FINAL REPORT - gov.bc.ca · final\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx 1.4.5...

$: FINAL REPORT - gov.bc.ca · final\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx 1.4.5 Water Act TheWater Act is provincial legislation that protects the quality of water,$
FINAL REPORT

Urban SystemsMinistry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Trans-Canada Highway 1 - Salmon Arm West1st Ave SW to 30th St SW Four LaningEnvironmental Assessment

July 2016

CONFIDENTIALITY AND © COPYRIGHT

This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. The document contains proprietary andconfidential information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the expresswritten permission of Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property ofAssociated Environmental Consultants Inc. in accordance with Canadian copyright law.

This report was prepared by Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. for the account of Urban Systems Ministry of Transportation andInfrastructure. The material in it reflects Associated Environmental Consultants Inc.’s best judgement, in the light of the information available toit, at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are theresponsibility of such third parties. Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by anythird party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

FINAL REPORT

i

Executive Summary

The BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure plans to upgrade a section of Trans-Canada Highway1, (the highway), approximately 3 km west of the City of Salmon Arm. The project involves four laning of1.3 km of highway including constructing a new four lane bridge over the Salmon River. The project islocated from 1st Ave SW to 30th Street SW.

In order to carry out the environmental assessment of the project, Associated Environmental ConsultantsInc. conducted field assessments to characterize the aquatic and terrestrial environment, and summarizedavailable information to evaluate the project effects on the environment. This report provides a summary ofbackground information on terrestrial and aquatic resources, and resource values within the Project Area.An evaluation of project-related effects on terrestrial and aquatic resources has been completed.Recommendations on mitigation strategies related to the project design and construction methods are alsoprovided to minimize project-related effects on the environment.

In most cases, portions of the Project Area to be developed have already been disturbed by existing roads(39%), residential, commercial, or agricultural developments (13%), and the encroachment by invasiveplant species. Permanent disturbance on relatively undisturbed habitat accounts for only 0.2% of theProject Area. The largest potential for environmental effects will be realized at the new Salmon Riverbridge and on painted turtles in the Project Area. The construction of the new Salmon River bridge willresult in 1,215 m2 of riparian ecosystem permanently affected and 247 m2 of instream aquatic habitattemporarily affected. The highway will result in the loss of 274 m2 of an old oxbow that is turtle habitat andisolation from potential nesting sites. Offsets are planned to mitigate the effects of the Project, and willenhance habitat quality for fish and turtles from the current state.

Residual effects of the project are considered Not Significant. Cumulative effects realized on instreamaquatic habitat are considered not significant locally or regionally due to the low value fish habitat identifiedat the site, and the potential for habitat enhancement downstream of the Project. Cumulative effects onpainted turtles, wildlife habitats and ecosystems as a result of weed encroachment are not consideredsignificant locally or regionally due to the small size of affected turtle population, existence of availablehabitat in the locale, and the already urban nature of the Project area.

In addition to the general recommendations made in this report, a comprehensive and site-specificConstruction Environmental Management Plan will be developed and implemented for the project inaccordance with Section 165 of the Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (BC MOTI 2011) bythe successful contractor. The potential effects during the construction and operation of these proposedupgrades to the highway can be successfully mitigated if the measures recommended in this report(Section 5 and Appendices C, D and E) are incorporated into the construction plan and activelyimplemented.


iip:\20148222\00_hwy_1_sa_west_ea\environmental_sciences\04.00_environmental_assessments\reporting\section 2 only_30th to 1st ave\100% detailed designfinal\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE NO.

Executive Summary iTable of Contents iiList of Tables ivList of Figures v1 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Project Background 1-1

1.2 Project Description 1-3

1.3 Assessment Scope and Objectives 1-5

1.4 Regulatory Context 1-6

2 Methods 2-12.1 Review of Background Information 2-12.2 Field Survey 2-1

2.3 Reporting 2-4

3 Baseline Environment 3-63.1 Climate and Biogeoclimatic Zone 3-6

3.2 Soils and Terrain 3-6

3.3 Local and Regional Land Use 3-6

3.4 Surface Water Resources 3-7

3.5 Groundwater Resources 3-8

3.6 Fish and Fish Habitat 3-8

3.7 Vegetation and Ecosystems 3-12

3.8 Wildlife and Wildife Habitat 3-26

4 Potential Environmental Effects 4-14.1 Description of Potential Effects 4-1

4.2 Climate and Biogeoclimatic Zone 4-6

4.3 Soils and Terrain 4-6

4.4 Local and Regional Landuse 4-7

4.5 Surface Water Resources 4-7

4.6 Groundwater Resources 4-94.7 Fish and Fish Habitat 4-9

Table of Contents

iii

4.8 Vegetation and Ecosystems 4-12

4.9 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 4-14

5 Mitigation Measures and Recommendations 5-15.1 Design Phase 5-15.2 Site Preparation and Construction 5-1

5.3 Operation 5-8

5.4 Road Right-of-Way 5-9

6 Significance of Environmental Effects 6-16.1 Potential Residual Effects 6-1

6.2 Potential Cumulative Effects 6-5

7 Summary 7-1ReferencesAppendix A – TablesAppendix B - Site PhotographsAppendix C - Riparian Planting PlanAppendix D - Weed Management PlanAppendix E - Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan


ivp:\20148222\00_hwy_1_sa_west_ea\environmental_sciences\04.00_environmental_assessments\reporting\section 2 only_30th to 1st ave\100% detailed designfinal\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx

List of Tables

PAGE NO.

Table 1-1 Spatial boundaries of the Environmental Assessment 1-5Table 2-1 Criteria for determining significance of residual environmental effects 2-5Table 3-1 Water wells in the Project Area 3-8Table 3-2 Attributes of the Salmon River in the Project Area 3-11Table 3-3 Fish species at risk with the potential to occur in the Salmon River 3-12Table 3-4 Broad ecosystem units and associations found in the Project Area 3-15Table 3-5 Rare ecological communities with the potential to occur in the Project Area 3-22Table 3-6 Plant species at risk previously recorded within 10 km of the Project Area 3-24Table 3-7 Wildlife species at risk previously recorded within 20 km of the Project Area 3-32Table 4-1 Total area affected by the Project and proportion of temporary and

permanent disturbance in Project Area 4-2Table 4-2 Ecological indicators selected for the Salmon Arm four-laning upgrade 4-4Table 4-3 Summary of expected effects on fish habitat 4-10Table 4-4 Broad ecosystem units and associations affected by the Project Footprint. 4-13Table 6-1 Potential residual effects on valued components and ecological indicators 6-2

List of Figures

v

List of Figures

PAGE NO.

Figure 1-1 Project Location 1-2Figure 1-2 Project Layout 1-4Figure 3-1 Ecosystems in the Project Area 3-13Figure 3-2 Vegetation plots and wildlife features in the Project Area 3-14Figure 3-3 Wildlife Accident Reporting System records for LKI 77.0 to 78.9. 3-38Figure 4-1 Surface water and rare ecosystems affected by the Project 4-3

FINAL REPORT

1-1

1 Introduction1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) plans to upgrade a section of Trans-CanadaHighway 1 (hereafter known as the “highway”), approximately 3 km west of the City of Salmon Arm. Theproject involves four laning of 1.3 km of highway including constructing a new four lane bridge over theSalmon River (designed by the Ministry; Figure 1-1). The MOT retained the engineering firm UrbanSystems Ltd. (Urban Systems) to complete the functional and detailed design for upgrading the section ofthe highway from 1st Ave SW to 30th Street SW (the “Project”).

Urban Systems has commissioned Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated; formerlySummit Environmental Consultants Inc.) to carry out this environmental assessment (EA) of the Project.This includes conducting field assessments to characterize the aquatic and terrestrial environment, andsummarize available information to evaluate the project effects on the environment, and to providemitigation strategies for design and construction. The results of the EA will be used to support projectplanning and federal permitting requirements.

The following report provides a summary of background information on terrestrial and aquatic resources,and resource values within the Project Area. An evaluation of project-related effects on terrestrial andaquatic resources has been completed. Recommendations on mitigation strategies related to the projectdesign and construction methods are also provided to minimize project-related effects on the environment.

1 - Introduction

1-3

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project is considered in three main phases: 1) the design phase, 2) the construction phase (includingsite preparation), and 3) the operation and maintenance phase. The construction phase of the Project willrequire clearing of vegetation along the new road surface within the Project Footprint, and re-shaping of thelandscape using soil fill and road base materials to accommodate the new highway alignment, accessroads, and frontage roads. Highway widening will require clearing of vegetation, cut and fill areas adjacentto the existing highway. The operation phase will include regular maintenance of the highway, whichinvolves patching, snowploughing, and road de-icing, all of which are services currently provided by MOTImaintenance contractors.

The Project Area is centred on the Salmon River bridge, located approximately 3 km from Salmon Arm Citycentre. The Project will include the following upgrades:

four-laning of approximately 1.3 km of the Trans-Canada Highway from 1st Ave SW to 30th StreetSW;eliminating the existing 1st Avenue SW intersection and creating a new one combined with SalmonRiver Road (40th Street SW);creating a new intersection with First Nations Road;introduction of a grade separated facility (underpass) to replace the eliminated intersections;introduction of frontage roads, andconstruction of a new four-lane bridge over the Salmon River.

The new four-lane bridge over the Salmon River is proposed approximately 200 m downstream of theexisting bridge, on its inside curve. This will result in realignment of the highway through this section,reducing the angle of the corner. The existing bridge (Photograph 1, Appendix B) will remain in place andthe existing two-lane highway will serve as a frontage road for the new highway.

Several new frontage roads and slip roads will be constructed within the Project Area to provide access tonearby residents and businesses (Figure 1-2). These include:

new residence access road from behind Country Camping opposite 30 th Street SW;new access road to 30th St SW;two new slip roads accessing the new highway via 40 th Street SW;new frontage road connecting Salmon River Road with the end of 42nd Street SW, andnew frontage road connecting First Nations Road (eliminating the 1st Avenue SW intersection).

All frontage roads will be 2-lane roadways connected to the highway. Construction of these roads will becompleted in several phases to allow traffic flow and minimize delays.

1 - Introduction

1-5

1.3 ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The scope of this EA focuses on the proposed highway upgrades from 1st Ave SW to 30th Street SW,including bridge replacement across the Salmon River.

As the project is located on provincial or private lands, this assessment considers the requirements of theB.C. Wildlife Act, Wildlife Amendment Act, Water Act, Weed Control Act and Heritage Conservation Act(Section 1.5). This assessment also considers the requirements of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA),Migratory Birds Convention Act, and Fisheries Act.

To appropriately assess the baseline environmental characteristics and to quantify the Project effects, threedistinct assessment areas were delineated: 1) the Project Footprint (the permanent development footprint);2) the Project Right-of-Way (cleared for maintenance); and 3) the Project Area (200 m buffer on either sideof the Project centreline; Figure 1-1, Table 1-1).

Table 1-1Spatial boundaries of the Environmental Assessment

Area Designation Area Description

Project Footprint The area of the planned development that will be subject to direct project-relatedeffects, including vegetation clearing, road surface placement, cut slopes, fill slopes,and terrain re-contouring (Figure 1-2; Figure 1-2).

Project Right-of-Way The area that is proposed to be modified as a result of clearing and grubbing activitiesto accommodate construction in the Project Footprint, and long term maintenance of thehighway. This is shown in Figure 1-2.

Project Area The area that includes the Project Footprint, Right-of-Way, and adjacent areas that maybe affected by the Project. This includes all land that is within 200 m of the Projectcentreline (Figure 1-2).

An archaeological assessment is being coordinated between MOTI and the Neskonlith First Nation, theresults of which will form a separate report. Assessment of archaeological effects is not included in thescope of this EA.

The objectives of this EA are to assess the potential environmental impacts of the Project and to developstrategies to avoid, minimise or mitigate potential impacts. Specific objectives are outlined below.

Describe the baseline environment and wildlife habitat quality in the Project Area.Identify the potential environmental effects of site preparation and construction, operation, andmaintenance of the Project.Determine mitigation strategies and procedures to avoid or reduce any identified effects.Determine if there are any residual environmental effects that cannot be reasonably mitigated.


1-6p:\20148222\00_hwy_1_sa_west_ea\environmental_sciences\04.00_environmental_assessments\reporting\section 2 only_30th to 1st ave\100% detailed designfinal\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx

1.4 REGULATORY CONTEXT

Highway upgrade projects do not qualify as “Designated Projects1”, as defined under the RegulationsDesignating Physical Activities, in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The plannedproject work is governed by several federal and provincial laws and regulations. Below is a summary of thekey acts and regulations applicable to the Project and EA process.

1.4.1 Navigation Protection Act

The federal Navigation Protection Act (NPA; formerly the Navigable Waters Protection Act) prohibits thedevelopment of certain projects on marine and navigable freshwater without approval (Government ofCanada 1985a rev. 2012). Projects that require approval under this Act involve work in designatednavigable water bodies. The recent passing of Bill C-45 has resulted in some changes to this Act; includingprojects that involve navigable waters no longer trigger the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act(CEAA). Furthermore, minor projects on navigable waters no longer require approval under the NPA .However, NPA requires proponents to manage obstructions of navigable water bodies during significant in-stream works.

The Salmon River is not designated as navigable under the NPA, thus an approval under the NPA fromTransport Canada will not be required for this project. However, the public right of navigation – the right touse navigable waters as a highway – continues to be protected in Canada by Common Law, whether thewaterway is listed on the schedule to the Act or not (Transport Canada 2014). The Minor Works Order ofthe Act allows for works to be built if they meet the criteria for the applicable class of works, as well asspecific terms and conditions for construction. Construction of a new bridge involving in-stream tiers doesnot fall under the Minor Works Order. Navigability of the Salmon River must be maintained to theacceptable standards based on its current use. Currently, the Salmon River is navigated by kayak, canoe,and potentially jet boat. Mitigation measures should be implemented to maintain this navigation during in-stream works (Section 5.1.1).

1.4.2 Fisheries Act

The Fisheries Act is the main federal legislation for Canadian fisheries management through theconservation and protection of fish and fish habitat (Government of Canada 1985b rev. 2012). Fish habitatwas defined under the Act as “spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas onwhich fish depend on directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.” Section 35 (1) states“No person shall carry on any work, undertaking an activity that results in serious harm to fish that are partof a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.” Section 36 (3)stipulates that “no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in waterfrequented by fish…” A deleterious substance under the Act is defined as “any substance that, if added toany water, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality ofwater so that it is rendered or is likely to be rendered deleterious to fish or fish habitat…”

1 those projects with the greatest potential to cause significant effects

1 - Introduction

1-7

Project works will involve temporary disturbance and permanent alteration (i.e. loss and/or degradation) ofthe Salmon River that contain salmonids important to commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries.These works will affect fish habitat through habitat disturbances and losses, and could without mitigation,potentially introduce deleterious substances that could affect water quality. With appropriate mitigationconstruction of this project presents a low risk to fish habitat. A Fisheries Act Authorization or Review fromFisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) will not be required for this project. The proposed new bridge acrossthe Salmon River will be clear span and thus conform to DFOs criteria for project activities where a DFOReview is not required (DFO 2015).

1.4.3 Species at Risk Act

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) is federal legislation that provides legal protection of wildlife and theirhabitats designated under Schedule 1 of the Act (Government of Canada 2002). The purposes of the Actare to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations from becoming extirpatedor extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, and encourage themanagement of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk. SARA makes it an offence inSections 32 and 33 to kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a listed species that is extirpated,endangered or threatened; possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a listed species that isextirpated, endangered or threatened, or its part or derivative; and, damage or destroy the residence of oneor more individuals of a listed endangered or threatened species or of a listed extirpated species if arecovery strategy has recommended its reintroduction.

SARA protects species, critical habitat and their residences. Several species listed under SARA are eitherknown or expected to use or inhabit the Project Area. It is possible that Project works may requiresalvaging and relocation of protected species under the Project Footprint, which may require a species atrisk permit.

1.4.4 Migratory Birds Convention Act

The federal Migratory Birds Convention Act protects migratory birds and nests from indiscriminateharvesting and destruction (Government of Canada 1994). This Act regulates hunting (e.g. permits andpossession limits), sale of migratory birds, scientific collection, and activities to minimize the damagemigratory birds cause to crops or other property (Government of Canada 1994).

This Act largely pertains to the site preparation and construction phases of the Project, where removal anddisturbance of vegetation may affect habitat use by migratory birds in migratory stop-over, staging, breedingand summer foraging behaviours. To avoid contravening the Act, vegetation clearing is ideally conductedoutside of the active breeding window for migratory birds (March to mid-August). Land clearing should beavoided between March 31 and August 15; if unavoidable, clearing must be preceded by a nest survey toensure active nests will not be affected. A vegetation buffer must be established and maintained aroundany active nest sites (CWS 2008; Government of Canada 2014).



1.4.5 Water Act

The Water Act is provincial legislation that protects the quality of water, fish and wildlife habitat, and therights of licensed water users (Government of British Columbia, 1996a). Under Section 9 of the Act, anyactivities that result in changes in or about a stream require notification or approval.

A Water Act Section 9 Approval will be required for construction that includes instream works andalterations to the Salmon River.

1.4.6 Wildlife Act and Wildlife Amendment Act

The provincial Wildlife Act protects vertebrate animals from direct harm except as allowed by regulation(e.g. hunting) (Government of British Columbia 1996b). Permits under the Act are issued by the Minister toauthorize certain activities (e.g. beaver dam removal and wildlife salvage) if they will not jeopardize thesurvival or recovery of that species. In 2004, the Wildlife Amendment Act was passed to protect andrecover species at risk identified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, making it an offense to kill, harm,harass or capture an animal identified as at risk (Government of British Columbia, 2004).

This Act largely pertains to the site preparation and construction phases of the project. The Act protectswildlife and their habitats from destruction or disruption. The major wildlife activity window is between April1 and October 1, when most taxa are breeding, nesting, foraging and fledging (Government of BritishColumbia 2004). Any site preparation or construction activities occurring within this timeframe should bepreceded by surveys for wildlife in the Project Area, completed by a qualified environmental professional(QEP). Appropriate mitigation measures, such as captures, salvages and relocations, must occur to avoidcontravention of this Act. Should it be deemed necessary, a General Permit under the Wildlife Act will berequired for any trapping and relocations anticipated for this project, particularly for the salvage ofamphibians and reptiles residing in open water or wetland habitats directly affected, as well as thoseencountered incidentally during site-preparation and construction.

