require large woodpecker tree cavities such as those commonly excavated by Northern Flicker or Pileated Woodpecker (Cannings et. al. 2020). Habitat for this species may be present in and around the Project area. Work should be conducted outside of the breeding season for this species (late January through May; Cannings et al 2020). If clearing during this period is unavoidable, these should be identified during a pre-clearing breeding bird surveys.

Little brown myotis use a wide range of habitat types including man-made structures as well as caves and hollow trees (BC CDC 2015). Winter hibernation sites are more typically caves, tunnels, or other similar sites with stable temperatures between 2 and 12°C (BC CDC 2015). Suitable trees to support this species were not detected within the Project Area.

Townsend’s big-eared bat in the region tend to use forested areas as well as buildings in areas with a matrix of woodlands, grasslands, and shrub-dominated habitats (BC CDC 2014b). They are a non-migratory species that move moderate distances between summer foraging, breeding areas and winter hibernacula. Overwintering and maternity colonies typically use caves and mine tunnels with buildings being used more often for maternity roosts (BC CDC 2014b). The Project Area has limited potential habitat for this species and overwintering is not expected.

The two large mammal species included in the list, Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) and Vancouver Island wolverine (Gulo gulo vancouverensis), are highly mobile species with large ranges. Though these species may travel in or around the Project Area on occasion, it is not expected to be an important part of their habitat.

The Project Area contains suitable breeding habitat for migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Convention Act prohibits harm to migratory birds or disturbance to their nests or eggs. The Project Area is within nesting zone A1 which has a nesting period of March 26 to August 9 (Environment Canada 2020). Tree and vegetation clearing should be avoided during this period. If it is unavoidable, a pre-clearing nesting bird survey should be conducted by a qualified professional to assess compliance with the Migratory Bird Convention Act.

6 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

4.2.3. Fish and Aquatic Habitat There is no fish or aquatic habitat within the Project Area. The nearest stream is to the south and east of the project and is greater than 30 m away (Figure 1). This stream (watershed code: 920-580900) channel is deeply incised and appears to be prone to erosion. Recent slumps were noted along the banks just east of the project.

According the provincial Habitatwizard database (2021), the stream is not fish-bearing. There is a portion of the riparian area of this watercourse east of the project that has been identified in the regional Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI, CVRD iMap 2021). No interaction with this habitat is anticipated as a result of the project.

5. HIGH RISK ACTIVITIES For the purpose of this EMP, the project activities that have a High-risk of adversely affecting environmental resources include:

Activity Risk

Vegetation Clearing Interaction with species at risk, breeding birds and damage to tree roots. Clearing may also have long-term impacts to trees retained along the edge. Clearing may require the use of spark-inducing tools that may have an associated fire hazard.

Soil Excavation Erosion, soil degradation, introduction of exotic species.

Mr. Murphy estimated that a total of 31 trees will require falling to accommodate the new parking area (Appendix B), the largest of which is 100 cm diameter-breast-height (DBH) and an estimated height of 42 m. An additional nine trees were assessed as danger trees outside of the Project footprint (see Appendix B of the Arborist’s Report). Treatment of the danger trees will be at the discretion of the CVRD and the Contractor. Note that Mr. Murphy makes some recommendations in his report including pruning and reducing of the crown in order to address potential danger trees while maintaining wildlife habitat to the extent possible. These recommendations should be implemented.

The retention and protection of veteran trees has been considered in the Project design. However, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the long-term resiliency of trees retained along the edge of the project as a result of root damage and changes in soil conditions, hydrology, and canopy structure. Note that visible symptoms of stress may take some time to express. Annual monitoring of tree health over the next five years is recommended to identify and address potential tree health issues.

Risks associated with soil excavation should be mitigatable. There are no watercourses or direct connectivity from the site to any watercourses. The implementation of relevant environmental protection measures (Section 6) is expected to effectively mitigate potential adverse effects associated with soil excavation.

7 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

6. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN The environmental performance standards for the project are provided in the following tables. Specification and requirements for the project are as follows:

Ref. General Specifications

A1 All activities must comply with applicable laws and regulation including local bylaws and related orders.

A2 All permit and approval conditions, terms and requirements must be implemented.

A3 All site personnel, including sub-contractors, must review and understand this EMP and sign the Project Orientation Record (Appendix A).

A4 Environmental considerations must be a component of regular tailboard meetings.

A5 A project Environmental Monitor (EM) will be hired by the CVRD (project owners) to advise on environmental issues and monitor contractor compliance with this EMP.

A6 In case of an environmental incident, a report must be filed within 24 hours, as per the Spill Response Plan provided in Appendix C.

A7 A pre-construction site meeting should be held on site that includes the prime contractor, CVRD and the EM to discuss the project approach and environmental performance standards.

A8 Vehicles and machinery will not be left idling on site. When equipment is not being used it should be turned off and parked in a suitable, designated area

Ref. Archaeological Resources

B1 In the event of a chance archaeological find, the contractor shall suspend work and immediately notify the CVRD.

B2 Discovered artefacts or sites of archaeological interest at the site are protected under the Heritage Conservation Act. Under this Act, the contractor and its employees are responsible for protecting archaeological resources uncovered during the course of work, this may include but is not limited to human bones, pit houses, stone tools, rock paintings, shell deposits (middens) or culturally modified trees.

B3 If suspected human remains are found, the contractor shall stop work immediately and notify the CVRD who will notify police. Do not disturb the site, stake or flag off the affected location to prevent additional disturbance. Treat the remains with full dignity and respect and do not allow anyone to touch or photograph the remains. Cover any exposed bones until police arrive. Assign an employee to watch over the remains until the police arrive. Do not backfill the area.

Ref. Vegetation Management

C1 Prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species by cleaning equipment before arriving to the site. Remove all plant and soil material from equipment and vehicles prior to arriving on site to avoid the spread of invasive species.

8 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

C2 Separate cleared material containing invasive species from other cleared material and dispose of it at an approved facility. No noxious weeds identified on Schedule A of the Weed Control Act have been identified on the site. However, field work was conducted outside of suitable timing for identifying some of these species so, while unlikely, it is possible they are present on site. If noxious weeds are noted on site they will removed prior to commencing work and brought to the Comox Valley Waste Management Centre at 3699 Bevan Road in Cumberland; inform the attendant that the material is noxious weeds. They must covered and secured during transport.

C3 Keep equipment within the designated project footprint and conduct activities in such a manner that avoids unnecessary disturbance outside of the footprint.

C4 Project limits should be clearly demarcated on the ground prior to commencing clearing.

C5 If grass seeding is required, seed mix must be approved by the CVRD prior to application.

C6 Any occurrence of rare or listed plant species must be immediately reported to the CVRD or EM. The habitat within the Project Area was assessed to have a low likelihood of supporting listed plants.

C7 Deck merchantable timber in a disturbed area or within the project footprint in an area that is well drained and free of standing water.

C8 Restore areas of bare soil as quickly as possible. This may include re-contouring to final grade / engineering specifications and grass seeding and/or planting with appropriate species.

C9 The CVRD will work with the contractor to re-locate any planted seedlings that conflict with the project.

Ref. Management of Mature Trees

D1 When falling large mature trees, care should be taken to avoid causing harm to adjacent trees being retained. It is advised that large trees that are likely to cause mechanical damage to adjacent trees if felled conventionally, be felled by a climbing arborist and sectioned down. Trees should be felled into the project footprint to the extent possible.

D2 Use extreme caution when clearing or grubbing within the root zone of trees to be retained. Use a suitably sized excavator and bucket to minimize root damage. Hand grubbing between large structural roots may be necessary to avoid damaging tree roots. Root zones are provided in Appendix C of the Arborist’s report (Appendix B).

D3 Avoid unnecessary soil compaction within the critical root zones of trees. This applied a considerable portion of the work site so care will be required throughout constructions.

D4 Special consideration should be made with respect to removal of stumps within the critical root zone of retained trees. If stumps in these locations must be removed, grinding is recommended to avoid damaging interconnected roots of retained trees.

D5 Upon completion of construction, monitoring of edge trees where roots have been altered as a result of the project will be required. Some retained trees along the boundary may degrade as a result of mechanical damage to roots, soil compaction, or additional exposure from clearing. Note that visible symptoms may take many months to express. These trees may become danger trees over time and may require further management. It’s recommended that annual monitoring of the health of these trees be conducted for a period of five years post project completion.

9 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

Ref. Soil Management

E1 Excavated soil piles must be stockpiled within an area approved by EM at least 15 m from any drainage features (i.e., natural drainages, ditches, etc.) and 30 m from any watercourse (i.e., stream). If this cannot be met, the EM should be engaged to provide specific mitigation. Site selection should be approved and may require installation of perimeter sediment fencing and/or poly cover for stocked soil.

E2 Surface organics (organic soil, litter, fibre and humus) and topsoil will be stripped and stored separately from the mineral soil (sub soil). The EM can advise on stripping depths. They are typically denoted by a colour change. Avoid mixing of mineral and organic soils (admixing).

E3 Sediment resulting from soil stockpiling or machine disturbance must be cleaned up immediately. Public driving surfaces (Bates Rd) must be kept free of soil and organic material originating from the project.

E4 Minimize soil exposure and potential degradation by restoring disturbed soils as soon as possible following construction.

E5 If soil is being moved off site, the receiving location must be pre-approved by the CVRD and project EM.

E6 Any fill brought to site must clean and free of hazardous contaminant and free of seed or plant fragments from invasive plants. The source of materials may be checked by the EM to ensure that it is weed free.

E7 Notify the EM immediately if suspected soil contamination is encountered (i.e., stained, unusual odour or colour or suspect buried debris such as demolition waste, old tanks, etc.) and stop work in the area until the material can be characterized.

E8 Apply water to exposed dry soils in the work area during periods of high winds or dry weather to control dust.

E10 Avoid soil handling or equipment movement during periods of intense rainfall that result in saturated soil conditions. Work with the EM to determine when rainfall warrants a stop work.

Ref. Erosion and Sediment Control

F1 Erosion and sediment control measures should be installed prior to starting work. At a minimum, the eastern boundary (downslope) of the work area should have sediment fence installed to contain disturbance to the footprint. Sediment fence should be buried a minimum of 10 cm into the soil. Based on conditions and weather, continue to assess the need for and implement additional erosion and sediment control measure and practices to prevent sediment from flowing off-site.

F2 Contingency supplies of erosion and sediment control materials shall be on site and workers shall be sufficiently trained in their appropriate installation and maintenance. At a minimum, the following should be available:

 200 m of sediment fencing;  One 3-inch water pump, or two 1.5-inch water pumps with 50 m of hose; and  Adequate poly sheeting to cover soil piles. F3 Ensure all drainage features in the project area are protected from the release or inflow of sediment-laden water related to the Project.

10 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

F4 Regularly inspect sediment and erosion control measures and conduct an inspection after rainfall events of 15 mm or more. Maintain and repair, as necessary.

Ref. Wildfire

G1 As per the Wildfire Act and Regulation, restrictions will be implemented for construction operations that fall under the definition of a “high risk activity” of the Wildlife Regulations conducted between March 1 and November 1. ‘High risk activities’ include mechanical brushing or land clearing and use of fire or spark inducting tools (e.g., chain saws). Restrictions are provided here:

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/11_38_2005#Schedule3 The nearest wildfire weather station to the Project is the Campbell River Airport, approximately 30 km to the north-northwest. The contractor will be responsible for determining daily fire danger ratings and restrictions from the Coastal Fire Centre during for all works between March 1 and November 1. http://bcfireinfo.for.gov.bc.ca/hprScripts/DgrCls/index.asp?Region=2

G2 If clearing is to occur between March 1 and November 1, the contractor must prepare a Wildfire Management Plan that should be submitted to the CVRD for review and acceptance. This plan should include a contractor responsibilities for fire prevention, emergency response plan, reporting requirements, training, provision of fire suppression equipment and tools to be provided and a description of any additional procedures with regards to fire prevention.

G3 Restrictions placed on high risk construction operations may include:  Maintenance of a fire watch after work after three consecutive days of ‘moderate’ (or greater) fire danger

 Cessation of high risk activates between 13:00 and sunset after three consecutive days of ‘high’ (or greater) fire risk; and,

 Cessation of high risk activities all day after three consecutive days of “extreme” fire risk.

Further detail regarding how to calculate Fire Danger Class Rating and applicable restriction son high risk activities are provide in Schedule 1 to 3 of the Wildfire Act and Regulation.

Ref. Wildlife

H1 A pre-clearing walkthrough should be conducted to ensure that amphibians or other wildlife are not going to be impacted by construction works. If amphibians are present abatement will be used to move them out of the construction area and out of harm’s way. Depending on the result of the pre-clearing survey, additional surveys during construction may be recommended.

H2 Identify and demarcate any resources that should be salvaged or protected (wildlife trees, nurse logs, planted seedlings, etc.). Work with the CVRD and the EM to retain or relocate these features appropriately before construction commences.

H2 Excavations must be fenced or covered to prevent wildlife entrapment and ensure public safety.

11 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

H2 Do not destroy, remove or clear any bird nests. If a bird nest is encountered, cease work at the site (a minimum 30 m from the nest) and contact the EM.

H3 Clearing should be conducted outside of the migratory bird nesting window (March 26 to August 9) to avoid non-conformance with the Migratory Bird Convention Act. If clearing cannot be conducted within this period, a pre-clearing nesting bird survey must be conducted prior to clearing work. It is advised that clearing works not be conducted between May and July as this corresponds to the peak of the breeding period for this region and is likely to result in project delays.