1.4.7 Weed Control Act

The Weed Control Act designates provincially and regionally noxious weeds (listed on Schedule A of theAct) and the associated regulations governing those plants (BC MOA 2011). The Act provides guidelinesfor noxious weed prevention and management, stating that it is the responsibility of the landowner tomanage and prevent spread of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds are typically non-native plants that havebeen introduced to B.C. without the insect predators and plant pathogens that help keep them in check intheir native habitats. For this reason and because of their aggressive growth, these alien plants can behighly destructive, competitive and difficult to control (BC MOA 2013).

The Weed Control Act will apply to the Project Area because noxious weeds are present on the site. Thiswill require management of designated noxious weeds part of the mitigation plan (Section 5).

FINAL REPORT

2-1

2 Methods2.1 REVIEW OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Baseline environmental conditions were compiled by reviewing existing reports relevant to the Project andimmediate surrounding areas, and by conducting online provincial and federal database searches.Information reviewed for this report included:

Aerial photos and maps of the Project Area;City of Salmon Arm Official Community Plan (City of Salmon Arm 2011);Ecosystems of British Columbia for biogeoclimatic zone and subzone information (Hope et al.1991);BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer database search for species and ecological communities atrisk (BC CDC 2015);iMapBC online database for masked and unmasked occurrences, aquifer, and well information(DataBC 2015);Fish Inventories Data Queries (FIDQ; BC MOE 2015);Sensitive Habitat Inventory and Mapping (SHIM; Salmon Arm 2015);Wetland Inventory Mapping (WIM; Salmon Arm 2015);Previous background reports and assessments prepared for the area (Summit 2011, 2013a, 2015).

2.2 FIELD SURVEY

2.2.1 Fisheries Assessment

Information sourced from online databases, aerial imagery, and information gathered during areconnaissance assessment of the Project was used to determine the location and number of streamcrossings that will be affected by the Project. As a follow-up to the reconnaissance assessment, aquaticbiologists Dave Hayward R.P.Bio., and Jeff Nitychoruk, BIT, conducted a detailed field survey on July 7,2015 with the objective of making judgements of aquatic habitat quality and value under low flow conditions.Field survey methods were based on the relevant sections of the following field standards and protocols,and on aquatic assessments previously conducted for MOTI along the Trans-Canada Highway:

Overview Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Methodology (RIC 1999);Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (RIC2001);Malakwa Bridge Replacement and Four-Laning – Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment(Summit 2013b); andPerry River Bridge Replacement and Four-Laning – Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment(Summit 2013c).Highway 1 – Salmon Arm West 30th Street SW to 10th Street SW Environmental Assessment.(Summit 2015).



The field survey focussed on describing the type and quality of aquatic and riparian ecosystems in theProject Area. Stream characteristics that were evaluated included:

instream cover types and abundance;channel morphology and habitat features and distribution;water depths, wetted and channel widths;channel substrate composition and distribution;actual fish presence and potential fish presence;potential habitat types (spawning, rearing and overwintering); andthe functional contribution of riparian areas to fish habitat.

On July 7, 2015, the area upstream and downstream of the proposed new Salmon River Bridge locationwas assessed in detail because the Project Footprint overlaps the river. The entire length of the assessedchannel was 500 m. Aquatic habitat was classified based on the conditions at the time of the field survey;historic conditions, as presented in previous reports were also considered as part of the assessment.Aquatic habitat was ranked based the presence of features noted above, and the resulting likelihood of fishpresence in the habitat. Reconnaissance (1:20,000 scale) fish and fish habitat assessment stream sitecards were completed for the Salmon River within the Project Footprint. Electrofishing, in accordance witha scientific collection permit, was conducted to determine fish species assemblages in the assessedchannel and to gauge the ratios and general health of individuals present at the time of survey.

Project effects were classified as “instream” when below the high water mark, and as “riparian” when abovebut within 30 m of the high water mark. Each discrete area has been assigned a qualitative habitat rating(i.e. very high, high, moderate, low, or very low) based on its habitat value and ecosystem function2. This isconsistent with descriptions used for other recent environmental assessments along the TransCanadahighway corridor3:

Instream: Instream (Very High) – Very high habitat suitability, confirmed fish presence, listed

species, limiting habitat requisites, no disturbance, critical to fisheries productivity andsustainability;

Instream (High) – High habitat suitability, confirmed fish presence, presence of listedspecies, unimpeded access, no or low disturbance, critical to fisheries productivity andfishery sustainability, limiting (bottleneck) habitat;

2 Guidance documents reviewed in support of the development of these ratings included Practitioners Guide to RiskManagement Framework (DFO 2013), Practitioners Guide to Habitat Compensation (DFO 2002), and Fish StreamCrossing Guidebook (BC MFLNRO 2012).3 Functional riparian habitat is defined as vegetation contributing to fish habitat value; riparian vegetation was onlyconsidered “functional” if it directly or indirectly affected stream conditions. Mature trees and shrubs within 30 m of thetop of bank were considered functional in all instances; grassy vegetation was not considered to be functional riparianhabitat for this assessment.

2 - Methods

2-3

Instream (Moderate) – Moderate habitat suitability, potential/expected fish presence,unimpeded access, moderate disturbance, contributes to fisheries productivity and fisherysustainability, widely available habitat;

Instream (Low) – Low habitat suitability, fish presence unlikely but possible, highdisturbance, obstructed access, marginal contribution to fisheries productivity and fisherysustainability, widely available habitat; and

Instream (Very Low) – Very low habitat suitability, seasonal access, little to no contributionto fisheries productivity, very highly disturbed, not limiting habitat.

Riparian: Riparian (Very High) – mature forest, no disturbance, provides full riparian function; Riparian (High) – mature forest, highly functional, no or minor disturbance; Riparian (Moderate) – shrubs, provides some function, moderate disturbance; Riparian (Low) – low ground cover (grass or forbs), provides limited function, disturbed, and Riparian (Very Low) – low ground cover, managed (mowed) grass on existing road

shoulder, disturbed and previously cleared.

2.2.2 Terrestrial Assessment

The Project Area was stratified into several broad ecosystem units based on aerial photography and knownenvironmental constraints were mapped e.g. wetland, previously recorded species at risk. Informationgathered during the review of background information was used to develop a field survey plan that wouldconfirm the findings of the review. The reconnaissance field assessment was conducted over two days byAssociated biologists Stephanie Murphy, R.P.Bio., and Carrie Nadeau R.P.Bio., on May 21 and August25th. The field assessment included site-specific vegetation plots, wildlife habitat assessments in uniqueecosystem units, and two rare plants surveys (early and late season). Landscape-scale characterization ofthe Project Area was completed using a combination of meandering transects and vegetation plotassessments.

Field survey methods were based on relevant field techniques for ecosystem inventory, including:

A Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region (Lloyd et al. 1990);Species Inventory Fundamentals (BC MELP 1998);British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards (BC MELP 1999);Develop with Care Guidelines, Section D: Site Inventory and Conservation Evaluation (BC MOE2006);Sensitive Habitat Inventory and Mapping (SHIM; Salmon Arm 2015); andWetland Inventory Mapping (WIM; Salmon Arm 2015).

During the field survey, ecosystem condition, wildlife habitat suitability (including the connectivity ofhabitats), and accuracy of the SHIM and WIM data were assessed. At each survey location, the dominantand subdominant tree, shrub, herb and forb species were recorded. Invasive plant species were recordedwhen they were encountered. Ecosystems were characterized based on observed vegetation associations,



and were recorded during the random meandering transects between plots. Wildlife habitat features (e.g.,stick nests, wildlife trees) were described and locations were recorded using a hand-held GPS. All wildlifesign or sightings during the field survey were recorded. Rare plants with the greatest potential to occur inthe Project Area i.e. those previously identified in the vicinity of the Project Area, were assessed in early(May) and late (August) season.

Photographs of ecosystem types and wildlife habitat features were taken during the field survey (AppendixB).

2.2.3 Herptile Assessment

During the reconnaissance field assessment, an open water ecosystem was discovered in an agriculturalfield within the Project Footprint. As this pond ecosystem provides suitable habitat for amphibians andturtles, additional surveys were conducted to determine the presence of herptile species (amphibians andturtles). Surveys were conducted in accordance with the following guidelines:

Inventory Methods for Pond-breeding Amphibians and Painted Turtle, Version 2.0 (RIC 1998).

Surveys included a combination of active searches, auditory surveys, and amphibian trapping. Amphibiantrapping was conducted under Permit Number MRKA15-169129. Surveys were conducted on June 9, 2015by AE biologists Stephanie Murphy, R.P.Bio., and Nicole Basaraba, P. Ag. Active search, auditory, andtrapping took place at the open water ecosystem and adjacent wet grassland, while active search andauditory surveys only took place along a wetted ditch line containing cattails adjacent to the highway.Trapping was not conducted here due to insufficient water present. Total effort included 200 minutes ofactive searching, 56 minutes of auditory survey, and 2,610 minutes (43.5 hrs) of trapping (See Table A1 inAppendix A). Nine traps were placed in the old oxbow and three in the adjacent wet grassland. All trapswere unbaited.

2.3 REPORTING

Data compiled during the field surveys were used to determine potential environmental effects, developmitigation measures, and generate a significance rating of residual environmental effects (Table 2-1).Environmental effects are considered to be any change that the design, construction and operation of theProject may have on the existing environmental condition. Site preparation, construction, and operationactivities anticipated to cause temporary or permanent effects on environmental values were identified, andthose environmental values that may be affected within the Project Footprint were identified as valuedcomponents. For this report, valued components are elements of the natural and human environment thatare considered to have scientific, ecological, economic, social, cultural, archaeological, historical, or otherimportance (BC EAO 2013). Environmental indicators have been selected from each valued component,and ecological requirements for these indicators were used as metrics to quantify potential effects of theProject on the valued component.

2 - Methods

2-5

General mitigation measures were developed to avoid, minimize, restore onsite, or offset effects of theProject on environmental values in the Project Area. Similarly, specific mitigation measures weredeveloped to avoid, minimize, restore onsite, or offset effects of the Project on the valued components inthe Project Footprint (BC MOE 2006, BC MOE 2014a).

Table 2-1Criteria for determining significance of residual environmental effects

Criterion Not Significant (NS) Minor Effect (ME) Significant Effect (S)

Magnitude(of the effect)

Effect is evident only ator nominally abovebaseline conditions andaffects only a smallpercentage of the ProjectArea (<10%).

Effect exceeds baselineconditions and affects amoderate percentage ofthe Project Area (10-20%).

Effects exceeds baselineconditions and affects alarge percentage of theProject Area (>20%).

Geographic Extent(of the effect)

Effect is limited to theProject Footprint.

Effect extends into areasbeyond the ProjectFootprint boundary.

Effect is trans-boundaryin nature.

Duration(of the effect)

Effect is evident onlyduring the constructionphase of the Project.

Effect is evident duringconstruction and/or theoperational phase of theProject.

Effects will be evidentbeyond the operationallife of the Project.

Frequency(of conditions causing theeffect)

Conditions orphenomena causing theeffect occur infrequently(i.e. < once per year).

Conditions orphenomena causing theeffect occur at regularintervals althoughinfrequent intervals (i.e. <once per month).

Conditions or phenomenacausing the effect occurat regular and frequentintervals (i.e. > once permonth).

Reversibility(of effect)

Effect is readily reversibleover a short period oftime (i.e. one growingseason).

Effect is not readilyreversible during the lifeof the Project.

Effect is permanent.

Ecological Context(of effect)

Evidence ofenvironmental effects byhuman activities. Effectresults in minimaldisruption of ecologicalfunctions andrelationships in theaffected area.

Relatively pristine area.Effect results in somedisruption of non-criticalecological functions andrelationship in theaffected area.

Pristine area / notaffected by humanactivity. Effect results indisruption of criticalecological functions andrelationship in theaffected area.


3-6

3 Baseline Environment3.1 CLIMATE AND BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONE

The Project Area is located within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) biogeoclimatic zone and moist warmShuswap (mw1) subzone and variant4. The IDF has a continental climate characterized by warm, drysummers, a relatively long growing season, and cool winters with a low to moderate snowfall (Lloyd et al1990). Salmon Arm represents the moist end of this zone (Lloyd et al 1990; Meidinger and Pojar 1991).The main factor influencing the climate in the Project Area is the rain shadow created in the lee oftopographic barriers (the Coast, Cascade and Columbia mountains) to the prevailing easterly flowing air(Hope et al. 1991).

The nearest climate station to the Project Area showing complete data from 1981-2010 is Salmon Arm Astation, located 4.5 km from Salmon Arm city centre at an elevation of 527.3 meters above sea level(m.a.s.l). Climate normal data is available from the years 1981 to 2010. Monthly annual temperaturesrange from -3.7 °C in January to 19.1 °C in July and mean annual precipitation is 54.4 mm, most of whichfalls as rain (Environment Canada 2015a). The highway is located approximately 365 metres above sealevel (m.a.s.l) in the Project Area.

3.2 SOILS AND TERRAIN

The Project Area is located in B.C.’s southern Interior Plateau. The topography consists of a level rivervalley floodplain of 346 to 378 m.a.s.l. Elevation rises to the west of the highway northwards from FirstNations Road. The dominant soils throughout the IDF zone are typically Orthic or Dark Gray Luvisols, andEutric or Dystric Brunisols, with medium to rich nutrient status (Lloyd et al. 1990). A geotechnical surveyconducted by Jacques Whitford AXYS (2007) for a nearby real estate development described the soil fromthe test holes along the northeast corner of the Project Area as containing topsoils underlain by a clayey-siltlayer and a thick alluvial sand deposit interbedded with silt layers. They also found that as they drilledsouth, closer to the Highway, the native soils were overlain by variable fill.

3.3 LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE

Salmon Arm began as a railway camp during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) in thelate 1800s, later developing into a logging, farming, and dairy centre. Today the Salmon Arm economy isdriven by a mixture of forestry, agriculture, tourism, commerce, and manufacturing. Land use within theProject Area includes agricultural lands, residential, and commercial properties. The CPR is locatedapproximately 1.2 km away from the highway on the Shuswap Lake side. Agricultural and residentialproperties surround the Project Area, with some commercial centres, such as Country Camping, De MilleFarm Market and Walmart Supercentre (Figure 1-2).

4 The Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) system defines zones having characteristic vegetation withassociated climate, soils, and animals. In B.C., each forested zone occurs under a broadly similar macro-climate and isusually named by one or more of the dominant tree species which are capable of self-regeneration on most of thezone’s habitats.

3 - Baseline Environment

3-7

3.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

The project is located within the Thompson ecological drainage unit between the Salmon River and SouthThompson River watershed areas. Results of the preliminary assessment of surface watercourses revealedthere are three drainage features within the Project Area (Figure 2-1):

1. The Salmon River traverses the Project Area between 30th St and 1st Avenue.2. Palmer Creek, a tributary of the Salmon River borders the Project Area on the south end.3. A short section of drainage channel referred to as Hobbs Creek (Summit 2013d) is present at the

west end of the Project Area.

The Shuswap Lake floodplain is present to the north and east of the Project Area. Three wetland areashave been identified from SHIM and WIM mapping; these are discussed further in Section 3.7. Fieldassessments also confirmed the presence of an old oxbow located approximately 125 m northwest ofSalmon River, in the property to the north of the Salmon River Motel and RV Park. This is also discussedfurther in Section 3.7.

3.4.1 Salmon River

The Salmon River, a major tributary to Shuswap Lake, is located in the centre of the Project Area (Figure2.1; Photograph 12, Appendix B). The Salmon River flows in a north-easterly direction for approximately146 km from its headwaters southwest of Falkland, B.C., to Shuswap Lake. Fish species present in theSalmon River are discussed in Section 3.6. Also refer to Section 3.7 for a description of the riparianvegetation along the Salmon River.

3.4.2 Palmer Creek and Hobbs Creek

Two creeks have been identified within the Project Area. Palmer Creek borders the southwest of theProject Area where it discharges into the Salmon River. Palmer Creek is outside the zone of potentialinfluence and is not expected to be affected by the project. Hobbs Creek is located at the eastern end ofthe Project Area approximately 200 m from the Project Footprint. Effects on this creek are being assessedby a separate environmental assessment of the highway upgrades from 10th to 30th Street SW (Summit2015). It is not expected that Hobbs Creek will be affected by this Project.

3.4.3 Shuswap Lake

Shuswap Lake is located to the north and east of the Project Area. The area to the north of the City ofSalmon Arm is predominantly within the Shuswap Lake floodplain, as is evident by the level topography,deposition of fine sediment, and historic flood channels. The record high water elevation for Shuswap Lake(WSC site 08LE070) was 349.7 m in 1972 (Shuswap Lake Watch 2015; Environment Canada 2015b).During record high water years the lake has flooded up to the road fill along the highway (Harding B.,personal communication in Summit 2011).


3-8

3.5 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

There are two aquifers in the Project Area. The Salmon River Valley confined aquifer incorporates 96.2km2 and is composed of sand and gravel materials. It has a high productivity, low vulnerability, moderatedemand, and multiple uses (iMap BC 2015). A second unnamed aquifer of 2.8 km2 is located north of 1st

Ave SW. It is composed of bedrock materials and has a low productivity, moderate vulnerability andmoderate demand. It is used for domestic purposes only (iMap BC 2015).

There are seven wells within 200 m of the Project Area (iMap BC 2015 and Habitat Wizard 2015; see TableA2 in Appendix A). Three of these are within the Project Area, with one within the Footprint (Table 3-1;Figure 1-2).

Table 3-1Water wells in the Project Area

Well TagNo.

Co-ordinates(11 U)

Location Diameter(cm)

Depth Well Drilled(m)

Water Depth(m)

Within ProjectFootprint

8280

335429,5618958

Corner of FirstNations Rd.and 1st Ave

SW

0.0 158.0 7.0 no

82895335483,5618228

East ofexisting bridge

5.0 148.0 - yes

18665336043,5618027

West of 30stSW

6.0 350 - no

3.6 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Qualities and characteristics of the aquatic habitat, including riparian areas, are discussed in this section.Fish species-at-risk and their potential to occur in the Project Area are also evaluated. Fish and fish habitathave been identified as valued components as defined by this EA.

3.6.1 Stream Channels

Salmon RiverThe Salmon River is present in the Project Area from a point 185 m upstream of the existing Highwaybridge to a point 450 m downstream of the bridge, covering a linear distance of approximately 560 m.Throughout that course the river consists of an unconfined, gently meandering channel. Mean wetted width


3-9

at the time of assessment was 11.5 m; while mean channel width was 16.6 m (Table 3-2). The channelbanks on either side of the river consist of, on average, 2.5 m of exposed bank at a 1:1 slope leading up tothe Shuswap Lake floodplain and the commercial and residential properties that border the river on eitherside.

The field assessment consisted of an evaluation of the aquatic habitat from upstream of the existingHighway crossing to a point 400 m downstream. Along the assessed channel (Photographs 32-34,Appendix B) substrate is predominantly sand with two patches of embedded pea-gravel in an area wherethe gradient increases to 1%. Both patches of gravel are located approximately 90 m downstream of theexisting Highway crossing and 80 m upstream of the proposed Highway Right-of-Way. The sandysubstrate is unconsolidated and subject to redistribution during high flow events as evidenced by thescalloped river bottom, sand bars and the undercut banks of the river.

The width of riparian vegetation along the assessed channel varies from 30 m or more, to less than 5 m.Riparian vegetation width is limited to roughly 5 m along most of the assessed channel. The riparianvegetation consisted of mature functional vegetation that contributes shade, litter, and woody debris to theriver; and a dense shrub understorey that stabilizes the banks above the high water mark. Crown closure isestimated to be less than 10% from the center of the channel. Dominant instream cover consists of matureoverhanging vegetation. Sub-dominant cover is comprised of coarse woody debris that has fallen into thechannel. Coarse woody debris has created scour pools in the sandy substrate with an average residualpool depth of 0.45 m.

No suitable spawning habitat was observed along the assessed channel. The pea-gravel patches wereembedded in the sand substrate and appeared to be subject to continuous burial and re-exposure by theriver, a condition observed during other studies in the lower 11 km of the river. Pools located around thecoarse woody debris provide suitable rearing and limited over-wintering habitat; however, slimy sculpin(Cottus cognatus) and redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) were the only fish species encounteredduring electrofishing. Sculpin in all lifestages were locally abundant and appeared healthy. More than 200were encountered. Only 2 redside shiner were captured along the entire assessed channel. Sculpin areprey for larger piscivorous fish, notably trout. Their local abundance in the assessed channel and theirlarge size (up to 12 cm) suggests a general absence of larger predators.

The assessed channel of the Salmon River is used during the upstream annual migration by chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon.Based on the field assessment, the assessed reach does not offer viable salmon spawning habitat besidesproviding a migration route to access reaches further upstream to spawn. Chinook enter the Salmon Riverby the end of August and spawning occurs shortly thereafter. Coho and sockeye typically spawn in theSalmon River from mid-October to mid-November (Gwanikar et al 1998).

Salmon fry emerge throughout the spring and either spend time rearing in habitat near spawning sites ormigrate to Shuswap Lake, depending on the species and the particular habitats of sub-groups within eachspecies (Gwanikar et al 1998).


3-10

Overall, the aquatic habitat rating in the assessed channel of the Salmon River is low. It is low-valuespawning habitat for salmon and other salmonids, low-value over-wintering habitat due to shallow pooldepth and limited pool presence, and low to moderate rearing habitat because of some woody debrispresence. An almost total absence of fish other than slimy sculpin supports the assertion that it is low-valuerearing habitat. The riparian habitat rating is moderate to high because of the dense understorey andoverstorey, and the abundant overhanging vegetation; however, it is limited by the narrow width (about 5 m)of mature riparian vegetation along most of the assessed channel.

Shuswap Lake and FloodplainFish species inhabiting Shuswap Lake can access the Salmon River. Between 2008 and 2014, waterlevels in Shuswap Lake were generally at their peak throughout the month of June (Salmon Arm 2011).Fish species known to inhabit Shuswap Lake include cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), Dolly Varden(Salvelinus malma), kokanee (O. nerka) and all five species of Pacific salmon (pink [O. gorbuscha], chum[O. keta], coho [O. kisutch], sockeye [O. nerka], and chinook [O. tshawytscha]).

General measures are outlined in Section 5 to mitigate potential effects on fish and fish habitat duringinstream and riparian works. Fish and fish habitat has been identified as a valued component for this EA,as has water quality and riparian vegetation. Total area of riparian vegetation expected to be affected bythe Project has been selected as the ecological indicator representing the fish and fish habitat valuedcomponent. Total area of fish spawning and/or rearing habitat affected is also selected as an ecologicalindicator representing fish and fish habitat valued component.


3-11

Table 3-2Attributes of the Salmon River in the Project Area

Attributes Salmon River

Assessed Length (m) 500

Mean channel width (m) 16.6

Mean depth (m) 0.45

Gradient (%) 0.5 - 1

Channel confinement Unconfined

Bank stability Fair

Channel condition Poor

Crown Closure 10%

Riparian vegetation

Box-elder (Acer negundo), black cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa), black hawthorn (Crataegusdouglasii), willow (Salix spp.), red-osier dogwood

(Cornus sericea), and Utah honeysuckle (Lonicerautahensis).

Instream coverDeep poolsBouldersLWDSWDUndercut banksInstream veg.Overhanging veg.

ModerateTraceNone

Sub-dominantTraceNoneTrace

Dominant

Substrate > 95% sand, < 5% pea-gravel

Aquatic habitat rating Low

Limitations Lack of diverse morphology features, homogeneoussubstrate, unstable substrate

Riparian habitat rating Moderate-High

Limitations Abundant disturbed ground above top-of-bank, i.e.narrow riparian vegetation wdith.

Note: m = metre, % = percent, LWD = large woody debris, SWD = small woody debris


3-12

3.6.2 Rare Fish Species

An investigation of the B.C. Conservation Centre and B.C. Species and Ecosystems Explorer mappingservices have historic (>20 years old) records of two provincially and/or federally listed fish species thatwere observed in Shuswap Lake and that could occur in the Salmon River: cutthroat trout and bull trout(Table 3-3). Coho and Chinook salmon (threatened and endangered under SARA, respectively) migratepast this section of the Salmon River to spawn further upstream.

Table 3-3Fish species at risk with the potential to occur in the Salmon River

CommonName

ScientificName

BCStatus1

FederalStatus2

Habitat potentialwithin Project Area

Habitat Requirements

Cutthroattrout

Oncorhynchusclarkii lewisi

Blue 1-SC(2010)

Low (observed inShuswap Lake[1958])

Small mountain streams, rivers, and largenatural lakes; cool, clean, well-oxygenatedwater; in rivers, adults prefer large poolsand slow velocity areas.

Bull trout– interiorlineage

Salvelinusconfluentus

Blue - Low (Dolly Vardenobserved inShuswap Lake[1992], possibly mis-identified)

Bottom of deep pools in cold rivers andlarge tributary streams, tend to utilize highergradient streams than other fish species

1 Blue-listed species are those indigenous species, subspecies, or ecological communities considered to be of Special Concern inBritish Columbia because of characteristics that make them particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. Blue-listed taxaare at risk, but are not Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened.2 Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) is the official list of wildlife species at risk in Canada. It includes species that areextirpated, endangered, threatened, and of special concern. Once a species is listed on Schedule 1, protection and recoverymeasures are developed and implemented.Source: BC CDC 2015

3.7 VEGETATION AND ECOSYSTEMS

3.7.1 Broad Ecosystem Units

The Project Area was stratified using available ortho-imagery into 10 broad ecosystem units and siteassociations that were delineated by vegetation structure, community associations, and existing land use(Table 3-4, Figure 3-1). Vegetation plots conducted during field assessments are presented in Figure 3-2and in Table A3 in Appendix A. Plant species found within each ecosystem unit during the field surveyscan be found in Table A4 in Appendix A.


3-15

Table 3-4Broad ecosystem units and associations found in the Project Area

BroadEcosystem Unit

and Associations

MapCode

Description Amount inProject

Area (ha)

Proportion ofProject Area

(%)

Urban Ur Residential, industrial, or commercial development 28.3 27

Road surface Rz Existing road surface; no change in ecological functionexpected

7.6 7

Cultivated field Cf Agricultural fields includes those with tilled soils, plantedcrops, orchards, fallow, and vacant vegetated lots

55.1 52

Marsh / Flood Wm /Fm

A marsh is a shallowly flooded mineral wetlanddominated by emergent grass-like vegetation. Alsoincludes middle bench flood ecosystems that occur onsites briefly flooded allowing growth of flood-tolerantbroadleaf trees. This habitat association has beenidentified by WIM mapping in the Project Area(Wm05/Fm02 and Wm01/Wm00).

0.3 <1

Marsh Wm A marsh is a shallowly flooded mineral wetlanddominated by emergent grass-like vegetation. Thisecosystem is represented by two site associations in theProject Area (Wm05 and Wm00).

1.4 1

Shallow-waterwetlandassociation

Ww Shallow-waters are aquatic wetlands permanently floodedby still or slow-moving water and dominated by rootedsubmerged and floating-leaved aquatic plants. Thisecosystem is represented by an old oxbow open waterarea in the Project Area.

0.1 <1

Mature forest Mf Mixed forest dominated by Douglas fir, trembling aspen,black cottonwood, Douglas maple and paper birch.

5.5 5

Treed riparian Rt Deciduous, treed riparian ecosystems dominated byblack cottonwood box-elder with a shrubby, herbaceousor grass understorey

5.7 5

Cottonwood /Rose/Snowberryriparianassociation

Fm Middle bench flood ecosystems occur on sites brieflyflooded allowing growth of flood-tolerant broadleaf trees.This ecosystem is represented by one site association inthe Project Area (Fm01)

0.7 <1

River Rv Salmon River water surface area 1.5 1

Total 106.2 100


3-16

UrbanUrban ecosystems in the Project Area are lands that have been subjected to anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) disturbance or development, and can be considered permanent or irreversible in the foreseeablefuture (Photographs 7-9, Appendix B). Urban and industrial areas generally contain very little vegetation,thus field surveys were not completed in these areas. In general, vegetated sites within the urban areasare considered to provide low ecological value due to a low representation of native vegetation and a highproportion of noxious or nuisance5 plant species.

Typical features on the landscape that qualified as urban in the Project Area are as follows:

road surface outside of the Project Footprint; industrial buildings e.g. chicken farm; and commercial buildings and their associated parking areas.

Road SurfaceRoad surfaces in the Project Area were differentiated as those within the Project Footprint (i.e., subject tothe Project development) and those outside the Project Footprint (i.e., not anticipated to be involved in theProject, yet still permanently anthropogenically disturbed, thus labeled “Urban”).

Cultivated FieldCultivated fields in the Project Area are lands that have experienced anthropogenic disturbance for theproduction of agricultural crops (Photographs 2-5, 10 and 13, Appendix B). However, this ecosystem unitalso includes tilled fields, fields for grazing, those left fallow or vacant, as well as rural residential, includingfarm houses, out buildings, and lawns. This ecosystem unit dominates the Project Area and occurs on bothsides of the highway. Although anthropogenic, cultivated fields have been delineated separately from theurban as they provide seasonal habitat value for some wildlife species. Cultivated crops in the Project Areamostly composed of corn and grass for grazing or hay.

Marsh / FloodMarsh ecosystems in the Project Area are shallowly flooded mineral wetland sites dominated by emergentgrass-like vegetation (Mackenzie and Moran 2004; Photographs 27-28, Appendix B). Middle bench floodecosystems occur on sites briefly flooded allowing growth of flood-tolerant broadleaf trees (Mackenzie andMoran 2004). Two combinations of these two ecosystems have been identified together by WIM mappingin the Project Area:

1) Wm05/Fm02These marsh / flood ecosystems are classified in WIM as a combination of cattail (Typha latifolia) marsh,which is a Blue-listed community; and cottonwood – spruce – red-osier dogwood ((Populus balsamifera -

5 Noxious plant species are typically non-native plants that have been introduced in B.C. and are regulated under theB.C. Weed Control Act. Nuisance plant species are introduced species that exhibit aggressive growth, but are notregulated under the B.C. Weed Control Act.


3-17

Picea sp. - Cornus stolonifera), which is a Red-listed community. Two sites are located on thesouthwestern extent of the Project Footprint, separated by 40 th St SW:

The western-most area is small and heavily constrained by existing road infrastructure andcultivated fields (Figure 3-1).

The second area is larger and located immediately west of the existing Salmon River bridge (Figure3-1). There is a substantial amount of water present (approximately 80 m x 10 m) surrounded onboth sides by young cottonwoods and box-elder (Acer negundo). It is mostly dominated bycottonwood– spruce – red-osier dogwood flood ecosystem, with a smaller area of cattail marsh atits western end.

2) Wm01/Wm00This marsh / flood ecosystem is classified in WIM as a combination of cattail marsh and cottonwood –snowberry - rose (Populus balsamifera – Symphoriocarpus albus–Rosa sp.), which is a Red-listedcommunity. It is located approximately 75 m from the planned Right-of-Way access road behind CountyCamping (Figure 3-1).

None of these previously identified marsh / flood ecosystems will be directly affected by the Project as theyare located just outside the Project Right-of-Way. Marsh / flood ecosystems are ecologically important andoften constitute listed ecosystems; however, the marsh / flood ecosystems within the Project Aare are verysmall, heavily disturbed, an outside the Project Footprint. For this reason, marsh / flood ecosystems havenot been selected as an ecological indicator for valued components as identified by this EA. Theseecosystems however do connect directly with the fish-bearing Salmon River, thus mitigation measures areprovided in Section 5 to protect against pollution or siltation of these ecosystems during construction.

MarshThree additional marsh site associations were noted within the Project Area:

1) Wm05This cattail marsh is located along a drainage channel the west side of the highway just north of SalmonRiver Road (40th St. SW; Figure 3-1; Photographs 24-25, Appendix B). It occupies the easternmost sectionof the large agricultural field between Salmon River Road and 1st Ave. SW. This transition sedge marshshows remnants of an old drainage channel and is dominated by timothy grass (Phleum pretense) with asmall number of cattails and sedges. The amount of cattails in this area is too small for it to be considereda listed community, plus there is some evidence of disturbance with the presence of noxious weed, hound’stongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and nuisance weed great mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Much of thisarea is within the Project Footprint.

2) Wm05This cattail marsh is isolated between the junction of Salmon River Road and the highway (Photograph 26,Appendix B). Although weeds dominate this patch, particularly the noxious weed, common tansy(Tanacetum vulgare), there is a strip of cattail, scouring-rush (Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine) and sedgesp. running though the centre from the culvert under Salmon River Road. Some young cottonwood,


3-18

hawthorn, rose, and cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum) are also present. The amount of cattails in this areais too small for it to be considered a listed community. The toe of the Project Footprint will encroachminimally on the outside edge of this small patch of cattail marsh. This disturbed ecosystem connectsdirectly with the fish-bearing Salmon River via the Wm05/Fm02 ecosystem, thus mitigation measures areprovided in Section 5 to protect against pollution or siltation during construction.

3) Wm00This reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)/sedge transition wetland association is located north of theSalmon River Motel property, just west of the Salmon River (Photograph 18, Appendix B). It appears to bea remnant of the river’s floodplain and is only evident in those areas where the soil level has not been builtup for agriculture or dwellings. It is dominated by the introduced reed canary grass and bluejoint grass(Calamagrostis canadensis) with little diversity apart from some field sedge (Carex praegracilis) and Bebb’ssedge (C. bebbii). This ecosystem unit potentially provides suitable habitat for a number of rare semi-aquatic plants as well as amphibians. By the plant survey in August, the entire site had dried out and washeavily grazed and trampled by cattle. A small section of this ecosystem is located within the ProjectFootprint.

Marsh ecosystems are ecologically important and can provide suitable habitat for a number of rare semi-aquatic species. The marsh ecosystems within the Project Footprint are heavily disturbed by agriculture,infrastructure, and/or invasive species, and therefore, have not been selected as an ecological indicator forvalued components as identified by this EA.

Shallow-water wetland associationShallow-waters are aquatic wetlands permanently flooded by still or slow-moving water and dominated byrooted submerged and floating-leaved aquatic plants (Mackenzie and Moran 2004; Photographs 19-20,Appendix B). This ecosystem is represented in the Project Area by an old oxbow with open water. It islocated in the agricultural field north of the planned bridge crossing proximal to marsh habitat. Hereonreferred to as the “old oxbow”, it is approximately 100 m long and 8 m wide and is a remnant of theShuswap River’s floodplain.

Mature trees surround the margins of the old oxbow and include black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii), box-elder, black cottonwood, and weeping willow (Salix bablonica). The herb layer is dominated by theintroduced reed canary grass, bluejoint grass and small-flowered forget-me-not (Myosotis laxa). Alsooccurring is common chickweed (Stellaria media), and American speedwell (Veronica beccabunga var.americana), as well as the noxious yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). The old oxbow is located in a fieldused for grazing cattle and the banks show evidence of trampling. By the plant survey in August, most ofthe water had dried out, apart from the either end of the old oxbow. The site was heavily trampled by cattle.

This site association unit is an important feature in the Project Area as it has a high likelihood of supportingrare aquatic or semi-aquatic plants, as well as amphibians and turtles. The old oxbow has been selectedas an ecological indicator for valued components as identified by this EA.


3-19

Mature ForestMature forest is categorized as Interior Douglas-fir moist warm Shuswap (IDFmw1) BEC zone, subzoneand variant (Photograph 7, Appendix B). A small patch of relatively undisturbed mature forest is located inthe northwestern corner of the Project Area, which connects to a large area of undisturbed forest within theNeskonlith First Nation IR #3. The downslope moisture-receiving edge of the forest is dominated bytrembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), black cottonwood (P. trichorarpa), paper birch (Betula papyrifera)with some Douglas maple (Acer glabrum var. douglasii) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) aroundresidential properties. The drier interior of the forest is dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesiivar. glauca), rose (Rosa sp.), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), oceanspray (Holodiscusdiscolor) and Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium). A vegetation plot was not conducted in the ecosystemtype as access was restricted.

Only a small patch of mature forest exists within the Project Area. Because it connects to a large area ofmature forest existing outside of the Project Area and Footprint, which will not be affected by the Project,mature forests have not been selected as an ecological indicator for valued components as identified bythis EA.