H4 A pre-clearing walkthrough should be conducted to ensure that amphibians or other wildlife are not going to be impacted by construction works. If amphibians are present abatement will be used to move them out of the construction area and out of harm’s way.

H5 Ensure proper drainage of surface water during construction to avoid any pooling. Temporary pools and surface water can attract breeding amphibians and cause conflicts with the project. Immediately contour disturbed soils to effectively drain them.

H6 Implement Best Management Practices for Raptor Conservation during Urban and Rural Land Development in BC:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/raptor_conservation_guidelines_2013.pdf

H7 Ensure proper storage of potential wildlife attractants such as food, garbage, petroleum products, or other material with strong odours.

H8 Limit work to daytime hours, to the extent possible.

H9 Do not feed, disturb or harass wildlife. If wildlife are encountered allow to passively disperse, or if necessary, contact EM for advice on abatement or relocation.

H10 Notify the EM of any evidence of bats using the area including observations of bats, potential roosts in trees or guano (bat droppings). Cease work and maintain a 10 m distance from the observation until further directed by the EM.

H11 All sightings of rare or endangered species (wildlife and plants) must be reported to the EM.

H12 Personnel pets are not allowed on the worksite.

H13 Wildlife observations should be recorded in an incidental wildlife log, kept on site and provided to the EM and CVRD.

Ref. Water Quality

I1 Any water discharged from the site must meet the BC Water Quality Guidelines. Water to be discharged must have a pH of between 6.5 and 9.0. If pumping of turbid water is required, the EM should be engaged to determine a suitable pump-out location (generally, away from watercourses into well-vegetated areas that can filter sediment).

12 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

Ref. Non-hazardous Waste

J1 Ensure all waste, litter and other construction-related materials are removed from the site and disposed of appropriately.

J2 Keep the site clean and tidy. Clean up the site at the end of each work day and ensure that all waste generated from construction is managed appropriately.

J3 Provide sanitary facilities for workers use if adequate facilities on site are not available. Facilities must be secure and located at least 30 m from the top of the bank of any watercourse. These should be kept clean and in good working order, and emptied regularly.

J4 Regularly inspect the site for general cleanliness and adherence to this EMP.

Ref. Fuel Handling

K1 Plastic containers used to carry petroleum products shall be designed and used for that sole purpose.

K2 Ensure proper containment for petroleum storage, transfer and refuelling facilities that may contain any spillage or leakage.

K3 Any fuel or lubricants stored temporarily on site must have secondary containment capable of holding 110% of the contents of the container. Containment should be protected to prevent it from filling with precipitation.

K4 Ensure fuel/oil storage containers are not placed within 30 m of a watercourse.

K5 Verify that containers do not leak and are sealed with a proper fitting cap or lid

K6 Label containers according to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act Regulations.

K7 Ensure equipment and machinery arriving on site is leak free.

K8 Perform construction activates in a manner that prevents the release of oil, fuel, coolant or other pollutants into the environment.

Ref. Spill Response

L1 Report all spill and leaks, regardless of volume, to the EM as soon as possible.

L2 Keep a fully stocked emergency spill response kit appropriate to the work on site. Spill kits shall be located in each piece of equipment at all times. Spill response material shall include an adequate inventory of sorbent pads, socks and booms to sufficiently respond to petroleum leaks and spills from construction related activities.

L3 Review and understand the Spill Response Plan provided in Appendix C

13 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

7. RESPONSIBILITIES

7.1. Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) The CVRD is the Project owner and is responsible for application and approval of all necessary permits. The CVRD may require or conduct surveillance of the Project throughout construction to ensure the work is being carried out as per the contract requirements and conditions of this EMP and project authorizations. The CVRD will lead, or delegate, communications with regulatory agencies, First Nations and the public.

7.2. Prime Contractor The prime contractor is responsible for constructing the project in a safe and appropriate manner as per the requirements of the tenure including compliance with this EMP, relevant Best Management Practices (BMPs) and any other requirements associated with project authorizations.

The prime contractor, its staff and any sub-contractors or other project personnel must read and understand this EMP. The contractor will attend regular meetings to discuss environmental issues and will respond and address any non-compliance issued raised by the EM. The Contractor is responsible for the preparation of any incident reporting, as required. The contractor will communicate the construction schedule with the EM and the CVRD.

The prime contractor must retain a copy of this EMP on site for reference while work is being conducted. Copies of relevant permits and emergency contact information will also be kept on site and readily available.

7.3. Independent Environmental Monitor (EM) The EM will be hired by the CVRD to monitor and report compliance of the project with this EMP. The EM will attend a pre-work start up meeting with the contractors to summarize the environmental performance standards detailed herein. Periodic field inspections will be carried out during construction.

The EM has the authority to stop work if unauthorized damage to the environment is occurring or non- compliance with applicable laws is observed.

8. COMMUNICATION PLAN The EM will communicate directly to the prime contractor’s onsite supervisor to provide feedback on environmental performance. If non-compliance with the EMP is noted, the supervisor will be notified as soon as possible. A stop work order will be given to the prime contractor’s supervisor to enforce.

If an agreement cannot be reached, the EM may bring issues to the attention of the CVRD.

The EM will communicate environmental performance to the CVRD on a bi-weekly basis and will provide an overall summary at the conclusion of the construction phase of the project.

A project contact list is provided in Appendix D. This list should be kept up to date, as required.

14 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

9. ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORTING An environmental incident is one that has caused an adverse effect to the environment. An environmental near miss is when an action had the potential to cause an impact to the environment.

Where required to report an environmental incident by law, regulation or local bylaws, the Contractor will immediately notify the CVRD before reporting the incident. The EM should also be engaged to support proper documentation and reporting.

It is the responsibility of the Contractor to report environmental incidents and near misses with as much detail as possible, as soon as it is safe to do so.

The CVRD or designate will complete incident reporting and liaison with regulatory agencies, as required.

Reportable incidents are not always precisely defined. When in doubt, contact the project EM and the CVRD to ensure compliance. Reportable spill criteria are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Reportable Spill Criteria.

Substance Quantity

Any spill of a substance that may cause harm to the environment or any quantity of a substance on the Schedule of the Spill Reporting Regulation that n/a enters or is likely to enter a body of water.

Class 1: Explosives, as defined in Section 2.9 of the Transportation of Dangerous 50 g, or less if the substance Goods Regulation poses a danger to public safety

Class 2.1: Flammable gases, other than natural gas as defined in Section 2.9 of 10 kg the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulation

Waste oil as defined in section 1 of the Hazardous Waste Regulation 100 L

10. STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS The material in this report reflects the authors’ best judgement based on the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this information, or any reliance or decisions made based on it, are the sole responsibility of such third party. Calidris accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions or actions based on this report.

15 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

11. CLOSURE We trust that the above meets your current requirements; should you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly,

CALIDRIS ECOLOGICAL SERVICES Ltd.

Report Prepared By,

Kim Poupard, R.P.Bio.

Reviewed By

Rhiannon Poupard, R.P.F.

16 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

Figure 1: Site Overview

(REPLACE WITH FIGURE)

17 | P a g e

Seal Bay: EMP February 18, 2021

12. REFERENCES B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 1995. Species Summary: Coccothraustes vespertinus. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Dec. 28, 2020).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2005. Species Summary: Accipiter gentilis laingi. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Dec. 28, 2020).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2014a. Occurrence Report Summary, Shape ID: 27403, trembling aspen / Pacific crab apple / slough sedge. B.C. Ministry of Environment. Available: http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/cdc, (accessed Feb 2, 2021).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2014b. Species Summary: Corynorhinus townsendii. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Dec. 28, 2020).

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2015. Species Summary: Myotis lucifugus. B.C. Minist. of Environment. Available: https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Dec. 28, 2020).

Cannings, R. J., T. Angell, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. Western Screech-Owl (Megascops kennicottii), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.

CVRD (Comox Valley Regional District). 2020. Online mapping tool. Available at: https://mapviewer.imaptoo.ca/secure/ (Accessed February 16, 2021).

DataBC. 2020. iMap online mapping tool. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/geographic-data- services/web-based-mapping/imapbc (Accessed February 16, 2021).

Environment Canada. 2021. General nesting periods of migratory birds. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/general- nesting-periods/nesting-periods.html#_zoneA_calendar (Accessed February 11, 2021).

Habitat Wizard. 2020. Online application maintained by the Province of British Columbia. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/ecosystems/habitatwizard (Accessed November 8, 2020).

Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP). 2021. Online map tool. Available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animals-ecosystems/invasive-species/iapp (Accessed February 11, 2021).

Klinkenberg, Brian. (Editor) 2019. E-Fauna BC: Electronic Atlas of the Fauna of British Columbia [efauna.bc.ca]. Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Acts and Regulation

Migratory Bird Convention Act. 1994. C. 22. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-7.01/. (Accessed November 16, 2020).

Weed Control Act: Weed Control Regulation. 2001. Reg. 66/85. http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/loo72/loo72/10_66_85 (Accessed November 11, 2016).

Personal Communications

Allaert, B. 2020. Email summary of archaeological survey of the parking lot expansion area prepared by J. Morin and provided to B. Allaert. Dated December 22, 2020.

18 | P a g e

APPENDIX A: BC CDC Ecosystems Explorer Search Result

Table A1: BC CDC Ecosystems Explorer Search Results for Plants. SARA Name Category English Name Scientific Name BC List SARA Status Schedule Vascular Plant deltoid balsamroot Balsamorhiza deltoidea Red 1 Endangered Vascular Plant leafy mitrewort Mitellastra caulescens Blue Vascular Plant Washington springbeauty Claytonia washingtoniana Red Vascular Plant western wahoo Euonymus occidentalis var. occidentalis Red Vascular Plant white-top aster Sericocarpus rigidus Blue 1 Special Concern Vascular Plant Nevada marsh fern Thelypteris nevadensis Red Vascular Plant Smith's fairybells Prosartes smithii Blue Search Criteria: Plants, Ecosystem Realm-Groups: Forest AND provincially Red or Blue Listed and/or SARA listed AND 'Regional Districts: Comox Valley Regional District BEC Zone: CWHxm SARA = Species at Risk Act

Table A2: BC CDC Ecosystems Explorer Search Results for Wildlife and Likelihood of Occurrence Analysis Results SARA Likelihood of Class English Name Scientific Name BC List COSEWIC Schedule1 Occurrence Amphibians Northern Red-legged Frog2 Rana aurora Blue Special Concern ` 1 –SC High

Amphibians Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Yellow Special Concern 1 - SC High

Birds Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Blue Special Concern 1 - SC High

Birds Barn Owl Tyto alba Red Threatened 1 - T Low

Birds Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Blue Threatened 1-T High

Birds Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea Red Low

Birds Black-throated Green Warbler Setophaga virens Blue Low

Birds Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis Blue Special Concern 1-T Low

Birds Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Yellow Special Concern 1-T Low

Birds Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Blue Low

Birds Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Yellow Special Concern 1-SC High

Birds Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies Ardea herodias fannini Blue Special Concern 1-SC Moderate

Birds Northern Goshawk, laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi Red Threatened 1-SC Moderate Northern Pygmy-owl, swarthi Birds Glaucidium gnoma swarthi Blue Moderate subspecies Birds Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Blue Special Concern 1-T Moderate

Birds Pine Grosbeak, carlottae subspecies Pinicola enucleator carlottae Blue High

Birds Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Blue Special Concern 1-SC Low Western Screech-Owl, kennicottii Megascops kennicottii Birds Blue Threatened 1-T Moderate subspecies kennicottii Birds Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Red Low

Birds Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Red Endangered 1-E Low Not Blue Threatened 1-T Gastropods Blue-grey Taildropper Prophysaon coeruleum Assessed

Not Blue Gastropods Broadwhorl Tightcoil Pristiloma johnsoni Assessed

Not Red Data Deficient Gastropods Evening Fieldslug Deroceras hesperium Assessed

Not Red Endangered 1-E Gastropods Oregon Forestsnail Allogona townsendiana Assessed

Not Red Extirpated 1-EX Gastropods Puget Oregonian Cryptomastix devia Assessed

Not Blue Special Concern 1-SC Gastropods Threaded Vertigo Nearctula sp. 1 Assessed

Not Red Special Concern 1-SC Gastropods Warty Jumping-slug Hemphillia glandulosa Assessed

Not Blue Gastropods Western Thorn Carychium occidentale Assessed

Not Blue Insects Autumn Meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum Assessed

Not Red Insects Common Ringlet, insulana subspecies Coenonympha tullia insulana Assessed

Not Red Insects Propertius Duskywing Erynnis propertius Assessed

Not Blue Insects Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus Assessed

Mammals Californian Myotis Myotis californicus Yellow Low

Mammals Ermine, anguinae subspecies Mustela erminea anguinae Blue Low

Mammals Fisher Pekania pennanti No Status Low

Mammals Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Blue Special Concern 1-SC Low

Mammals Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Yellow Low

Mammals Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Yellow Endangered 1-E High

Mammals Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis Yellow Moderate Long-tailed weasel, altifrontalis Mammals Mustela frenata altifrontalis Red Low subspecies Mammals Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa Yellow Special Concern 1-SC Low

Mammals Olympic Shrew Sorex rohweri Red Low

Mammals Roosevelt Elk Cervus elaphus roosevelti Blue Low

Snowshoe Hare, washingtonii Lepus americanus Mammals Red Low subspecies washingtonii

Mammals Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Blue Moderate

Mammals Townsend's Mole Scapanus townsendii Red Endangered 1-E Low

Mammals Trowbridge's Shrew Sorex trowbridgii Blue Low

Mammals Wolverine, vancouverensis subspecies Gulo gulo vancouverensis Red Special Concern 1-SC Moderate

Reptiles Northern Rubber Boa Charina bottae Yellow Special Concern 1-SC Low Search Criteria: Animals OR Plants OR Ecosystem Realm-Groups: Forest AND provincially Red or Blue Listed and/or COSEWIC Endangered Special Concern or Threatened, SARA listed AND 'Regional Districts: Comox Valley Regional District BEC Zone: CWH Notes: 1. E = Endangered, SC = Special Concern; definitions for these classification can be found at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct7/sct7_3_7_e.cfm; Definitions are available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/help/list.htm; Schedule of the Species at Risk Act and COSEWIC designation (SC = Special Concern, T = Threatened) 2. This species was not included in the search results, it was added based on professional knowledge of the Project Area

Table A3: BC CDC Ecosystems Explorer Search Results for Ecosystems.