Treed RiparianTreed riparian ecosystems in the Project Area are lands that are dominated by mature trees and arelocated along the banks of the Salmon River, increasing towards its confluence with Shuswap Lake(Photographs 12-13, Appendix B). Much of the historical riparian areas have been replaced by agricultureand commercial development, with some wetter remnant areas now classified as marsh or shallow-waterwetlands. The largest area of treed riparian ecosystem in the Project Area is found west of the newWalmart building, behind Country Camping. The treed riparian ecosystem in the Project Area is ofparticular ecological importance in terms of old growth cottonwoods and rare ecological communities, aswell as providing habitat values for fish in the Salmon River. This ecosystem also provides the onlyconnectivity to mature forests within and beyond the Project Area, which is critical for wildlife movement.Wildlife habitat is discussed further in Section 3.8.

Treed riparian vegetation around Salmon River is dominated by mature black cottonwood, and box-elder, anon-native species. Other overstorey species include willow (Salix spp.) and alder (Alnus sp.).Understorey vegetation is minimal but includes red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and Nootka rose (Rosanutkana) in places. Herb and forb species found includes common horsetails (Equisetum arvense),buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens),stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) and clover (Meilotus sp.). Weed species occurring include burdock (Arctiumsp.), nightshade (Solanum sp.), dandelion (Taraxicum officinale), ivy and common tansy (Tanacetumvulgare). Some old growth black cottonwoods are scattered along both banks of the Salmon River riparianhabitat, although none were noted within the toes of the planned bridge crossing. At the planned bridgecrossing, it appears that the riparian habitat was previously logged. The non-native box-elder dominateshere.

Treed riparian vegetation contributes to both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and as such has beenaddressed independently in this report for terrestrial habitats and aquatic habitats where applicable. The


3-20

treed riparian vegetation around the Salmon River is limiting in the Project Area as most has beenpreviously lost to agriculture and development. Treed riparian ecosystems have been selected as anecological indicator for valued components as identified by this EA.

Cottonwood / Rose / Snowberry Riparian AssociationA treeline in the Project Footprint, located along the northern boundary of the Salmon River Motel, has beenclassified as Fm01 – Cottonwood/Rose/Snowberry riparian association. This remnant of the Salmon Riverfloodplain is dominated by black cottonwood and Douglas maple. One small area of Red-listed cottonwood– snowberry – rose ecological community was recorded, which is within the footprint of the planned newhighway alignment. The health of this community is compromised by a diversity of weed species andgarbage, reducing its ecological value.

A second undisturbed area of cottonwood – snowberry – rose community was identified in the Project Areabehind Country Camping. It is located just within the Right-of-Way of the planned access road behindCountry Camping. This ecosystem represents a provincially Red-listed ecological community, which isdiscussed further in Section 3.7.3.

Because of its provincial designation, Cottonwood / rose / snowberry riparian association has been selectedas an ecological indicator for valued components as identified by this EA.

RiverThis broad ecosystem unit is represented by the Salmon River in the Project Area. Because of itsimportance for fish, it has been selected as an ecological indicator for valued components as identified bythis EA.

3.7.2 Invasive non-native plants and weeds

Noxious and nuisance weed species recorded during the field surveys are as follows:

burdock (Arctium spp; noxious);Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense;noxious);common chickweed (Stellaria media);common dandelion (Taraxacumofficinale);common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare;noxious);common timothy (Phleum pretense);curled dock (Rumex crispus);field chicory (Chocorium intybus);

great mullein (Verbascum thapsus);hound's tongue (Cynoglossum officinale;noxious);wild mustard (Sinapsis arvensis);knapweed (Centaurea sp.; noxious);nightshade (Solanum sp.);pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens);reed canary grass (Phalarisarundinacea);andyellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus;noxious).


3-21

Non-native, ornamental plant species that were recorded during the field surveys are as follows:

weeping willow (Salix babylonica);Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia); andbox-elder (Acer negundo; Photograph 15, Appendix B).

3.7.3 Rare Ecological Communities and Plants

Rare Ecological CommunitiesThere are four provincially Blue-listed and one Red-listed ecological community with the potential to occurin IDFmw1 (Table 3-5; BC CDC 2015). Two of these were observed within the Project Area during fieldvisits:

1. The Red-listed Black cottonwood / Common snowberry – Roses (Populus trichocarpa /Symphoricarpos albus - Rosa spp); and

2. Blue-listed common cattail (Typha latifolia) marsh.

Hard-stemmed bulrush deep marsh (Schoenoplectus acutus deep marsh) ecological community is not likelyto occur in the Project Area because bulrush was not observed during the field surveys.

The Douglas-fir / Shrubby penstemon – Pinegrass (Pseudotsuga menziesii / Penstemon fruticosus -Calamagrostis rubescens) and Western redcedar - Douglas-fir / Red-osier dogwood (Thuja plicata -Pseudotsuga menziesii / Cornus stolonifera) ecological communities were not observed during fieldsurveys, and are not likely to occur in the Project Area because no coniferous tree were observed duringthe field survey.

The black cottonwood / Common snowberry – Roses (Populus trichocarpa / Symphoricarpos albus - Rosaspp) ecological community identified within the Project Footprint has been has been selected as anecological indicator for the vegetation and ecosystems valued component, as defined by this EA. Specificmitigation measures have been developed to reduce the effect of the Project on this community (Section 5).


3-22

Table 3-5Rare ecological communities with the potential to occur in the Project Area

English Name Scientific Name 1BCList

PotentialHabitat in theProject Area

BroadEcosystem

UnitAssociation

Identified DuringField Visit

Black cottonwood /common snowberry -roses

Populus trichocarpa /Symphoricarpos albus - Rosaspp.

Red HighTreed

RiparianYes – behind

Country Camping

Douglas-fir / shrubbypenstemon -pinegrass

Pseudotsuga menziesii /Penstemon fruticosus -Calamagrostis rubescens

Blue Moderate Mature Forest No

Hard-stemmedbulrush Deep Marsh

Schoenoplectus acutus DeepMarsh

Blue Low Marsh No

Western redcedar -Douglas-fir / red-osierdogwood

Thuja plicata - Pseudotsugamenziesii / Cornus stolonifera Blue Moderate Mature Forest No

Common cattailMarsh

Typha latifolia Marsh

Blue High Marsh

Yes – smallmarsh area near

Salmon RiverRoad

(Wm05/Fm02)

Source: BC CDC 2014Search Criteria: Forest District: Okanagan Shuswap Forest District (DOS); Regional; District: Columbia-Shuswap Regional District(CSRD; Salmon Arm, Sicamous); Biogeoclimatic Zone: IDFmw1.1B.C. Status: Red listed: indigenous species or subspecies (taxa) considered Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened in B.C.; Bluelisted: indigenous taxa considered vulnerable in B.C.


3-23

Rare Plant SpeciesThere are 24 plant species at risk with the potential to occur in Project Area, based on habitat types in theProject Area and geographical search criteria6 (BC CDC 2015). Eight of these are provincially Red-listed,16 are Blue-listed, and one is listed on Schedule 1 of SARA (Table A5 in Appendix A). Of these, eight plantspecies have been previously recorded within 10 km of the Project Area (Table 3-7; iMapBC and BC CDC2015). Most of these species are associated with the margins of Shuswap Lake and all have the potentialto occur in the Project Area, mostly in or around the old oxbow and marsh ecosystems. No rare plantswere identified during field assessments within the Project Area, although some species, such as Mexicanmosquito fern (Azolla mexicana), may lay dormant for several years.

Those rare plants with the highest probability of occurring on site and with more recent sightings in thevicinity of the Project Area have been selected as ecological indicators for the vegetation and ecosystemsvalued component, as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures have been developed to reduce theeffect of the Project on rare plants (Section 5).

6 Search criteria: Forest District: Okanagan Shuswap Forest District (DOS); Regional District: Columbia-ShuswapRegional District (CSRD); Biogeoclimatic Zone: IDF / IDFmw


3-24

Table 3-6Plant species at risk previously recorded within 10 km of the Project Area

CommonName

Latin Name 1BCStatus

2SARAStatus

ReportedLocation (Last

Observed)

3HabitatRequirements

HabitatPotential

within ProjectArea

Americansweet-flag

Acorus americanusBlue -

Salmon Arm(Pre-1985)

Lacustrine, shallowwater

High

Gianthelleborine

Epipactis giganteanBlue 3 Tappen (1998)

Moist streambanks,fens, marshes andswamps

High

Hairy water-clover

Marsilea vestitaRed -

Mouth ofSalmon River

(1995)

Inundated lakemargins High

Howell’squillwort

Isoetes howelliiRed -

Wilcox Creek(1980)

Lake marginsexposed in summer

Low

Mexicanmosquito fern

Azolla mexicanaRed

1-T (Jun2003)

At Salmon Armbridge (2005)

Sloughs and poolsHigh

Moss grass Coleanthus subtilisRed -

Shore ofShuswap Lake

(2005)

Damp muddy lakemargins High

RockyMountainclubrush

Schoenoplectussaximontanus

Red -

Beach inSalmon Arm

(1988)

Shallow wateraround ShuswapLake

Moderate

Thyme-leavedspurge

Chamaesyceserpyllifolia spp.serpyllifolia

Blue -Salmon Arm

foreshore(1997)

Dry, sandy orgravelly sites,receded lakeshores

Moderate

Source: BC CDC (2015)1 B.C. Status: Red listed: indigenous species or subspecies (taxa) considered Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened in B.C.; Bluelisted: indigenous taxa considered vulnerable in B.C.2 Status under Species at Risk Act (SARA): federally designated species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or ofSpecial Concern are listed as Schedule 1. Once listed as Schedule 1, measures to protect and recover listed species areimplemented.3 Source for Habitat Requirements: E-flora BC


3-25

American Sweet FlagAmerican sweet flag (Acorus americanus) is a rhizomatous, emergent wetland plant that is found in openwet still-water areas, such as marshes, quiet edges of lakes, ponds, and swales. It flowers in late spring tomid-summer (Eflora 2015). It was last discovered along the shoreline of Shuswap Lake prior to 1985 (BCCDC 2015). Most likely areas on site include old oxbow and marsh areas.

Giant HelleborineGiant helleborine (Epipactis gigantean) is a perennial herb found on moist stream banks, fens, marshes andswamps in lowland and montane zones (BC CDC 2015, Eflora 2015). The giant helleborine has potential tooccur within the Project Area in both cattail marsh locations, and may occur (although less likely) along thebanks of the Salmon River or in road side ditches. The most recent observation of giant helleborinereported to the BC CDC was in a roadside ditch and seepage bank near Tappen, north of Salmon Arm (BCCDC 2015). Most likely areas on site include ditches, seepages and marsh areas.

Hairy Water CloverHairy water clover (Marsilea vestita) is provincially Red-listed and has limited species information available,likely due to the rarity of the species (BC CDC 2015). The hairy water clover is a semi-terrestrial perennialare found along inundated lake margins in the steppe and montane zones of B.C. Hairy water clover waspreviously recorded outside of the Project Area to the northeast where the Salmon River enters theShuswap Lake, along the inner edge of a silt terrace and bank up to a grassed field (Eflora 2015). Mostlikely areas on site include the old oxbow edges.

Howell’s quillwortHowell’s quillwort (Isoetes howellii) is a perennial semi-terrestrial plant and is provincially Red-listed (BCCDC 2015, Eflora 2015). It occurs in lake margins exposed in summer, in the steppe and montane zones(Eflora 2015). Most likely areas on site include the old oxbow edges.

Mexican Mosquito FernMexican mosquito fern is provincially Red-listed and on Schedule 1 of SARA as it is federally Threatened(BC CDC 2015). It is an aquatic species that prefers cool, slightly acidic, partially shaded, nutrient-poor, stillwaters with low salinity that is rich in phosphorous, iron, and manganese. Most sites in B.C. occur in broadflat rivers (BC MOE 2008; Eflora 2013), sluggish waters, ponds, oxbow lakes, or wetlands. Mexicanmosquito fern was last reported to the BC CDC near the Project Area in 2007 in the impounded waterfeatures near the CPR railway west of the Salmon River, outside of the Project Area (BC CDC 2015).Suitable habitats within the Project Area include cattail marshes and the old oxbow.

Moss grassMoss grass (Coleanthus subtilis) is a small, annual species of grass that is found in damp, muddy lakemargins in the lowland and lower montane zones (Eflora 2015). It is a late flowering species (October;Eflora 2015). It was last surveyed in 2005 where it was found on extensive mud flats on the Shuswap Lakeshore, outside the Project Area (BC CDC 2015). Suitable habitat for this species within the Project Areaincludes the muddy banks of the old oxbow.


3-26

Rocky Mountain clubrushRocky Mountain clubrush (Schoenoplectus saximontanus) is an annual herb that is provincially Red-listed(BC CDC 2015, Eflora 2015). Little information is available on this species and it has only ever beenrecorded on Shuswap and Osoyoos Lakes (Eflora 2015). It occurs in shallow water and has been recordedin B.C. in moist soil, beaches, and mudflats along seasonally receding shorelines of freshwater and alkalineponds and lakes. It was previously recorded in 1988 on the shores of Shuswap Lake (BC CDC 2015).Suitable habitat for this species within the Project Area include the old oxbow, wet ditch lines andimpounded water features found in the marsh beside the old oxbow.

Thyme-leaved spurgeThyme-leaved spurge (Chamaesyce serpyllifolia ssp. serpyllifolia) is a rare prostrate annual that growsalong sandy receded pools, pond and lake margins (Eflora 2015). It was found for the first time in theFraser Valley along a sandy receded lakeshore that was once a gravel pit (Eflora 2015). It was lastrecorded in 1997 on the foreshore of Shuswap Lake on an artificial gravel projection built up for a roadway(BC CDC 2015). Suitable habitat for this species within the Project Area includes the old oxbow sandyshoreline.

3.8 WILDLIFE AND WILDIFE HABITAT

3.8.1 General Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife habitats in the Project Area are delineated consistently with broad ecosystem units (identified insection 3.7.1): urban, cultivated field, marsh / flood, marsh, shallow-water wetland association, matureforest, treed riparian and river. The aquatic and terrestrial habitat features found in the Project Area supportabundant populations of insects and attract a variety of wildlife, including birds, mammals, reptiles andamphibians. Lands northeast of the Project Area are contiguous with the Salmon Arm Bay foreshore area,a locally and provincially important ecosystem complex that is an important stop-over and nesting locationfor migratory waterfowl birds (FLCG 2004). The Salmon Arm Bay foreshore area is outside the zone ofpotential influence of this Project and therefore is not discussed further in this report.

Both large and small wildlife species require habitat connectivity and continuity to support different liferequisites or developmental stages throughout the year. The high degree of existing anthropogenicdevelopment in the Project Area has fragmented habitat availability for some species, and provided isolatedpatches and/or refugia for others. The most intact wildlife movement corridor that serves both large andsmall ranging wildlife is found along the Salmon River, where treed riparian and mature forest ecosystemsare contiguous with upland coniferous forests outside the Project Area (although separated by the highwayin the west and south).

Large diameter, dead or decaying deciduous trees are not common in the Project Area, although those thatdo occur provide nesting, perching, and foraging opportunities for many types of bird species; trees of thisdescription are mainly found along a mature treeline dividing the property boundary between the SalmonRiver Motel and the property to the north. An American kestrel (Falco sparverius) was observed perched


3-27

on a snag in this area and is suspected of nesting (Photograph 16, Appendix B. Much of the Project Areaconsists of open, grassy or low growing vegetation, which provides hunting and foraging opportunities forbirds, large mammals, and small mammals. Riparian habitat in the Project Area offer cover for animalsmoving through the area, and also provide unique forage and browse opportunities for ungulates (deer[Odecoileus spp] or moose [Alces alces]) and black bear (Ursus americanus).

All wildlife species observed, heard, and for which evidence was found (scat, feathers, tracks) in eachbroad ecosystem unit during field visits are listed in Table A6 in Appendix A. Notable wildlife featuresidentified in the Project Area are presented in Figure 3-2 and Table A7 in Appendix A. A description of thepotential wildlife species found in each broad ecosystem unit in the Project Area is presented below.Wildlife species at risk are discussed in Section 3.8.2.

UrbanUrban ecosystems found in the Project Area are clumped, unevenly distributed, and predominantly foundsouth of 1st Ave SW and First Nations Road (Figure 3-1). Urban ecosystems, although highly disturbed,may provide suitable habitat for a number of wildlife species. Commercial and farm buildings andvegetation such as mature deciduous trees (e.g., black cottonwood and ornamentals) growing in theseareas may provide suitable refugia for mice, voles, bats (including the provincially Blue-listed Townsend’sbig-eared bat [Corynorhinus townsendii] or the western harvest mouse [Reithrodontomys megalotis]), andbirds.

Urban ecosystems were not assessed during field surveys.

Cultivated FieldsCultivated fields are mostly found south of 1st Ave SW and along First Nations Road in the Project Area(Figure 3-1). These fields are generally large expanses of land that have been cleared for crop production,or left fallow, and provide opportunities for forage, cover, or hunting opportunities for various wildlife speciesat different times of the year. Those cultivated fields fragmented by urban development may isolate somesmaller ranging populations (e.g., mice and voles), or may provide pockets of refugia from predators for thesame species.

Agricultural habitats provide forage, cover, and burrowing opportunities for mice, shrews, and voles, whichin turn attract predators, such as barn owl (Typo alba) who forage nocturnally in fallow agricultural fields orhayfields for small mammals. After harvest, cultivated fields may provide suitable hunting opportunities forcoyotes (Canis latrans) and birds of prey (e.g., western screech owl [Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei];provincially Red-listed, red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis] and northern harrier [Circus cyaneus]) (BC CDC2015).

As crops mature, deer (Odecoileus spp.) may be found using the fields for cover or forage. Cultivated fieldsmay also provide hunting opportunities for snakes such as the western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophiselegans) that may be hunting small mammals. It is likely that small mammals such as the western harvestmouse (provincially Blue-listed and federally listed as Special Concern; BC CDC 2015), waterfowl such asthe Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchus), deer, and black bear


3-28

(Ursus americanus) visit cultivated fields in search of high energy seed left behind following harvest.Because of the proximity of Shuswap Lake, waterfowl (such as long-billed curlew [Numenius americanus]or Canada goose) may also roost overnight in agricultural fields. American badgers (Taxidea taxus) arefrequently found in human-altered landscapes, such as agricultural fields, where disturbed soils offer easeof digging and suitable depths for burrows.