English Name Scientific Name BC List Ecosystem Group

arbutus / hairy manzanita Arbutus menziesii / Arctostaphylos columbiana Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Broadleaf - dry

large-headed sedge Herbaceous Carex macrocephala Herbaceous Vegetation Red Terrestrial Realm - Beach Group (B): Beachland Class (Bb) Vegetation

Sitka sedge - Pacific water-parsley Carex sitchensis - Oenanthe sarmentosa Blue Wetland Realm - Mineral Wetland Group: Marsh Wetland Class (Wm)

Roemer's fescue - junegrass Festuca roemeri - Koeleria macrantha Red Terrestrial Realm - Grassland Group (G): Grassland Class (Gg)

dune wildrye - beach pea Leymus mollis ssp. mollis - Lathyrus japonicus Red Terrestrial Realm - Beach Group (B): Beachland Class (Bb) Sitka spruce / salmonberry Very Dry Picea sitchensis / Rubus spectabilis Very Dry Red Terrestrial Realm - Flood Group (F): Highbench Flood

Maritime Maritime Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Mixed - moist/wet shore pine / common juniper - hairy Pinus contorta var. contorta / Juniperus Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - dry

manzanita communis - Arctostaphylos columbiana

black knotweed - yellow sand-verbena Polygonum paronychia - Abronia latifolia Red Terrestrial Realm - Beach Group (B): Beachland Class (Bb) trembling aspen / Pacific crab apple / Populus tremuloides / Malus fusca / Carex Red Wetland Realm - Mineral Wetland Group: Swamp Wetland

slough sedge obnupta Class (Ws) black cottonwood - red alder / Populus trichocarpa - Alnus rubra / Rubus Blue Terrestrial Realm - Flood Group (F): Middle Bench Flood Class

salmonberry spectabilis (Fm); Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Broadleaf - moist/wet

black cottonwood / Sitka willow Populus trichocarpa / Salix sitchensis Blue Terrestrial Realm - Flood Group (F): Low Bench Flood Class (Fl) Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Broadleaf - moist/wet

Douglas-fir / sword fern Pseudotsuga menziesii / Polystichum munitum Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - dry Douglas-fir - western hemlock / salal Pseudotsuga menziesii - Tsuga heterophylla / Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - dry

Dry Maritime Gaultheria shallon Dry Maritime

hard-stemmed bulrush Deep Marsh Schoenoplectus acutus Deep Marsh Blue Wetland Realm - Mineral Wetland Group: Marsh Wetland Class (Wm)

Wallace's selaginella / reindeer lichens Selaginella wallacei / Cladina spp. Blue Terrestrial Realm - Grassland Group (G): Grassland Class (Gg) Terrestrial Realm - Rock Group (R): Rock Outcrop Class (Ro)

western redcedar / slough sedge Thuja plicata / Carex obnupta Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - moist/wet Wetland Realm - Mineral Wetland Group: Swamp Wetland Class (Ws)

western redcedar / black twinberry Thuja plicata / Lonicera involucrata Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - moist/wet western redcedar - Sitka spruce / Thuja plicata - Picea sitchensis / Lysichiton Blue Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - moist/wet

skunk cabbage americanus Wetland Realm - Mineral Wetland Group: Swamp Wetland Class (Ws) western redcedar / sword fern - skunk Thuja plicata / Polystichum munitum - Lysichiton Blue Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - moist/wet

cabbage americanus Wetland Realm - Mineral Wetland Group: Swamp Wetland Class (Ws) western redcedar / sword fern Very Thuja plicata / Polystichum munitum Very Dry Blue Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - mesic

Dry Maritime Maritime

western redcedar / salmonberry Thuja plicata / Rubus spectabilis Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - moist/wet western redcedar / three-leaved Thuja plicata / Tiarella trifoliata Very Dry Blue Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - moist/wet

foamflower Very Dry Maritime Maritime western hemlock - Douglas-fir / Tsuga heterophylla - Pseudotsuga menziesii / Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - mesic

Oregon beaked-moss Eurhynchium oreganum western hemlock - western redcedar / Tsuga heterophylla - Thuja plicata / Red Terrestrial Realm - Forest: Coniferous - moist/wet

deer fern Struthiopteris spicant

common cattail Marsh Typha latifolia Marsh Blue Wetland Realm - Mineral Wetland Group: Marsh Wetland Class (Wm) Search Criteria: Ecosystem Realm-Groups: Forest AND BC Conservation Status: Red (Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened) OR Blue (Special Concern) BGC : CWHxm1

APPENDIX B: ARBORIST’s REPORT

Pre- construction tree hazard and impact assessment at Seal Bay Park, Courtenay BC

Prepared for: Comox Valley Regional District

Prepared by: Ryan Murphy 410 Urquhart place Courtenay BC V9N 3H1

Date: Feb 3, 2020

Purpose:

Assess the trees at Seal Bay park in proximity to proposed parking expansion to assess viability of retained trees, number of trees likely to require removal, and assess potential impacts to retained trees through construction activities.

Background:

A land survey performed by Grant Land Surveying was provided in early December which covered the area of proposed parking expansion and included topography, current infrastructure, and an inventory of trees on site (species & diameter). A site walk was conducted with Brian Allaert from the Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) and Kim Poupard (Calidris Consulting) on December 31, 2020 to discuss site layout and planning. At this time the rough layout of proposed infrastructure was marked with pink flagging tape. There were some discussions of potential alternate construction layouts and final assessments were postponed until plans could be finalized. By the end of January the CVRD had settled back on the original parking design. Georeferenced site maps were provided by Onsite Engineering which included the original tree inventory as well as the layout of the proposed roadway and parking.

Site Description:

Seal Bay Nature Park is a 642 hectare park on long term lease from the provincial government. The area is second growth forest, having been logged in 1913 and early 1920’s. The area is within the Coastal Western Hemlock (Eastern Very Dry Maritime) [CWHxm1] biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification zone. The dominant tree species on site are Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) also present on wetter sites. There are several access points for the park with the primary being on Bates Rd, which bisects the park approximately east-west.