The following wildlife species and/or species sign were observed in cultivated field habitats during the fieldassessment: American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Eurpean starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American robin(Turdus migratorius), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),Brewers blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris; burrowsnoted in the vacant lot beside Country Camping and under a storage container on the Salmon River Motelproperty).

Marsh / FloodThe largest marsh/flood ecosystem in the Project Area is located between the existing highway and SalmonRiver Road. Although the banks of the marsh are heavily disturbed by the noxious weed, common tansy,there is much evidence of American beaver (Castor canadensis) activity in the area (Photograph 14,Appendix B). A beaver dam is located at the point where the marsh meets the Salmon River, whichcontributes to the entrapment of water in the marsh. This marsh / flood ecosystem, and to a lesser extentthe other smaller marsh / flood areas in the Project Area, provide suitable habitat for small mammals (e.g.,mice, shrews, and voles), amphibians (e.g., western toad), and birds, such as the red-winged black bird(Agelaius phoeniceus), that nest in cattails.

MarshMarshes within the Project Area provide stagnant or slow flowing water that is suitable breeding andforaging habitat for amphibians and western painted turtles (Chrysemys picta bellii). Marsh ecosystemsalso provide forage opportunities for waterfowl such as the Canada goose and mallard; however, it issuspected that ongoing noise disturbance from the highway may result in habitat avoidance by waterfowl.The weedy bank of the small marsh area opposite Salmon River Motel contained some cow parsnip(Heracleum maximum), which is a food source for ungulates and bears.

The reed canary grass/sedge transition wetland association (Wm00 in Figure 3-2) is located north of theSalmon River Motel property, near the old oxbow. It has isolated areas of impounded water that is notconnected to the Shuswap River, but is likely remnant of the River’s floodplain prior to agriculturalcultivation. This ecosystem provides habitat opportunities for migrating waterfowl and terrestrial wildlifespecies. The dryer areas of the grass/sedge wetland are likely to attract small mammals (mice, shrews, andvoles) that will use the area for forage, denning, and cover, including potentially the western harvest mouse.The presence of small mammals may in turn attract predatory wildlife species such as the westernterrestrial garter snake the western screech owl, raptors, or coyotes. Since amphibians tend to avoid wateroccupied by fish (BC CDC 2015), the impounded water in this ecosystem unit may provide suitable egglaying, rearing, and juvenile habitat for amphibians such as the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas; provinciallyBlue-listed and federally listed as Special Concern under SARA; BC CDC 2015).


3-29

The long toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) was found in this ecosystem during amphibiantrapping (Photograph 21, Appendix B). A white-tailed deer fawn (Odocoileus virginianus) was observed inthe long grass with its mother. Other species seen or heard include ring-necked pheasant, tree swallow(Tachycineta bicolor) and European starling.

Shallow-water wetland associationShallow-water ecosystems provide quality habitat for a range of aquatic and semi-aquatic plants andwildlife. Habitat transitions and edges create a structural diversity that helps maintain a rich invertebratefauna, which in turn attracts birds, amphibians, and mammals. The old oxbow ecosystem in the ProjectArea may also provide important feeding habitat for great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and staging areasfor migrating waterfowl (FLCG 2004, BC CDC 2015). The Salmon Arm Bay is known to provide nestinghabitat for a western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis; provincially Red-listed, federally listed as SpecialConcern by COSEWIC7; BC CDC 2015) colony that has been nesting in the area since it was first recordedin 1962 (FLCG 2004). However, it is likely that the old oxbow in the Project Area is too small for thisspecies as they normally prefer larger bodies of water (BC CDC 2015).

Shallow water and emergent vegetation provide suitable breeding and foraging habitat for amphibians andwestern painted turtles (Chrysemys picta bellii; provincially Blue-listed and federally listed as SpecialConcern under SARA; BC CDC 2015). Sandy, clay soils within 150 m or more of the Shuswap Lakeshoreline can provide moderate to high value nesting habitat for the western painted turtle (COSEWIC2006). Amphibians are more likely to breed and live in areas where fish are absent. Isolated ponds suchas the old oxbow are not easily accessible to fish, thus may provide suitable amphibian habitat. Thisshallow-water wetland association can sustain both the aquatic and terrestrial phases of the life cycle ofamphibians and turtles, such as the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), western toad(Anaxyrus boreas), and pacific chorus frog (Pseudocris regilla).

Six wood ducks (Aix sponsa) were flushed from the old oxbow during the reconnaissance field assessment.Two female wood ducks with young ducklings were on the water during the herptile assessment, indicatingthat they breed in the area. Other wildlife seen or heard in the area include American robin, black-billedmagpie (Pica hudsonia), and red-winged blackbird. There was evidence of deer bedding down in the longgrass surrounding the old oxbow. One Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) was heard during auditorysurveys at the north end of the oxbow, and another was observed in August at the southern end of themostly dried-out old oxbow. Three painted turtle (Chrysemys picta Intermountain – Rocky Mountainpopulation) were observed in the south end of the old oxbow during active searches. Three long toedsalamanders were caught from the old oxbow during amphibian trapping and bats were observed foragingover the water after sundown. A nearby barn was checked for roosting bats on July 7, 2015, however nonewere detected.

7 The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is a committee of experts that assessesand designates wildlife species at risk in Canada; available on the Internet at:http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/index_e.cfm


3-30

The old oxbow was assessed for fish presence on July 7, 2015. Five, baited minnow traps were set in thedeepest sections of the water and left for 6 hours. Electrofishing was also conducted. No fish werecaptured. The old oxbow very likely does not represent viable fish habitat for the following reasons:

It contains a dense assortment of algae and aquatic plants to the extent that there was little openwater available for fish during the assessment.It is physically isolated from the Salmon River and would only be connected during extreme floodevents when the entire field would be flooded. Full sun exposure in summer and the absence offlushing water likely results in high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels that arebelow the tolerance of resident fish species.

Mature ForestMature forests provide food, cover, shelter, and refuge for birds, small mammals, large mammals, andherpetile species. Mature forests meet the habitat requirements of numerous avian species because oftheir structural complexity, potential for suitable nesting sites (both cavity and stick-nests), and abundantforage and perching opportunities. Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi),and Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica townsendi) all prefer coniferous trees for nesting. Seeds from conesprovide food for birds such as the pine siskin and pine grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator); in turn, predatorybirds, such as merlin (Falco columbarius) and flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) are attracted and preyupon a variety of songbirds. Large mammals (e.g., deer and moose) may use mature forest ecosystemsthrough all seasons for forage or cover when bedding or travelling (BC CDC 2015). The close associationof mature forest and treed riparian northeast of the Project Area also offers suitable movement corridorsthat provide opportunities for forage and cover for black bear, moose, and coyote.

The only section of mature forest in the Project Area is a small area of disturbed forest located in thenorthwestern corner of the Project Area, which is part of a large area of relatively undisturbed forest withinthe Neskonlith First Nation IR #3. As such, the mature forest ecosystem is the most likely suitablemovement corridor for large mammals (e.g., deer [Odecoileus spp], moose [Alces alces], and bear [Ursusspp.]) moving in and out of the Project Area. Due to access restrictions, this habitat type was only observedfrom the nearby road.

Treed RiparianTreed riparian ecosystems in the Project Area are found along the Salmon River (Figure 1-2), and provideunique cover, nesting, and foraging habitat for wildlife. This forested ecosystem is somewhat continuouswith similar forested ecosystems outside of the Project Area. Although the treed riparian ecosystem isfragmented at the existing bridge crossing, all other forested ecosystems are heavily fragmented bycultivated fields and urban developments (with the exception of mature forestry). As such, the treedriparian area associated with the Salmon River is likely a suitable movement corridor for large mammals(e.g., deer [Odecoileus spp], moose [Alces alces], and bear [Ursus spp.]) moving in and out of the ProjectArea.

American beaver (Castor canadensis) activity was observed in the treed riparian ecosystem along thewestern bank between the existing bridge and the planned bridge (Figure 1-2). Many of the black


3-31

cottonwoods along the river bank had been damaged, as evidenced by tooth gnawing marks at the base ofthe trunks. The activity in this section is most likely associated with the beaver dam located just south ofthe existing bridge, on the western bank. Beavers can have a large effect on riparian vegetation in a shortamount of time, and can be a problematic wildlife species to manage as they can quickly alter water flows(Saldi-Caromile et al. 2004).

The treed riparian ecosystems in the Project Area provide some of the only suitable habitat (the other beingmature forests) for specialist bird species like Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), northern flicker(Colaptes auratus), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and the western screech owl, who all preferold, decaying trees for nesting, perching, and foraging. While a number of old growth cottonwood treeswere noted in this ecosystem, no potential nesting cavities were observed in these trees. The width ofriparian habitat in the Project Area is quite narrow, only 2 to 3 trees wide on average, which may detersome species such as western screech owl from nesting here. Other species observed or heard in thisecosystem during field assessment include yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), northern flicker,starling, song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American robin, and red-winged blackbird (Agelaiusphoeniceus). Woodpecker sign and American beaver sign were also observed.

A number of dead wildlife trees, or snags, with cavities were noted in the treed riparian ecosystem,particularly in along the treeline containing the disturbed cottonwood/rose/snowberry community (Figure 3-1). An American kestrel was observed perched on one such snag and is suspected of nesting in the area.Other species observed or heard in this habitat include Brewers sparrow, American robin (includingjuveniles), Northern flicker, black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), and yellow warbler (Setophagapetechia). This habitat patch provides a limited movement corridor to treed riparian habitat as it terminatesin an urban yard beside the highway.

3.8.2 Rare Wildlife Species

There are 47 wildlife species at risk with the potential to occur in Project Area, based on habitat types in theProject Area and geographical search criteria8 (BC CDC 2015). These include two amphibians, two fish, 13invertebrates, 8 mammals, 18 birds, three reptiles and one turtle species. Of these, 34 are provinciallyBlue-listed, 10 are Red-listed, and 18 are listed on Schedule 1 of SARA (Table A8 in Appendix A). Twelvespecies at risk have been previously recorded within 20 km of the Project Area (Table 3-8; DataBC and BCCDC 2015). Each of these have the potential to occur in the Project Area, although only painted turtle wasencountered (Chrysemys picta bellii) during field assessments.

Based on habitat suitability and field assessments in the Project Area, eight rare wildlife species that havehigh likelihood to occur in the Project Footprint are as follows:

Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana);western toad (Anaxyrus boreas);

8 Search criteria: Forest District: Okanagan Shuswap Forest District (DOS); Regional District: Columbia-ShuswapRegional District; Biogeoclimatic Zone: IDF


3-32

great blue heron (Ardea herodias herodias);western screech owl (Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei);common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor);barn swallow (Hirundo rustica);western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis); andpainted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii Intermountain – Rocky Mountain population).

Table 3-7Wildlife species at risk previously recorded within 20 km of the Project Area

Common Name Latin Name BCStatus1

SARAStatus2


Observed)

Habitat Requirements3 HabitatPotential

withinProject

Area

Amphibians

Great basinspadefoot

Speaintermontana

Blue 1-T (Jun2003)

WallensteenLake, over 10 kmfrom the ProjectArea (1994)

Dry grassland and openwoods with loose soil, nearwater

High

Western toad Anaxyrus boreas Blue 1-SC Salmon Arm Bay(FLCG 2004)

Bog, fen, swamp, marsh,riparian forest, stream, river,pond, mixed forest

High

Birds

American whitepelican

Pelecanuserythrorhynchos

Red - Salmon Arm Bay(FLCG 2004)

Lakes, ponds, river, riparianareas, marsh, wetlands

Moderate

Bobolink Dolichonyxoryzivorus

Blue - Salmon Arm Bay(Eflora 2015)

Pasture, old field, cultivatedfield, wet meadow,grassland

High

Great blue heron Ardea herodiasherodias

Blue - Observed byAssociatedbiologist (Summit2011)

Swamp, marsh, vernalpools, riparian, streams,rivers, cultivated fields

High

Olive-sidedflycatcher

Contopus cooperi Blue 1-T Shuswap area(FLCG 2004)

Conifer forest – mesic, andriparian, moist/wet, lakes,ponds, fen and swamp

Moderate


3-33


SARAStatus2


Observed)


withinProject

Area

Western grebe Aechmophorusoccidentalis

Red - Salmon Arm Lacustrine, shallow water,palustrine herbaceouswetland

Moderate

Fish

Bull trout –interior lineage

Salvelinusconfluentus

Blue - Dolly Vardenobserved inShuswap Lake[1992], possiblymis-identified

Bottom of deep pools incold rivers and largetributary streams, tend toutilize higher gradientstreams than other fishspecies

Low

Chiselmouth Acrocheilusalutaceus

Blue - Shuswap Lake[1958])

Small mountain streams,rivers, and large naturallakes; cool, clean, well-oxygenated water; in rivers,adults prefer large poolsand slow velocity areas.

High

Mammals

Spotted bat Eudermamaculatum

Blue 1-SC(2005)

BastionMountain,Sunnybrae(1995)

Cliffs, dry forest andfarmland

High

Reptiles

Western skink Plestiodonskiltonianus

Blue 1-SC(Jan2005)

Haines Creek(2010)

Dry woodland, creek banks,forest clearings, riparian

Moderate

Painted turtle Chrysemys pictapop.2

Blue 1-SC(2007)

Salmon Arm Bay(FLCG 2004)

Riparian, pond, open water,swamp, marsh

High

Source: BC CDC (2015)1 B.C. Status: Red listed: indigenous species or subspecies (taxa) considered Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened in B.C.; Blue listed:indigenous taxa considered vulnerable in B.C.


3-34


SARAStatus2


Observed)


withinProject

Area

2 Status under Species at Risk Act (SARA): federally designated species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or of SpecialConcern are listed as Schedule 1. Once listed as Schedule 1, measures to protect and recover listed species are implemented.3 Source for Habitat Requirements: E-flora BC

Great Basin SpadefootThe Great Basin spadefoot is a provincially Blue-listed species, federally designated by COSEWIC asThreatened, and is listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Registry9. This species is found in thesouthern regions of B.C. and into the United States. Great Basin spadefoots will migrate up to severalhundred meters between breeding ponds and non-breeding terrestrial habitats (COSEWIC 2007a).Important terrestrial conditions for burrowing include loose, deep soils, such as those found in the reedcanary grass/sedge transition wetland association (Wm00 in Figure 3-1). Great Basin spadefoots may befound in the treed riparian, old oxbow or Wm00 site association where those habitats occur in the ProjectArea. Adult spadefoots begin to emerge from hibernation in early to mid-April (COSEWIC 2007a).

The Great Basin spadefoot has been identified as an ecological indicator to represent the wildlife andwildlife habitat valued component as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures have beendeveloped to reduce the effect of the Project on Great Basin spadefoots (Section 5).

Western ToadThe western toad is provincially Blue-listed and listed federally on Schedule 1 of SARA, and as SpecialConcern by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2012). The western toad will breed in a variety of aquatic habitats suchas lake margins, marshes, burrow pits, and roadside ditches (Government of Canada 2015), and may befound in all ecosystems (although least likely in urban ecosystems) in the Project Area. Breeding begins inearly spring (April – May) with metamorphosis usually complete by August (COSEWIC 2012), and a massemergence of toadlets occurs sometime later in the spring, following breeding. Like most amphibians,western toads exhibit high site fidelity to natal ponds (BC CDC 2015), and the close proximity of the oldoxbow to the Project Footprint may create some interaction between the Project and emergent toadlets.Outside of the breeding season, western toads occupy terrestrial habitats with dense shrub cover thatprovide protection from predators and desiccation (Government of Canada 2015), such as is found in treedriparian ecosystem in the Project Area.

The western toad has been identified as an ecological indicator to represent the wildlife and wildlife habitatvalued component as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures have been developed to reduce theeffect of the Project on western toads (Section 5).

9 The federal Species at Risk Registry is an online database that inventories listed wildlife species in Canada, and canbe found on the Internet at: http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1


3-35

Western grebeThe western grebe is provincially Red-listed and federally ranked as Special Concern by COSEWIC (BCCDC 2015). The most recent record in the BC CDC indicates a breeding colony of 137 adults and 130young (2009 record) that were documented in the Salmon Arm Bay foreshore area by the ShuswapNaturalist Club (BC CDC 2015). Most of the nesting locations were found in reed canary grass ecosystemsnear water deep enough to allow the birds to access the nest submerged under water (BC CDC 2015).Western grebes are known to use marshes, lakes, and bays in B.C. for general living (BC CDC 2015).Given the nesting habitat description provided by the BC CDC and Shuswap Naturalist Club, it is unlikelythat western grebes will be found nesting within the Project Area, but it is likely that they may be presentduring the Project’s site preparation and construction activities. Western grebes are expected to havearrived in the Salmon Arm Bay from their southwestern overwintering sites by late April or early May, andbegin nesting, which usually takes 3-4 weeks (BC CDC 2015).

The western grebe is not considered to be an ecological indicator as defined by this EA because the oldoxbow in the Project Area is not believed to provide suitable nesting habitat, and the species is mobileenough to avoid interactions with Project-related activities. General mitigation measures have beendeveloped to reduce or avoid the effects of the Project on the western grebe (Section 5).

Great Blue HeronThe provincially Blue-listed great blue heron (ssp. herodia) is found east of the coast mountain rangesthroughout B.C. (Government of Canada 2015; BC MELP 1998a). Because of their sensitivity to humanactivities, great blue herons are protected under the provincial Wildlife Act and the federal Migratory BirdsConvention Act (BC MELP 1998a). Nest trees, located on either public or private land, are also protectedyear round (BC MELP 1998a). Herons are colonial nesters and prefer to nest in high trees, from 20 to 50 mabove the ground. Breeding season for great blue herons in the Southern Interior occur within the breedingbird window between April 1 and August 31. No suspected great blue heron nests were identified duringfield surveys.

Important foraging habitats for great blue heron include shallow water in wetland, rivers, and marsh areas(BC MELP 1998a), such as found in the old oxbow and marsh ecosystems in the Project Area. Whilemature forest habitat is present within the Project Area, proximity to the highway likely reduces nestingpotential. A great blue heron was observed flying overhead the Shuswap Lake’s floodplain during aprevious survey conducted by Associated (Summit 2011), but none were observed in 2015. Great blueherons are thought to be year-round residents and confirmed breeders in the Thompson Okanagan Region(BC CDC 2015).