Ryan Murphy – ISA Certified Arborist, RBTech 1 (250) 465-2154, [email protected]

Methods:

A site assessment was conducted on January 30, 2021 where a basic visual tree assessment (VTA) was conducted on all trees foreseeably impacted by the proposed parking area expansion. It was found that a number of trees were not included in the original inventory and several of the tree species were incorrect. All trees >20cm diameter at breast height (DBH) were mapped with new unique numbering and original survey inventory numbers were included where applicable. Disagreements of a few meters were found in tree location data between the inventory/survey locations provided in early December and those within the georeferenced maps which included the site plans. There were also disagreements with respect to which trees were located within the construction area when comparing the georeferenced maps to the pink flagging on site. For the purposes of this report the georeferenced site drawings are used to discuss the boundaries of the construction area.

Given the size of the property, only those trees with a reasonably foreseeable possibility of conflict with, or hazard to the proposed construction area were mapped and assessed (Appendix B). For each tree the following metrics were collected:

• ID # • Species (scientific and common name) • Diameter at breast height (DBH) measured at 1.4m from the highest ground and rounded up to the nearest cm. • Condition (good, fair, poor, dead) • Recommended action o ‘Remove’ - A tree that either due to the proximity of the hazard or poor wildlife value is recommended be removed to grade. o ‘Wildlife’ – A tree that is recommended be reduced to a non-viable state but is retained for its wildlife value. Final height specifications are given in Appendix A o ‘Modify’ – A tree that is to be pruned to reduce the documented hazard but can be retained as a viable tree. o ‘Retain and Monitor’ A tree that does not pose an immediate and significant hazard and can be retained for the short-term • Calculated critical root zone (CRZ) radius (m) [not recorded for dead trees] • Calculated theoretical root plate radius (m) [not recorded for dead trees] • Bylaw protected species • General notes

Results:

A total of 111 trees were assessed that were in close proximity to the proposed parking area expansion (Appendix A &B). Of these, a total of 31 trees were located within the current construction extent and would have to be removed with the exception of tree #100 which is located in the current parking hardscape. Of all trees assessed, nine were found to be immediately hazardous, either due to severe defects or because they were dead. These hazardous trees were all located outside of the

Ryan Murphy – ISA Certified Arborist, RBTech 2 (250) 465-2154, [email protected] construction area. A total of 21 trees outside of the construction area were situated such that their estimated structural root plate was located within the construction zone (Appendix C). A total of 52trees located outside the construction area were situated such that their calculated CRZ overlapped with the construction zone (Appendix D). Two of these trees were assessed as hazard trees and recommended for removal or reduction to wildlife trees. Six trees located outside of the construction area were located immediately adjacent to the flagged boundary on site.

No protected species were identified in the survey area.

Discussion:

There was some minor discrepancy when comparing the flagged boundary to the technical drawings with respect to the surveyed trees. For example, tree’s 69, 77, and 86 were noted as being adjacent to the flagged boundary however their estimated root plate are not in conflict when considering the construction designs. Tree #10 was also located immediately on the flagged line but is 1.8m from the proposed roadway in the survey drawings. This report addresses conflicts as presented in the technical drawings as the precision of the flagging was not known. As plans are finalized it will be possible to fine tune tree protection measures as construction extents are established.

The 30 trees located within the construction area will not be able to be retained under any circumstances and will have to be removed. There are several factors not yet determined that will influence the impact to trees located outside of the construction area (including those in the retention island). Most notably is the final grade required and the surface material (paved or gravel) for the newly cleared areas. It would seem logical that the area immediately adjacent to Bates Rd would not require regrading and the trees immediately adjacent (90, 91, 95, 99, 100, 102, 104, 110, 38, 37, 1) to the current parking area should not see any additional impact.

The critical root zone and root plate diameter are measurements to address different forms of potential impact. With respect to critical root zone, this is the radius which provides the optimal level of root protection to ensure the long-term health and viability of the tree. When addressing the root plate diameter we are discussing the area in which disturbance or damage may result in immediate and acute structural instability. Excavation poses the highest potential level of disturbance to both the root plate and critical root zone. Presumably some level of excavation is required to remove the duff layer and coarse woody debris. If the final grade is higher than the existing grade, this will result in lower impact to trees immediately adjacent to the construction area than if the grade needs to be reduced. The immediate root crown should not be buried however some overburden in the critical root zone is tolerable depending on the materials and methods used. Compaction of existing soils within the critical rootzones of established trees is also potentially detrimental.

Recommendations:

• The 30 trees that are in direct conflict should be removed. Care should be taken to do as little damage to adjacent trees to be retained. Many trees will be possible to fall from the ground however several will require climbing arborists to section down to avoid unnecessary ‘brushing’ of adjacent retained trees or impact to structural roots.

Ryan Murphy – ISA Certified Arborist, RBTech 3 (250) 465-2154, [email protected]

• Several trees that are immediately adjacent to the proposed construction will require additional consideration once final grades are determined and finalized. Mature tree’s such as 10, 11, 12, and 14 have root crowns that extend well above the existing grade and will have large structural roots that are likely to be damaged by aggressive excavation. • Regardless of the final hardscape selected (asphalt, gravel) steps should be taken to avoid unnecessary compaction of soils in critical root zones. The use of structural soils to form the road base in these situations is recommended. • While excavation is occurring the use of the smallest machine possible is suggested. A smaller machine will generally have a lower surface pressure resulting in lower soil compaction. A smaller machine can also be operated with greater sensitivity when working around large structural roots. o A certified arborist should also be present to supervise excavations near mature trees primarily so that any damage that does occur can be properly assessed before being reburied. • During early clearing operations special consideration should be made with respect to the removal of stumps. Stumps of removed trees that are within the CRZ of retained trees should be not be removed wherever possible. If stumps in these locations must be removed, then preference is towards grinding over manual removal with an excavator. Root systems are often interconnected, and mechanical stump removal may cause unforeseen damage to adjacent trees as well as disturbing natural soil composition.