The great blue heron has been identified as an ecological indicator to represent the wildlife and wildlifehabitat valued component as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures have been developed toreduce the effect of the Project on great blue heron.


3-36

Western Screech OwlThe western screech owl is provincially Red-listed and federally ranked as Threatened by COSEWIC, andEndangered by the Species at Risk Registry. The western screech owl is associated with riparian habitatalong rivers, creeks, and lakeshores with mature stands of black cottonwood, birch or trembling aspenbelow 1000 m elevation. Screech owls nest in cavities in the boles of large diameter trees and often usesimilar cavities for roosting.

Western screech owl nesting habitat is found within the Project Area in the treed riparian ecosystem alongSalmon River and in the mature forests ecosystem along the northern part of the Project Area (Figure 1-2).The treed riparian ecosystem within the Project Footprint is not considered to have suitable nesting habitatfor the western screech owl as the trees are too small in diameter (average estimated to be 35-40 cm).Western screech owls are thought to be year-round residents and confirmed breeders in the ThompsonOkanagan Region (BC CDC 2015).

Suitable nesting habitats for the western screech owl are found within the Project Area. The westernscreech owl has been identified as an ecological indicator to represent the wildlife and wildlife habitatvalued component as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures have been developed to reduce theeffect of the Project on western screech owl.

Common NighthawkThe common nighthawk is a provincially Yellow-listed10 species, but is also ranked as Threatened underCOSEWIC and Schedule 1 of SARA. The common nighthawk is a ground nesting bird that uses a varietyof areas, including open habitat devoid of vegetation, such as beaches, logged areas, burned-over areas,forest clearings, rocky outcrops, rock barrens, prairies, peatbogs and pastures. This bird also uses mixedand coniferous forests feeding at night on insects and beetles (Coleoptera spp.). This species can nest incultivated fields, orchards, residential gardens, residential areas and railways. Nesting can begin in Mayand continue through to August (COSEWIC 2007b).

Suitable nesting habitats for the common nighthawk are found in cultivated fields throughout the ProjectArea and within the Project Footprint (Figure 1-2). The common nighthawk has been identified as anecological indicator to represent the wildlife and wildlife habitat valued component as defined by this EA.Specific mitigation measures have been developed to reduce the effect of the Project on commonnighthawk.

Barn swallowThe barn swallow is provincially Blue-listed and considered federally Threatened by COSEWIC (BC CDC2015). The barn swallow is commonly found in open habitats near water, and nest in barns, disusedbuildings, or structures such as bridges.

10 Yellow-listed species are wildlife species that are apparently secure, and not at risk of extinction; Yellow-listedspecies may have subspecies that are Red- or Blue-listed (BC CDC 2015).


3-37

Although barn swallows were not recorded during filed assessments, potential nesting habitat for barnswallows is found within the Project Area in some of the older structures found in urban and cultivated fieldecosystems (Photograph 23, Appendix B).

Suitable nesting habitats for the barn swallow are found throughout the Project Area and within the ProjectFootprint (Figure 1-2). The barn swallow has been identified as an ecological indicator to represent thewildlife and wildlife habitat valued component as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures havebeen developed to reduce the effect of the Project on barn swallow.

Western harvest mouseThe western harvest mouse (provincially Blue-listed, federally listed as Special Concern by COSEWIC andSARA; BC CDC 2015) is a small mammal that uses a variety of ecosystem types throughout its life. Thewestern harvest mouse prefers dense vegetation cover, and is likely to occur in all habitat types in theProject Area. The western harvest mouse is likely active throughout the year in the Project Area.

The western harvest mouse has been identified as an ecological indicator to represent the wildlife andwildlife habitat valued component as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures have beendeveloped to reduce the effect of the Project on the western harvest mouse.

Painted turtleThe painted turtle is a provincially Blue-listed species, federally designated by COSEWIC as SpecialConcern, and is listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Registry. Painted turtles live in slow-moving,shallow waters with soft bottoms, basking sites, and aquatic vegetation, such as streams, marshes,swamps, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs (BC CDC 2015). Home ranges are usually within 150 m of nestingsites. Nesting occurs in soft soils in open areas between late May and early July. Hatchlings usuallyremain in the nest in winter and emerge the following spring. Adults hibernate in substrates under waterover winter (BC CDC 2015).

Suitable habitat for the painted turtle is found within the Project Area in the old oxbow and three paintedturtles were recorded in the southern end of the oxbow during the herptile assessment. The old oxbowprovides very good living habitat for this species but lacks suitable nesting habitat. Suitable nesting habitatfor the painted turtle is likely located within a few hundred metres for the old oxbow. Potential suitablenesting habitat was identified in the adjacent Salmon River Motel parking lot, and across the highway at theroadside edges boarding the cattail marsh. Anecdotal evidence suggests that turtles frequent the Motel carlot in periods of rainfall and have been seen to cross the highway at this location (Lindsey, personalcommunication 2015). The painted turtle has been identified as an ecological indicator to represent thewildlife and wildlife habitat valued component as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures havebeen developed to reduce the effect of the Project on painted turtle.

3.8.3 Wildlife Accident Reporting System

The Wildlife Accident Reporting System (WARS) data provides insight on high-collision areas within theProject Area (Figure 3-3). From 1994 to 2015, two deer, two bear and one moose were reportedly involved


3-38

in collisions within the Project Area (Km 77 to Km 79 of Segment 2077). The Project Footprint extends fromLKI 76.89 to 78.35. Collisions 1 km or more beyond the Project Footprint have not been included in thisassessment.

Kilometer 77, where one deer and one bear collision is recorded, is located near the junction of 1st Ave SW.One deer and one moose were involved in collisions at Km 77.4, which is located approximately at thejunction with Salmon River Road. The single bear collision at Km 78.9 is located at the junction of 10 th AveSW, outside the Project Footprint.

Figure 3-3Wildlife Accident Reporting System records for LKI 77.0 to 78.9.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

77.0 77.4 78.9

Num

bero

fInc

iden

ts

Location of Collision (km)

Moose

Deer

Bear

FINAL REPORT

4-1

4 Potential Environmental Effects4.1 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Direct and indirect effects of the Project on the environment are discussed in the following subsections,considering two phases:

1) Site Preparation and Construction - clearing and grubbing, water diversions, sediment anderosion, noise, dust, garbage, spills, and wetland encroachment.

2) Operations - road maintenance, such as winter snow plowing, winter road salting, road patchwork, and weed management

The Project is a 1.3 km linear upgrade to an existing highway, where there is a relatively high degree ofexisting disturbance from urban, agricultural, and commercial development. Proposed changes to the landas a result of the Project will include resurfacing of already existing paved surfaces, filling and widening ofthe highway over land already disturbed, surfacing of previously unpaved surfaces, and permanent loss ortemporary displacement of aquatic and terrestrial habitats where they intersect, or are adjacent to, the newhighway alignment. The proposed bridge across the Salmon River will be in addition to the existing bridge,which will remain in place to be used as a frontage road. The design of the new bridge will be clear-spanwith minimal effect on instream habitat.

Effects related to the Right-of-Way are considered to be temporary and intermittent, and consist ofvegetation clearing to accommodate construction activities. Effects related to the Project Footprint areconsidered to be permanent, and consist of vegetation removal, land filling, and road surfacing (i.e.,paving), and will last for at least the life of the highway. Potential environmental effects of the Projectconsidered in this assessment assume that Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (BC MOTI2011) will be followed.

Based on the detailed design drawings (100% detailed design) reviewed by Associated, the total affectedarea by the Project (i.e., Project Footprint and Right-of-Way) encompasses approximately 17.1 ha11 of land,including the area considered highway Right-of-Way. Of the total 17.1 ha, 4.6 ha (27% of the Project Area)of the Project will occur on already existing road surfaces, and as such, no changes to the current state areexpected as a result of this portion of the Project. Only 0.5 ha (including Right-of-Way and Footprint) willoccur on relatively undisturbed land, of which just 0.2% of the Project Area will be permanently lost to theProject Footprint (Table 4-1). The greatest component of the Project is to occur on existing disturbed land(16.6 ha representing roads, urban, cultivated fields and other heavily disturbed ecosystems).

Surface water and rare ecosystems affected by the Project are presented in Figure 4-1. Potential effects oneach element of the baseline environment, including broad ecosystem units, are discussed and quantifiedin separate sections below.

11 Total area represents 10.5 ha of Project footprint and 6.6 ha of Right-of-Way.



Table 4-1Total area affected by the Project and proportion of temporary and permanent disturbance in

Project Area

Project Strata Total AreaAffected (ha)

Proportion of TemporaryDisturbance in Project Area

(Right-of-Way; %)

Proportion of PermanentDisturbance in

Project Area (ProjectFootprint; %)

Project Footprint 10.5 - 9.9

Right-of-way 6.6 6.6 -

Area affected planned onexisting road surface*

4.6 1.5 7.1

New development onexisting disturbance**

16.6 5.9 9.6

New development onundisturbed land***

0.5 0.2 0.2

Hectares = ha, percent = %.* Existing road surface is calculated independently of other table rows; therefore proportions should not be sum-totaled.** Existing disturbance = heavily disturbed ecosystems including urban, road surface, cultivated fields, marsh/food, marsh, and oneCottonwood/Rose/Snowberry riparian association site.*** New disturbance = partially disturbed ecosystems including river, treed riparian, shallow-water wetland, mature forest and oneCottonwood/Rose/Snowberry riparian association site.

Valued components that have potential to be directly or indirectly affected by the Project include: water quality (surface and ground water); fish and fish habitat (including aquatic and riparian habitats); vegetation and ecosystems, including species at risk; and wildlife and wildlife habitats, including species at risk.

The Project has the potential to affect a number of ecological indicators (ecological features, rare ecologicalcommunities, or species) considered valued components (VCs; Table 4-2). The most notable of these,where offsetting measures will be required, include:

shallow-water wetland association (old oxbow); treed riparian habitat; and painted turtle living and nesting habitat.



Table 4-2Ecological indicators selected for the Salmon Arm four-laning upgrade

ValuedComponent

Ecological Value Ecological Indicator Area of Potential Occurrence in the Project Area

Water Quality Surface waterquality

Water clarity / turbidity Salmon River

Fish and FishHabitat

Ecologicalfeaturescontributing to fishhabitat

Treed riparian Vegetated ecosystems along the Salmon River

Salmon River Salmon River mainstem below the high water markrepresents suitable fish habitat for rearing andmigration

Vegetation andEcosystems

Rare ecosystems Shallow-water wetland Old oxbow 120 m west of Salmon River

Treed riparian Vegetated ecosystems along the Salmon River

Cottonwood /Rose /Snowberry

Red-listed habitat north of Country Camping

Marsh/Flood Wm05/Fm02 near existing bridge

Salmon River Salmon River

Rare plants Mexican mosquito fern Slow moving, or still waters

Hairy water clover Slow moving, or still waters

Giant helleborine Wetter riparian ecosystems

Moss grass Damp muddy old oxbow margins

Wildlife andWildlife Habitat

Wildlifemovement, habitatconnectivity

Treed riparian Along banks of Salmon River

Rare wildlife Great Basin spadefoot Terrestrial and aquatic environments, loose sandysoils, reed canary grass/sedge wetland

Western toad Terrestrial and aquatic environments, hibernate inloose sandy soils

Great blue heron Nest high in canopies of mature trees; found fishingalong foreshore and wetlands

Common nighthawk Nest on the ground in open, agricultural or sparselyvegetated areas

Western harvestmouse

Most ecosystems in the Project Area; tend to occurin fields, meadows, agricultural areas, denselyvegetated sites

4 - Potential Environmental Effects

4-5

ValuedComponent

Ecological Value Ecological Indicator Area of Potential Occurrence in the Project Area

Barn swallow Commonly found in open habitats near water, andnest in barns, disused buildings, or structures suchas bridges

Western screech owl Associated with riparian habitat along rivers, creeks,and lakeshores with mature stands of blackcottonwood, birch or trembling aspen

Painted turtle Old oxbow and vicinity of Salmon River Motel

Source: BC CDC 2015, Summit 2011, Summit 2013b.

Specific environmental effects on the Project Area may include:

sedimentation in aquatic habitats;disturbance of aquatic or floodplain habitats;loss of aquatic or terrestrial riparian habitat, both temporary and permanent;surface or groundwater contamination from onsite spills resulting in deleterious effects on fishhabitat;temporary and permanent loss of vegetation as a result of clearing and disturbance;introduction or spread of invasive plant species;reduced vegetative and wildlife habitat diversity, availability and quality;fragmentation of natural habitat;sensory disturbance to wildlife during important seasons for some species;wildlife habitat avoidance or wildlife habitat abandonment; anddirect wildlife mortality on the highway.

Mitigation measures to avoid or reduce effects on valued components are discussed in Section 5,specifically, and general measures are provided to avoid or reduce effects on all other environmentalcomponents not identified as VCs in the Project Area.



4.2 CLIMATE AND BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONE

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONConstruction of the Project will likely generate some fugitive dust and increased vehicle emissions from theheavy machinery used onsite. However, these effects will be localized to the Project Area, short-term, andhave minimal effect on the local air quality and climate. Any potential effects can be mitigated through theimplementation of general construction mitigation measures (Section 5), and through the development andimplementation of a site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

OPERATIONThe Project is intended to accommodate a future increase in traffic volumes along the highway, which willaccompany an increase in vehicle emissions during peak travel season. The result of this increased trafficvolume is not expected to have a significant effect on air quality and climate. Given the existing high trafficvolume on the highway and new technology for reducing missions in vehicles, this increase is not likely tobe significant.

Climate and biogeoclimatic conditions were not considered to be valued components as defined for this EA,and as such, general mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the effect of the Project onthis environmental value.

4.3 SOILS AND TERRAIN

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONThe Project occurs on relatively flat, level terrain, and other than land filling activities around the overpassand new bridge, there are no residual effects anticipated in the Project Area on soils and terrain. Soft soilsin the Project Footprint will be built up with fill, resulting in a higher elevation highway. Clearing, grubbingand stripping of vegetation may cause soil erosion and increase the risk of sedimentation into ShuswapRiver. Erosion and sedimentation concerns are considered temporary and can be mitigated with theimplementation of erosion and sediment control measures that will be a part of a CEMP to minimize effectsduring site preparation and construction.

OPERATIONThe slightly elevated terrain along the new highway will result in a lower risk of flooding during roadoperation. No other effects on soils or terrain are expected as a result of the Project.

Soils and terrain were not considered to be valued components as defined for this EA, and as such, generalmitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the effect of the Project on this environmentalvalue.


4-7

4.4 LOCAL AND REGIONAL LANDUSE

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONTemporary disruption to local and regional land is to be expected during the site preparation andconstruction phase of the Project. The highway is the primary corridor for the transportation of goods, andthe primary travel route for people travelling through southwestern B.C. Construction activities will result inslowed traffic moving through the Project Area, disturbance to local residences, and may also result in areduction in commercial visitation by consumers when access and frontage roads are being built.

The long-term effect of the road upgrades will be the transfer of land from local landowners and the city ofSalmon Arm to MOTI to provide the necessary land area for the upgrades and Right-of-Way.

Temporary construction effects on land use include the detaining of vehicle traffic along the highway andtemporary impediments to access roads and pullouts. In addition, river navigation during bridgeconstruction will be temporarily impeded or interrupted. Potential effects can be mitigated through thedevelopment and implementation of a Traffic Control Plan, Safety Plan, and integration of any concernsraised through community consultation.

OPERATIONUse and maintenance of the highway will be consistent with current use and maintenance. The purpose ofthe upgrades and widening is to improve safety, access to commercial and residential properties, and trafficflow in the area as well as accommodate future increases in traffic. As such, the Project is expected tohave a net positive benefit on local and regional land use (Province of British Columbia 2015).

Local and regional land use were not considered to be valued components as defined for this EA, and assuch, general mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the effect of the Project on thisenvironmental value.

4.5 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONThe construction of a new clear-span bridge across the Salmon River will result in an effect on the aquaticup to and riparian habitat surrounding the River (Section 4.7; Table 4-3; Figure 4-1). Construction works inand around the old oxbow will also affect this surface water feature, 19% of which will be permanently lostto the development (Section 4.8; Table 4-4). Construction in and around surface waters has the potential togenerate sediment in the waterways thereby reducing water quality. This potential effect is consideredtemporary and can be avoided or mitigated with the implementation of erosion and sediment controlmeasures as outlined in Section 5. These measures should be outlined in detail in the ConstructionEnvironmental Management Plan (CEMP) to minimize effects during site preparation and construction.Specific mitigation measures on sediment and erosion control are presented in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and5.1.3.



A number of drainage ditches and culverts on these ditches will be moved during construction, resulting in atemporary disturbance to these habitats only.

Refueling, spills or accidents associated with machinery working in river beds or adjacent to surface waterhave the potential to pollute surface water resources. The risk, degree and duration of these effects will beavoided or reduced if suitable construction mitigation measures (Section 5) and environmental protectionmeasures developed in the CEMP are implemented.

OPERATIONOperational effects on surface water resources within the Project Area are largely restricted to seasonalmaintenance. Winter snow plowing and application of salt, sands or gravels can increase sedimentationand temporarily reduce surface water quality in the Salmon River. Patching and sealing of pavementsurfaces may result in runoff of chemical compounds into surface water or leaching into groundwaterresources. Since this is the current practice, none of these activities are expected to change the effect onsurface water resources in the Project Area.

Vehicle accidents and resulting spills and leaks have the potential to affect water quality within the ProjectArea and downstream. The highway upgrades are designed to improve traffic safety, and thus reduce thefrequency or magnitude of accidents, reducing the likelihood of environmental effects.

Surface water resources were selected as ecological indicators representing the water quality valuedcomponent as defined for this EA, and as such, specific mitigation measures have been recommended toreduce the effect of the Project on this environmental value.


4-9

4.6 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONThere is one water well within the Project Footprint (Well Tag No. 82895; Table 3-1; Figure 1-2), locatedeast of the existing bridge. As it is located beside the existing highway that will serve as a frontage roadonce the new highway is constructed, it may not be affected by the Project. However, in the event that itwill be affected, mitigation measures are provided in Section 5.1.2 to protect well water quality and quantity.

No hydrogeological study was completed for this project and as such, potential effects on groundwaterresources have been inferred based on the local topography and orientation of surface water resources inthe area. Since no significant excavation is anticipated as part of construction, we anticipate that effects togroundwater resources can be mitigated through the implementation of standard environmental bestpractices for highway activities (BC MOTI 2011). No significant effects are anticipated on groundwaterresources as a result of the construction phase as long as the construction mitigation measures (Section 5)and site-specific CEMP is implemented throughout the process.

OPERATIONThe operation phase of the Project is not expected to have any effect on the groundwater resources in theProject Area, assuming that the Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (BC MOTI 2011) isfollowed.

Ground water resources were not considered to be valued components as defined for this EA, and as such,general mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the effect of the Project on thisenvironmental value.

4.7 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONThe Project will result in effects on fish habitat because the planned new bridge across the Salmon Riverwill require minor in-stream works to armour the bridge abutments and the removal of 1,215 m 2 of riparianhabitat within the new bridge footprint (Table 4-3; Figure 4-1). The planned area for bridge armouring isapproximately 247 m2 of temporary disturbance during installation. Effects on fish are expected to beminimal as a clear span bridge will be constructed and a DFO Review will not be required (DFO 2015).

Effects on fish habitat (aquatic and riparian) are categorized as temporary or permanent. Temporaryeffects involve short-term displacement of habitat such that it is temporarily unavailable to contribute to theproductivity of the Salmon River. Permanent effects involve permanent or long-term displacement ofhabitat such that it is unavailable to contribute to the future productivity of the Salmon River.

Table 4-3Summary of expected effects on fish habitat

Fish Habitat

Area affected by ProjectPolygon

ID

HabitatValue

RankingImpact Description Habitat Description

Total(m2)

Temporary(m2)

Permanent(m2)

Salmon RiverAquatic Habitat 247 247 0 River (R) Low

Temporary effect on channelbank from armouring of newbridge abutments

Low to moderate valuejuvenile rearing. Low valuespawning and over-wintering.

Salmon RiverRiparianHabitat

1,380 165 1,215Treed

Riparian(RiT)

Moderate-High

Loss of riparian vegetationunder bridge, highwayfootprint and Right-of-Way

Narrow band of maturedeciduous riparian vegetation


4-11

The Project is not expected to have an effect on rare fish species that have potential to occur in the ProjectArea. The habitat that does occur in the Project Area for rare fish species is only suitable as juvenilerearing habitat and is low to moderate-value in that respect (Table 3-3). Furthermore, the likelihood of rarefish occurring in the section of channel affected by the Project is very low. No suitable spawning or othercritical fish habitat features are located within the Project Area. All potential effects can be mitigated if therecommended measures proposed in Section 5 are followed during site preparation and construction.

Effects on Aquatic EcosystemsAquatic habitat in the Salmon River will experience temporary effects from the construction of the newbridge. The bridge will be clear-span and will not constrict the channel at the crossing site; however, someinstream work will be required to armour the bank to protect the bridge abutments from scour during floodevents. This armouring will result in a change in substrates from sand and silt to angular rip rap beneaththe bridge and along the immediate upstream and downstream approaches. The total area that will bearmoured will be approximately 247 m2.

Effects on Riparian EcosystemsSite preparation and construction of the bridge crossing will permanently affect some riparian areasassociated with the Salmon River. The affected riparian areas will be those located beneath the bridge,highway footprint, and Right-of-Way approach to the Salmon River from the northwest and southeast sides.Approximately 1,215 m2 of functional riparian habitat along the Salmon River will be permanently affectedby the Project Footprint, with 165 m2 temporarily disturbed by the Right-of-Way.

General mitigation measures and the development of a CEMP that specifically addresses aquatic andriparian ecosystems will help to avoid, minimize, or offset the potential effects of the site preparation andconstruction phase of the Project on fish and fish habitat. Those recommendations are provided in Section5.1.3. Table 4-3 summarizes the effects on fish habitat resulting from the Project.

OPERATIONPotential effects on fish habitat during the operation phase are primarily related to water quality, and will belimited to sites where there is potential for surface flow to reach the Salmon River.

In the short-term, following construction, there will be increased erosion potential on the new fill slopes untilvegetation is re-established. Long-term water quality effects associated with highway runoff (i.e. sediment,road salt, abrasives (e.g., sand and gravel), chemical run-off during road patching or upgrades, and vehiclefluids) may have some influence on water quality. Long-term water quality impacts will persist throughoutthe lifetime of the highway. The existing bridge will remain in place and will serve as a frontage road andthus will likely have less traffic than its current use. The addition of a second bridge will marginally increasewater quality effects above existing conditions. Improvements to storm sewer systems made duringconstruction may also reduce the quantity of road-related runoff material entering the Salmon River.



4.8 VEGETATION AND ECOSYSTEMS

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONThe greatest disturbance on vegetation and ecosystems as a result of the Project will occur during the sitepreparation and construction phase. Site preparation and construction of the Project Footprint will result inpermanent alteration of approximately 7.6 ha of land to new road surface (2.9 ha of the total 10.5 haFootprint is existing road surface; Table 4-4). The Project will include the temporary disturbance of up toan additional 6.6 ha of land to accommodate construction activities in the Right-of-Way (total disturbed areais approximately 17.1 ha; Table 4-1).

The Project Footprint is expected to remove a small area of marsh ecosystem (including reed canarygrass/sedge transition wetland association) adjacent to the highway (0.3 ha or 29% of marsh ecosystemfound in the Project Area; Figure 4-1). This represents some very small areas of marsh and wet grasslandhabitat containing minimum cattails and a high abundance of noxious and invasive plant species, and as aresult are not considered to be listed communities.

Treed riparian habitat affected by the Project consists of a narrow strip of riparian habitat along the SalmonRiver for bridge construction. Although ecologically important habitat, this section of treed riparianecosystem appears to have been previously logged, lacks mature black cottonwoods, and is dominated bythe introduced box-elder. Approximately 0.1 ha representing 2% of this ecosystem in the Project Area willbe lost to the Footprint. Any loss or alteration of riparian habitat should be mitigated for, as outlined inSection 5.

Less than 0.1 ha, or 19% of the old oxbow is located within the Footprint of the Project and will be lost tothe development. The remainder of the lake may be indirectly affected by site preparation and construction.This is considered a unique habitat in the Project Area and mitigation measures are provided in Section 5 tooffset this loss.

Table 4-4 summarizes the areas and proportions of each broad ecosystem unit and association expected tobe affected within the Project Footprint.

Rare EcosystemsThe only rare ecosystem within the Project Footprint is the Red-listed black cottonwood / Commonsnowberry – Roses (Populus trichocarpa / Symphoricarpos albus - Rosa spp) community encroaching onthe access road Right-of-Way behind Country Camping (0.02 ha or 156 m2). It is expected that effects onthis Red-listed habitat can be mitigated by avoidance during site preparation and construction (Section 5).The cottonwood/rose/snowberry riparian association in Table 4-4 represents the highly disturbed treeline inthe centre of the Project Area (Figure 3-1) and is not considered a listed habitat.

The Blue-listed common cattail (Typha latifolia) marsh ecosystem in the Project Area is located outside theProject Footprint but inside the Right-of-Way (Figure 4-1). It is expected that effects on this Blue-listedhabitat can be mitigated by avoidance during site preparation and construction (Section 5).


4-13

Table 4-4Broad ecosystem units and associations affected by the Project Footprint.

Broad Ecosystem Unit/ Association

Ecosystem Code1 Project Area(ha)

Footprint Area(ha)

Amount ofFootprint in

Project Area (%)

Urban Ur 28.3 0.7 3

Road surface Rz 7.6 2.9 39

Cultivated field Cf 55.1 5.9 11

Marsh / Flood Wm/Fm 0.3 <0.1 3

Marsh Wm 1.4 0.4 29

Shallow-water wetland Ww 0.1 <0.1 19

Mature forest Mf 5.5 <0.1 <0.1

Treed riparian* Rt 5.7 0.1 2

Cottonwood/ Rose/Snowberry riparian*

Fm 0.7 0.2 35

River Rv 1.5 <0.1 4

Total Area 106.2 10.5 9.9%

1Figure 1-2Note: ha = hectare; % = percent*Riparian ecosystems have been assessed for both aquatic and terrestrial environments in this report.

Rare Plant SpeciesPlant species at risk in the Project Footprint (Table 3-5) may be directly or indirectly affected by the Project.Although rare plants were not found during field surveys, some species, such as Mexican mosquito fern,may be dormant for several years until favourable conditions occur (Martin 1998 in BC CDC 2015). Rareplants within the Project Footprint may be directly affected by site preparation and construction. Thosespecies found in aquatic environments are also susceptible to indirect effects such as sediment and erosiondeposition that may originate from the Project. Potential effects on rare plants can be reduced following theimplementation of recommended mitigation measures (Section 5).



OPERATIONRoads can have a narrow zone of potential effects on the adjacent habitat by increasing temperatures,evapotranspiration, and relative humidity (Forman et al., 2003). Studies have found that roads with amaintained Right-of-Way of approximately 20 to 25 m had some impact on these variables withinapproximately 8 m of the Right-of-Way into the adjacent habitats (Forman et al. 2003). Assuming similarconditions, these changes will not be significant enough to detect a noticeable change in local ecologybeyond effects resulting from the existing road operation.

Regular highway maintenance has the potential to disturb vegetation adjacent to the highway, particularlyaround the Salmon River and old oxbow. Routine maintenance such as Right-of-Way mowing will directlyaffect vegetation in the Right-of-Way by reducing vegetation height. Winter road salting and plowing mayindirectly affect vegetation growth and health, or be transported into surface waters, particularly at thebridge crossing and proximal to the old oxbow. Operation phase effects on vegetation and ecosystems areanticipated to be minimal if standard environmental best practices (BC MOTI 2011) are implemented andthe recommended mitigation measures are followed.

4.9 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTIONEffects on wildlife and wildlife habitat during site preparation and construction may include:

sensory disturbance leading to habitat avoidance or abandonment;habitat loss as a result of vegetation clearing and construction;direct or indirect mortalities during or as a result of earthworks; anddestruction or disturbance to critical habitat features (e.g., nests, cover).

Noise, fugitive dust, vibrations from equipment, and increased human activity may cause changes in wildlifemovement patterns, alteration in behaviour, avoidance, or habitat abandonment by all species guildsidentified in the Project Area. Vegetation removal during site preparation and construction will result in thepermanent or temporary loss of usable habitat for some bird species, small mammals, herpetofauna, andselected invertebrate species. Earthworks required for the site preparation and construction phase mayinadvertently cause direct or indirect mortalities to some individuals of bird (e.g., nesting birds), smallmammals, herpetofauna (e.g. chorus frog and painted turtle), and invertebrate wildlife guilds. Inadvertentdestruction or disturbance to bird nests, stop-over migratory bird habitat, small mammal burrows, andsuitable herpetofauna breeding or overwintering habitat may be a result of the site preparation andconstruction phase.

Areas that may be affected by some or all of these disturbances include the old oxbow, reed canarygrass/sedge wetland, treed riparian, and cultivated field (Figure 1-2). Site preparation and construction inall ecosystems within the Project Footprint will remove habitat features suitable for small mammals;however, there is an abundance of similarly suitable habitat for small mammals in lands adjacent to theProject. The treed riparian and shallow-water wetland habitats are considered limiting or unique in thearea; thus measures to offset effects on these ecosystems are provided in Section 5.


4-15

General mitigation measures and the development of a CEMP will help to avoid, minimize, or offset thepotential effects of the site preparation and construction phase are provided in Section 5. Specificmitigation measures have been developed for ecological indicators that contribute to wildlife habitatconsidered to be valued components, as defined by this EA.

Rare Wildlife SpeciesThe Great Basin spadefoot and western toad require aquatic habitats for general living, breeding, andrearing of young (BC CDC 2015). Both species require soft, deep, sandy soils for hibernation, while theyare also aquatic obligates that require still or slow moving waters for egg laying. Although not found duringthe field assessments, site preparation and construction activities will remove vegetation and aquaticenvironments that may provide suitable egg laying or general living habitat requisites for both species. It isnot anticipated that suitable hibernation habitat will be lost under the Project Footprint.

Suitable living and potential nesting habitat for the painted turtle will be affected by the Project. Specificoffsetting measures to protect this species and offset the habitat on which it depends is provided in Section5.

Suitable foraging habitat (e.g. old oxbow and Salmon River) for the great blue heron and waterfowl will beaffected by the Project, however, no suitable nesting sites were identified within the Project Footprint.Similarly, foraging habitat for the western screech owl (e.g. riparian ecosystem) will be affected within theProject Footprint; however, no effect on nesting habitat for this species is expected as most of the treedhabitats in the Project Footprint are proximal to existing roads, are dominated by younger trees, and arealready subject to disturbance.

Barn swallow and common nighthawk have potential to occur in the more open habitats of the ProjectFootprint (e.g. cultivated fields and barn structures). Both species may be found nesting within the ProjectFootprint and may be directly affected by site preparation and construction. Western harvest mouse mayoccur throughout the Project Footprint and may also directly affected by site preparation and construction.

Several wildlife species are considered ecological indicators representing the valued component wildlifeand wildlife habitat, as defined by this EA. Specific mitigation measures have been developed to reduce oravoid the effect of the Project on these wildlife species at risk (Section 5).

OPERATIONThe widening of the highway from a two lane to a four lane configuration may affect wildlife movement andcontribute to further fragmentation of the available habitats, change wildlife behaviour, and change the useof habitat and movement of animals between critical water and forest resources.

The mature forests and treed riparian habitat in the Project Area are mostly contiguous with relativelyundisturbed stands in the Shuswap Lake Bay area and in IR#3, providing movement corridors forungulates, large and small mammals, and herpetile species. The addition of new access and frontageroads along the new highway may result in a greater risk of collision with wildlife crossing the highway. The



Wildlife Accident Reporting System only reported two collisions around the junction with Salmon River Roadfrom 1994 to 2015 (1 deer and 1 moose; Section 3.8.3), where most of the new infrastructure is planned,thus the risk of collision under current conditions is low. The Project is not expected to increase collisionrisk along this section as access to the new raised highway will be limited by the underpass design.

The construction of a new bridge across the Salmon River will result in additional fragmentation of riparianhabitat along the river. This is mitigated for in Section 5.1.5. Only 0.1 ha of a narrow section of riparianhabitat will be affected by the Project, which will be offset elsewhere in the Project Area. High-valuedeciduous, riparian, and wetland habitats exist outside of the Project Area, and so there is not expected tobe significant losses in wildlife habitat availability in the immediate area for species that use theseecosystem types.

The operation the new highway proximal to the old oxbow has the potential to result in direct mortality ofpainted turtle as the highway will separate turtle living habitat from potential nesting habitat. Mitigationmeasures to offset the loss of 19% of the existing old oxbow and isolation from nesting habitat are providedSection 5.1.5.

Routine road maintenance such as brushing, mowing, or weed control all have the potential to disturbwildlife, but may have a greater effect on smaller wildlife such as birds, their nests, small mammals, andhabitat suitable for amphibians. Application of road salt and other seasonal maintenance activities canaffect surface water quality and aquatic habitat quality. Salinity increases in aquatic habitats can reduce thesuccess of embryo, hatchling, and larval survivorship and development in amphibians (Smith et al. 2007;Karraker et al. 2008). Although routine highway maintenance is currently conducted on the existinghighway, an additional bridge across the Salmon River and the new alignment proximal to the old oxbowmay increase this risk from the status quo. Mitigation measures during road maintenance will help to avoidor minimize potential effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat during operation phase (Section 5).

FINAL REPORT

5-1

5 Mitigation Measures and Recommendations

5.1 DESIGN PHASE

The engineers considered “mitigation by avoidance” when designing the Project, as follows:

the new bridge will be clear-span, limiting instream effects to rip rap installation; the new bridge will be located on a curve of the Salmon River which will minimize the length of

river and amount of riparian habitat affected; and a proposed access/frontage road was redesigned to minimize effects on the old oxbow.

5.2 SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION

We recognize that construction activities will follow the recommendations set out in the 2012 StandardSpecifications for Highway Construction, Section 165: Protection of the Environment (BC MOTI 2011).Taking those measures into account, the following preliminary mitigation measures are recommended toassist MOTI in planning and executing the proposed improvements to the highway while protectingsensitive ecological components.

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) that follows the general and specific mitigationsmeasures outlined below will be prepared by the contractor. A Section 9 Water Act approval will berequired prior to construction commencement for works around the Salmon River for construction of thenew bridge. A request for review will not be issued to Fisheries and Oceans Canada for works taking placeover the Salmon River, as per the Fisheries Act. A general wildlife permit for turtles, amphibians, or otherwildlife encountered at the time of construction will be required to protect wildlife and their habitat under theWildlife Act.

5.2.1 General Mitigation Measures

Prepare a CEMP (responsibility of the contractor) that considers all general and site specificmitigation measures, including seasonal time sensitivities (e.g., breeding bird window, amphibiandispersal), for water quality, fish and fish habitat, vegetation and ecosystems (including species atrisk), and wildlife and wildlife habitat (including species at risk).

Retain a qualified Environmental Monitor (EM) to monitor construction activity with the authority tostop construction if activities are observed that contravene mitigation recommendations or have thepotential to harm the natural environment. The EM will implement the protection measures detailedin the CEMP, according to Section 165 of the Standard Specifications for Highway Construction(BC MOTI 2011).



Employ the EM to be present during site preparation and construction activities around the SalmonRiver and old oxbow to monitor water quality, ensure guidelines to protect aquatic life are followed,and ensure that contractors comply with all relevant Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Follow the “Develop with Care 2014: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural LandDevelopments in British Columbia” (BC MOE 2014a) for maintaining environmental values duringdevelopment.

Consider air quality concerns for local residents during construction, and control deposition onlands adjacent to construction activities. As such, the CEMP should follow the “Develop with Care2014: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Developments in British Columbia” (BCMOE 2014a) to help guide contractors and the onsite EM in managing fugitive dust and emissions.

Complete a site reconnaissance prior to land clearing with the EM, MOTI and contractor personnelto determine the extent and sequencing of site clearing activities. The bounds of the Project Right-of-Way to be cleared should be clearly flagged with surveyors tape or by the installation of silt (orsnow) fencing around the marsh ecosystems, old oxbow, and along the grass/sedge wetland toavoid inadvertent construction encroachment beyond these areas does not occur. Salvages ofwildlife must be completed prior to clearing and grubbing activities in critical areas.