Report prepared by Ryan Murphy

ISA Certified Arborist PN-5779A

ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified

Ryan Murphy – ISA Certified Arborist, RBTech 4 (250) 465-2154, [email protected]

Appendix A: Trees assessed in proximity to proposed parking expansing at Seal Bay Park, Courtenay BC. ID # Survey Number Species DBH (cm) CRZ (m) Root plate (m) Height (m) Health/condition Defects Hazard? Reccomendations Remediation Comments 1 499 Douglas fir 105 12.6 3.35 38 Good Elongated laterals No Retain and monitor Prune 2 - Grand fir 85 10.2 3.05 38 Poor Dead top Yes Remove/modify Reduce/wildlife 3 601 Douglas fir 38 4.56 2.44 20 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 4 602 Grand fir 66 7.92 3.05 30 Poor Dead top Yes Remove/ modify - 5 616 Douglas fir 56 6.72 2.74 32 Good None No Retain and monitor - 6 617 Douglas fir 45 5.4 2.44 25 Good None No Retain and monitor - 7 - Douglas fir 20 2.4 1.52 - Poor Dead top No Retain and monitor - 8 603 Douglas fir 68 8.16 3.05 38 Good Small codominant top No Modify Prune Within Construction area 9 604 Douglas fir 35 4.2 2.13 18 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area

10 614 Douglas fir 99 11.88 3.35 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - Very close to roadway. Potential for root disturbance

11 615 Douglas fir 80 9.6 3.05 38 Good None No Retain and monitor - 12 613 Grand fir 55 6.6 2.74 35 Fair Poor structure No Retain and monitor - Dead top, broken top, resinosis 13 630 Grand fir 95 11.4 3.35 40 Poor Yes Retain and monitor Reduce height at base 14 502 Douglas fir 116 13.92 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - 15 501 Red alder 35 4.2 2.13 18 Fair Dead top No Retain and monitor - 16 503 Douglas fir 57 6.84 2.74 28 Fair Poor stem structure No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 17 506 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 18 507 Douglas fir 84 10.08 3.05 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 19 504 Douglas fir 75 9 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 20 608 Douglas fir 98 11.76 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - 21 - Big leaf maple 38 4.56 2.44 22 Good None No Retain and monitor - 22 - Douglas fir 65 7.8 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 23 - Grand fir 85 10.2 3.05 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - 24 609 Sitka spruce 85 10.2 3.05 45 Good None No Retain and monitor - 25 611 Grand fir 65 7.8 3.05 10 Dead Snag Yes Remove/ modify Reduce/wildlife 26 645 Douglas fir 50 6 2.74 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 27 Grand fir 24 2.88 1.52 22 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 28 350 Red alder 33 3.96 2.13 26 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 29 510 Red alder 50 6 2.74 25 Good Heavy lean No Retain and monitor - 30 508 Douglas fir 80 9.6 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - Codominant tops, thinning 31 509 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 40 Poor Yes Remove/ modify Reduce/wildlife canopy 32 - Grand fir 40 4.8 2.44 22 Dead Dead Yes Remove/ modify Reduce/wildlife Asymetcic crown due to previous failure. Leaning 33 - Big leaf maple 65 7.8 3.05 38 Fair Lean Yes Modify Prune towards proposed disabled parking area 34 511 Douglas fir 95 11.4 3.35 35 Good None No Retain and monitor - 35 - Big leaf maple 55 6.6 2.74 30 Good None No Retain and monitor - 36 515 Douglas fir 101 12.12 3.35 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 37 - Grand fir 30 3.6 1.83 18 Good Old basal crack No Retain and monitor - 38 - Grand fir 28 3.36 1.83 10 Good None No Retain and monitor - 39 464 Big leaf maple 60 7.2 2.74 26 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 40 466 Western hemlock 26 3.12 1.83 17 Good None No Retain and monitor - 41 - Douglas fir 85 10.2 3.05 40 Fair Thinning crown No Retain and monitor - 42 469 Douglas fir 73 8.76 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 43 455 Douglas fir 60 7.2 2.74 26 Good Poor stem structure No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 44 454 Black cottonwood 90 10.8 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 45 468 Douglas fir 50 6 2.74 26 Good None No Retain and monitor - 46 448 Black cottonwood 85 10.2 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 47 449 Grand fir 45 5.4 2.44 30 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - 48 450 Douglas fir 80 9.6 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 49 - Big leaf maple 35 4.2 2.13 22 Good None No Retain and monitor - 50 - Big leaf maple 35 4.2 2.13 28 Good None No Retain and monitor - 51 451 Western redcedar 35 4.2 2.13 12 Good Stem sweep No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 52 452 Sitka spruce 38 4.56 2.44 22 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 53 - Douglas fir 30 3.6 1.83 22 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 54 453 Big leaf maple 40 4.8 2.44 28 Fair None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 55 - Grand fir 25 3 1.68 18 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 56 442 Douglas fir 80 9.6 3.05 38 Good Swelling on mid stem at 15m No Retain and monitor - 57 443 Grand fir 34 4.08 2.13 25 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - 59 444 Big leaf maple 37 4.44 2.13 17 Poor Broken top No Retain and monitor - 60 445 Big leaf maple 37 4.44 2.13 22 Good None No Retain and monitor - 61 446 Black cottonwood 50 6 2.74 35 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 62 - Big leaf maple 20 2.4 1.52 18 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 63 447 Black cottonwood 84 10.08 3.05 38 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 64 - Grand fir 21 2.52 1.52 12 Poor Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 65 324 Big leaf maple 45 5.4 2.44 30 Good None No Retain and monitor - Growing on rotting stump. 66 340 Western redcedar 55 6.6 2.74 26 Fair No Modify Reduce height Within Construction area Potentially unstable long term Growing immediately adjacent to flagged line. Likely 67 326 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - severe root disturbance from grading 68 - Grand fir 28 3.36 1.83 17 Good None No Retain and monitor - 69 327 Grand fir 35 4.2 2.13 26 Good None No Retain and monitor - Growing on flagged line 70 - Douglas fir 24 2.88 1.52 22 Fair None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 71 - Grand fir 24 2.88 1.52 22 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 72 - Grand fir 28 3.36 1.83 22 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 73 - Grand fir 24 2.88 1.52 22 Fair None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 74 325 Grand fir 40 4.8 2.44 28 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 75 - Grand fir 21 2.52 1.52 12 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - 76 323 Big leaf maple 65 7.8 3.05 32 Good Multi stemmed No Retain and monitor - 77 321 Grand fir 45 5.4 2.44 35 Good None No Retain and monitor - Adjacent to flagged line 78 - Big leaf maple 38 4.56 1.52 30 Good None No Retain and monitor - 79 320 Red alder 34 4.08 2.13 30 Fair Stem decay No Retain and monitor - 80 319 Grand fir 35 4.2 2.13 28 Dead Dead Yes Remove/ modify Reduce/wildlife 81 318 Douglas fir 70 8.4 3.05 38 Good None No Retain and monitor - 82 314 Douglas fir 62 7.44 3.05 32 Good None No Retain and monitor - 83 313 Douglas fir 95 11.4 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - 84 311 Grand fir 41 4.92 2.44 28 Fair None No Retain and monitor - 85 310 Black cottonwood 85 10.2 3.05 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 86 309 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - On flagged line. Likely root impact 87 330 Grand fir 35 4.2 2.13 25 Good None No Retain and monitor - 88 - Grand fir 30 3.6 1.83 22 Good None No Retain and monitor - 89 308 Grand fir 60 7.2 2.74 35 Dead Dead Yes Remove/ modify Reduce/wildlife On flagged line in existing parking. Should not 90 307 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - require regrading or root disturbance 91 - Big leaf maple 33 3.96 2.13 20 Good None No Retain and monitor - Broken top, burried root crown, 92 333 Douglas fir 58 6.96 2.74 25 Fair No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area basal trunk swelling. 93 334 Douglas fir 80 9.6 3.05 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 94 336 Douglas fir 50 6 2.74 25 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 95 335 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - 96 337 Douglas fir 30 3.6 1.83 25 Good None No Retain and monitor - 97 - Douglas fir 30 3.6 1.83 20 Good None No Retain and monitor - 98 338 Grand fir 60 7.2 2.74 40 Good None No Retain and monitor - 99 342 Douglas fir 95 11.4 3.35 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - 100 341 Douglas fir 90 10.8 3.05 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 101 - Big leaf maple 70 8.4 3.05 35 Good Dead tops No Modify Prune 102 458 Douglas fir 90 10.8 3.05 42 Good None No Retain and monitor - 103 456 Grand fir 50 6 2.74 38 Good None No Retain and monitor - 104 459 Douglas fir 110 13.2 3.35 40 Good Compacted soils, lean No Retain and monitor - 105 457 Douglas fir 38 4.56 2.44 32 Good None No Retain and monitor - 106 460 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 38 Good Lean No Retain and monitor - 107 461 Grand fir 60 7.2 2.74 12 Dead Snag No Retain and monitor - 108 462 Douglas fir 88 10.56 3.05 45 Good None No Retain and monitor - 109 463 Douglas fir 100 12 3.35 45 Good None No Retain and monitor - 110 - Red alder 40 4.8 2.44 22 Good Lean No Retain and monitor - 111 329 Grand fir 60 7.2 2.74 40 Fair Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area 112 328 Grand fir 60 7.2 2.74 40 Faior Thin crown No Retain and monitor - Within Construction area Appendix B: Seal Bay Parking Expansion Overview

Legend Construction area Root plate CRZ Trees Hazard No Hazard Appendix C: Seal Bay Parking Expansion Overview with esmated root plate radius.

Legend Construction area Root plate CRZ Trees Hazard No Hazard Appendix D: Seal Bay Parking Expansion Overview with esmated CRZ

Legend Construction area Root plate CRZ Trees Hazard No Hazard

APPENDIX C: Spill Response Plan

Spill Contingency Plan

EMERGENCY (OSC) ON-SITE COORDINATOR:

o Project Superintendent See contact list

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

o Identify the nature of the spill, locate the source and type of products spilled, check for placards (TDG) or check cab of vehicle for Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) o Shut off, plug or contain the source of the spill if it can be done in a safe manner o Deploy containment and/or sorbent material o Clear the area of non-trained or non-authorized personnel o Notify all personnel downstream and downwind o Contact (OSC) if they are not on site for instructions

NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE GROUPS, IN ORDER FOLLOWING:

o Fire, Ambulance, Police 911 o Emergency Services BC 1 – 800 – 663 – 3456 o Ministry Representative See contact list o RDCO Emergency Operation Center (EOC) 1 – 877 – 569 – 8490

COMPANY NOTIFICATIONS: o Project Superintendent/Project Supervisor See contact list o Manager, Health & Safety See contact list

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR:

o Kim Poupard, Calidris Consulting 1 – 250 – 327 – 3139

RESOURCE MATERIALS LISTED AND STORAGE:

o On-site Spill Kit Locations: o All trucks and equipment o Service truck o Subcontractors equipment o On-site Safety and Monitoring Supplies Ambulance at site Trucks

Spill Report Form

Pursuant to the Spill Reporting Regulation of the Waste Management Act. All non-authorized releases or discharges of contaminants to the environment must be reported immediately to Emergency Services BC (formerly Provincial Emergency Program) at 1 800 663 3456.

Name of reporter: Telephone:

Name of company causing spill: Telephone:

Location of spill: Date/time of spill:

Substance spilled: Quantity:

Cause and effect of spill: Measures taken to stop/contain/minimize spill:

Description of spill location and surrounding area: Further action required:

Agencies on site: Others notified of spill:

DATED:

REPORT COMPLETED BY:

APPENDIX D: Project Contact List

Project Contact List (To be updated once contract selected)

Role Name Primary Phone Secondary Phone Email Address CVRD Contact Prime Superintendent Project EM

APPENDIX E: Identification Tool for Invasive Plants that may occur on the Site

Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) Medium to tall, coarse shrub, 2-5 m or more long, thicket-forming; stems 5-15 mm in diameter, erect to ascending, then high-arching, sprawling and trailing along the ground, some rooting at the ends, five-angled, with stout, flattened, hooked prickles. Produces white flowers then black berries 1 to 1.5 cm wide.

Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Biennial herb from a fibrous root, 0.3-2.0 m tall; stems erect, branched, the branches spreading and ascending, stiff, ridged, sparsely to densely hairy, conspicuously spiny-winged at the base of the leaves.

Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) Perennial herb from a rhizome; stems erect, numerous, branched, 1-3 m tall, reddish-brown. Head of numerous white, off-white or greenish flowers.

Scotch Broom (Cystisus scoparius) Medium to tall shrub, up to 3 m tall; stems usually erect, branched; twigs strongly 5-angled, green, somewhat hairy when young, becoming glabrous. Inflorescence of solitary or sometimes 2 or 3 pea-like flowers, usually yellow sometimes purple-tinged or two-toned yellow and red.

Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Perennial herb from deep, wide-spreading roots and creeping underground stems; stems erect, glabrous, branched above, 0.3-2.0 m tall. Numerous, small, solitary flowers at the ends of branches in an open inflorescence.

Common Tansy (Tamacetum vulgare ) Perennial herb from a stout rhizome; stems erect, solitary, branched, glabrous to sparsely hairy, dotted with glands, 0.4-1.5 m tall. Numerous flowering head on terminus of branches.

APPENDIX F: Identification Tool for Species at Risk that may occur on the Site

Northern Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora)

Brown to reddish or copper-brown medium-sized frog with black spots scattered over its back. The underbelly of the species is whitish, with a reddish colouration appearing on the lower belly and undersides of the hind legs as the frog gets older.

Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas)

A true toad with warty skin that typically appear as spots on the body. Size can be extremely variable. Behind the eyes are prominent parotoid glands (large bumps) which can exude a toxin as a defensive measure. Toads are more terrestrial than frogs, and can be found relatively far from permanent bodies of water.

Band-tailed Pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata)

Medium-sized pigeon with a dark eye, yellow bill, white collar and a light gray tipped tail. Tail band is more discernable during flight. Often seen perching solitarily or in small groups along tree line edges.

Western Screech-owl (Megascops kennicotti kennicotti)

Small, stalky owl with dark streaked chest, yellow eyes and ear-tuffs. Likely to be using tree cavities.