Consider local and regional land use during the site preparation and construction phases. Highwayconstruction typically occurs during snow-free months, which often coincide with higher trafficvolumes. Schedules for construction should be considerate of these higher volumes, as much as isreasonable, and strategies to maintain local and regional traffic flow and river navigation should bedeveloped and implemented via the CEMP. Access to businesses that will be affected by theProject should be maintained and clearly identified to promote local traffic flow and driver safety.

Maintain navigation during in-stream works in the Salmon River. Appropriate notification of worksshould be provided to the public prior to in-stream works, and signage and buoys should bemaintained along the river to ensure boater safety during works.

5.2.2 Water Resources

The following mitigation measures are provided to protect water resources in the Project Area, with theintent that site-specific measures will be developed for the CEMP.

Follow the Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (BC MOTI 2011) to mitigate potentialeffects on the water wells in the Project Area. There is one water well within the Project Footprint(Well Tag No. 82895; Figure 1-2), located east of the existing bridge. As it is located beside theexisting highway that will serve as a frontage road once the new highway is constructed, it may notbe affected by the Project. However, it is recommended that a water well assessment is conductedin order to determine the pre-existing water quantity and quality prior to construction. The wellhead should be clearly identified and protected throughout the site preparation and construction

5 - Mitigation Measures and Recommendations

5-3

phases. If it is expected that it will be affected by construction it may need to be closed and drilledelsewhere.

Develop a Spill Contingency Plan as part of the CEMP to deal with any spill of equipment fuel, oillubricants, or hydraulic fluids should be developed in accordance with the B.C. guidelines(Government of British Columbia 2015) and BMPs for industrial emergency response contingencyplans. The expectation is that all equipment will be stocked with spill response kits. No wash downof trucks will occur onsite, except for minor work in fuelling/machine areas as designated.

Limit fueling of machinery, trucks, and other equipment (e.g., generators and tools) to areas locatedat least 30 meters from existing water wells, marsh ecosystems, the old oxbow and Salmon River,or any other drainage ditch or water feature in the Project Area. It is recommended that a stagingarea that accommodates fueling and servicing be developed prior to any clearing or grubbing.

Stockpile topsoil and vegetation debris resulting from site preparation and construction, to reusewhen the construction phase is complete. All exposed soil areas will have erosion and sedimentcontrol measures in place for the duration of the project to avoid or minimize dust and sedimenttransport to waterbodies. Stockpiles will be located greater than 30 m from all tributaries andcreeks and covered with geotextile to prevent surface erosion.

Establish erosion control measures in appropriate areas of the Project, specifically to protect theSalmon River, old oxbow and marsh ecosystems that connect to the Salmon River. Ditch check-dams should be installed to trap sediment and slow surface run off. Exact locations will bedetermined by the EM and the site-clearing foreman prior to construction.

Install silt fencing at the edge of construction extents to protect the marsh ecosystems, old oxbowand Salmon River from sediment or erosion concerns. Store additional geotextile silt fencing onsitein the event that it is required elsewhere on the Project. All silt fencing is to be installed in anexcavated 15 cm x 15 cm trench. Posts should be pounded in until the fabric reaches the bottom ofthe trench to ensure isolation and proper sediment and erosion control. Ensure that the base of thesilt fencing is completely buried, and any gaps at the base of the fence are repaired. Maintain acontinuous barrier by overlapping and wrapping the ends of silt fencing to ensure a strong seam.Inspect silt fencing daily during site preparation and construction to ensure that no areas have beencompromised.

Maintain all equipment in good operating condition, to prevent contamination and release ofdeleterious substances into surface water resources. No major equipment servicing will beconducted onsite and equipment being serviced must be undertaken at least 30 m from any surfacewater. Where feasible, the EM will confirm that all deleterious substances (or equipment containingdeleterious substances) are contained in secondary containment (e.g., generators placed inoverflow basins). Pour all concrete and allow it to cure in the absence of surface water so that it isisolated from aquatic environments.



Establish and maintain riparian setbacks as identified by a Qualified Environmental Professionaland schedule site activities to coincide with favorable weather conditions when possible.

5.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat

The following mitigation measures are provided to protect fish and fish habitat in the Project Area, with theintent that site-specific measures that elaborate on the points below will be developed for the CEMP.

Conduct all instream works (below the high water mark) during the period of least risk for theSalmon River. The least risk instream work window for the Salmon River is July 22 – July 31.Some instream construction may be accommodated outside of this window if Project environmentalapprovals allow; however, it should consider the potential for upstream migration of pacific salmon(August to November) and/or the outward migration of salmon fry (April – July). Placement of riprap can be completed in isolation of flowing water behind silt fencing or other isolation measures.

Minimize the duration of instream works to minimize disturbance to fish and aquatic habitats. TheCEMP must provide details, including mechanics and scheduling of channel armouring, appropriateisolation measures, fish salvage, and de-watering, if required. Maintenance of continued flow of theSalmon River through the construction site must be completed. These measures form part of therequirements under the BC Water Act.

Retain areas of riparian vegetation as buffers between construction and in-channel habitatwherever possible. Limit the amount of vegetation removal along the Salmon River, only clearingwhere necessary to accommodate construction activities.

To offset the loss from the Project Footprint (1,215 m2), it is recommended that 2,430 m2 of riparianhabitat will be created or enhanced within the Project Area (offsetting ratio of 2:1). Replace riparianvegetation removed during site preparation and construction to offset habitat loss as per theRiparian Planting Plan in Appendix C. Replant trees and shrubs as soon as possible followingconstruction to stabilize soils and reduce erosion. Outside of riparian areas, revegetate disturbedareas as soon as possible using a native seed mix suitable for the area. On-going erosion controlis recommended until native vegetation planted during the Project has begun to establish (i.e.,natural regeneration of native plant species). It is recommended that monitoring and reporting ofre-vegetation success is undertaken for the first five years after project completion and shouldinclude adaptive management where necessary.

Guidelines to support adequate protection of fish habitat can be found in the Provincial BestPractices for Instream Works (BC MWLAP 2004), the DFO Measures to Avoid Causing Harm toFish and Fish Habitat (DFO 2015), and the Riparian Management Area Guidebook (BC MOF1995). Incorporate these principles into the CEMP where appropriate.

Effects on fish habitat in the Salmon River are considered temporary if offsetting occurs to accountfor the effects (see Appendix C for offsetting loss of riparian habitat). Under the Fisheries Act,


5-5

activities within waterbodies are compelled to result in “no serious harm to fish,” which includes“permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.” We consider effects on aquatic andriparian habitat to be temporary as long as those habitats affected are restored on-site or adjacentto the Project.

5.2.4 Vegetation and Ecosystems

The following mitigation measures are provided to protect vegetation in the Project Area.

Complete a site reconnaissance prior to construction with the EM, MOTI and constructionpersonnel to determine the extent and sequencing of site clearing activities. The Project Footprint,Right-of-Way and key habitat features should be clearly marked with surveyor posts, snow fencing,and/or flagging to avoid encroachment into these areas with equipment or materials. Key wildlifehabitat features include marsh ecosystems (including reed canary grass/sedge transition wetland),old oxbow, the Red-listed ecological community behind Country Camping, marsh/flood(Wm05Fm02) ecosystem by the existing bridge, and the Salmon River riparian area.

Conduct a rare plant surveys prior to construction around the old oxbow. This may be combinedwith wildlife salvage operations which will be required at this location (Section 5.1.5).

Protect the Red-listed Black cottonwood / Common snowberry – Roses (Populus trichocarpa /Symphoricarpos albus - Rosa spp) ecological community which is partially located within theProject Right-of-Way for the access road behind Country Camping. This area should be isolatedfrom site preparation and construction activities by silt fencing to clearly indicate the extent of theProject and identify the area as sensitive to the development.

Retain the maximum amount of treed riparian vegetation around the Salmon River where possible.Strategically remove only those mature trees that are necessary for the safe construction andoperation around the planned new bridge. Identify and protect trees remaining in place, forexample by surrounding them with snow fencing to clearly indicate their retention during theProject. Replace riparian vegetation removed during site preparation and construction to offsethabitat loss as per the Riparian Planting Plan in Appendix C.

Protect the Marsh/Flood ecosystem near the existing bridge (Wm05/Fm02) by moving the multi-usepathway to the side of the existing highway or along Salmon River Road.

Follow recommendations set out in the 2012 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction ,Section 165: Protection of the Environment (BC MOTI 2011). Taking those measures into account,the additional control and mitigation measures regarding weed management are recommended toassist MOTI in planning and executing the proposed improvements to the highway, while protectingsensitive ecological components. Comply with the Weed Management Plan in Appendix D to: 1)reduce the abundance and distribution of weedy plant species, and 2) reduce or avoid the spread



of weedy plant species in the Project Area. The B.C. Weed Control Act states that any noxiousweed species must be controlled by the owner of the land on which it occurs (BC MOA 2011).

Offset the loss of part of the oxbow pond shallow open water wetland by constructing acompensation wetland as per the Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan in Appendix E.

5.2.5 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The following mitigation measures are provided to protect habitats and wildlife using and moving throughthe Project Area.

Amphibians and Reptiles (Great Basin spadefoot, western toad, and painted turtle)A Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan has been prepared to offset the loss of amphibian andturtle habitat in the Project Footprint. Please refer to Appendix E for further details. In addition to this Plan,the following mitigation measures should be considered:

Limit disturbance to old oxbow and reed canary grass/sedge wetland as much as possible duringconstruction.

Isolate wet habitats (old oxbow, reed canary grass/sedge wetland, and any drainage ditchescontaining water) after hibernation to limit movement into these areas the following spring.

Conduct a pre-construction salvage for amphibians and turtles, including species at risk, in anysuitable habitat area where clearing, grubbing, or slope filling is scheduled, to avoid contraveningthe Wildlife Act. Suitable habitat includes ecosystems where amphibians/turtles have beendetected or are suspected, including the old oxbow, reed canary grass/sedge wetland, and anydrainage ditches containing water within the Project Footprint at the time of construction. Theseareas should be isolated from construction activities and wildlife salvage for these and otherspecies that may occur (e.g. chorus frog and long-toed salamander) should be conductedimmediately prior to construction. The optimal time for this would be late august when most of thewater has dried up.

Follow construction BMPs as outlined in Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptile Conservationduring Urban and Rural Land Development (BC MOE 2014b) and Province of British Columbia(2015).

Relocate all drainage features in the dry. If roadside drains contain water at the time ofconstruction, conduct amphibian salvage prior to construction works.

Surveys should target life stages suspected to occur at the time of construction and include surveysfor eggs, tadpoles, larvae, and adults. Individuals found within the construction area should besalvaged and relocated to appropriate habitats outside of the construction zone i.e. shallow-waterwetland at the edge of the Project Area. A salvage and relocation permit under the Wildlife Act will


5-7

be required and all activities must be carried out by a QEP following the BMP’s for amphibian andreptiles salvages (EDI et al. 2013, BC MFLNRO 2014).

Salvage operations should be conducted as close as possible to construction activities and thearea should be isolated from adjacent habitats to prevent re-colonization of the site (EDI et al.2013; BC MFLNRO 2014).

If site-preparation or construction is scheduled between October 1 and April 1 and requires the in-filling or disturbance of the old oxbow, grass/sedge wetland and backwater habitats, isolation of thework area and salvage operations should be completed before hibernation begins for amphibians toprevent contravention of the Wildlife Act and the Species at Risk Act. Surveys should becompleted in collaboration with a qualified biologist knowledgeable in herpetofauna behavior andhabitat requirements.

Install permanent turtle barriers along the highway near the old oxbow to prevent turtles fromcrossing the highway.

Birds (Great blue heron, common nighthawk, western screech owl and barn swallow) Retain wildlife trees and old growth cottonwoods in Figure 3-2 where Project allows.

If vegetation clearing or demolition activities are scheduled during the period of March 15 to August15 (CWS 2008; Government of Canada 2014), a migratory bird and nest survey is required to becompleted by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) to ensure construction activities do notcontravene the Migratory Bird Convention Act and the Wildlife Act. Survey methods will followthose outlined for migratory birds (CWS 2008) and be completed to provincial standards for nestdetections (BC MELP 1999). This includes surveys of mature cottonwoods (e.g. western screechowl), wildlife trees, large stick nests (e.g., great blue heron), barns and residences beingdemolished (e.g. barn swallow), shrub and ground nesting potential in cultivated fields (e.g.common nightwawk).

Any vegetation clearing or demolition activities that occur within the resident breeding bird window(March 15 to August 30) must be preceded by bird nesting surveys as per the recommendationsabove.

Any occurrences of nesting birds within or adjacent to the Project Footprint will require specificmanagement, which is to be determined by the EM and carried out by the contractor. This mayinclude species-specific buffer zones, delays in site clearing for specific sensitive areas, and time-sensitive construction monitoring. The aim of these measures is to ensure that activities are notharassing or stressing the migratory bird(s) in the Project Area. Vegetation removal and otheractivities within a buffer zone may recommence if the nest is abandoned or once all nestlings havefledged. This will require confirmation by an EM.



If vegetation clearing and demolition activities occur outside of the breeding bird windows,construction in the cleared areas may proceed during the breeding bird windows unhindered.

Small mammals (Western harvest mouse) Because the western harvest mouse is a Blue-listed species that has been ranked as Special

Concern by COSEWIC, it is considered due diligence to conduct a sweep within the isolatedProject Footprint of the reed canary grass/sedge wetland, agricultural fields, and vegetated urbanecosystems prior to clearing or grubbing. Site preparation and construction activities should berestricted necessary areas within the Project Right-of-Way, and only vegetation that is absolutelynecessary to allow equipment to work should be cleared.

Large Mammals To minimize human-wildlife conflicts with bears, the construction site and site facilities must remain

free of attractants (Government of British Columbia 1996b). To prevent contravention of the B.C.Wildlife Act, it is incumbent upon the site supervisor to ensure that:

all garbage is stored in a secure building or bear-resistant container and disposal off-site occursregularly;

all containers (food wastes, petroleum products, diesel) are tightly sealed; all containers or containment bins are regularly washed free of smells and residues;

no garbage, coolers or other containers are left in backs of site trucks, including crew lunchesand personal items; and

all crew members are aware of bears in the area; all bear sightings should be reported to thesite foreman and, if encounters occur, immediately report the incident to the local ConservationOfficer for assistance.

5.3 OPERATION

The following mitigation measures are intended to offset the effects of the operation and routinemaintenance of the highway.

For patching, sealing, and seasonal surface cleaning of the highway, ensure that activities aroundboth the Salmon River Bridge and the old oxbow are completed with adequate environmentalprotection measures in place. Silt fencing and spill response kits to prevent the release of toxicsubstances into fish or amphibian/reptile habitat may be required.

Complete maintenance works during dry weather periods to minimize surface runoff of deleterioussubstances into fish and amphibian/reptile habitat. When this is not possible, implement adequatesite isolation (e.g., silt fencing) measures to keep contaminants contained.

Avoid side-casting material collected during seasonal maintenance activities into aquatic habitat.This will mitigate contamination of surrounding soils, groundwater and surface water resources.


5-9

During drain culvert maintenance, ensure that adequate site isolation and protection measures areimplemented, including silt fencing or silt curtains, straw bales, or if water levels prevent theinstallation of silt containment, consider pumping water around the site to reduce the potential forsedimentation of down-stream habitats.

Complete road-side vegetation maintenance, such as weed control and mowing outside of thesensitive migratory and breeding bird windows (March 15 to August 30). If this is not possible,ensure that an adequate nest survey is completed by a QEP ahead of machinery to preventdestruction of bird eggs and nests and are compliant with the B.C. Wildlife Act and federalMigratory Bird Convention Act.

Maintain permanent turtle exclusion barriers along the highway near the old oxbow to continuallyprevent turtles from crossing the highway.

Refer to the Riparian Management Plan in Appendix C and Wetland Compensation andEnhancement Plan in Appendix E for monitoring of habitat enhancement areas in the Project Area.

Refer to the Weed Management Plan in Appendix D for weed management and monitoring in theProject Area.

5.4 ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

The following recommendations are designed to mitigate the effects caused by use of the Right-of-Wayafter the upgrades have been completed:

Limit clearing and grubbing activities to only the area necessary for equipment and personnel tosafely and efficiently conduct their activities. In all instances and ecosystems, vegetation should beretained as much as is possible, especially in the treed riparian, old oxbow and marsh ecosystems.The treed riparian vegetation around the Salmon River is limiting in the Project Area, and thesepractices will maintain the function of the riparian as fish and wildlife habitat for all species that useit.

Re-plant disturbed areas with a standard seed mix to allow species to establish, and then follow upwith native species, where appropriate, to discourage the establishment of weed species.

Implement the Weed Management Plan (Appendix D) designed to restore disturbed areas to areasonable functioning ecological condition.

Complete road-side vegetation maintenance, such as weed control and mowing outside of thesensitive migratory and breeding bird windows (March 15 to August 30). If this is not possible,ensure that an adequate nest survey is completed by a QEP ahead of machinery to prevent



destruction of bird eggs and nests and are compliant with the B.C. Wildlife Act and federalMigratory Bird Convention Act.

Protect the Red-listed Black cottonwood / Common snowberry – Roses (Populus trichocarpa /Symphoricarpos albus - Rosa spp) ecological community which is partially located within theProject Right-of-Way for the access road behind Country Camping. This area should be isolatedfrom site preparation and construction activities by silt fencing to clearly indicate the extent of theProject and identify the area as sensitive to the development.

FINAL REPORT

6-1

6 Significance of Environmental EffectsThe evaluation criterion in Table 2-1 was developed to assess the significance of residual effects on theenvironment as a result of the Project. Residual and cumulative effects following completion of the Projectare discussed below.

6.1 POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS

Residual effects are those that remain after mitigation measures have been applied (B.C. Parks 1999).These may be considered a direct effect, where works have an immediate impact; or an indirect effect,where an impact may result in the foreseeable future or is related to but somewhat removed from proposedworks.

The Project has the potential to result in residual effects on vegetation, ecosystems, wildlife and wildlifehabitat through:

1. reduced nesting potential for painted turtles in the Project Area; and2. weed invasion resulting in a reduced habitat quality in the Project Area.

Based on the criteria set out in Table 2-1, the overall significance of residual effects on the environment asa result of the Project is evaluated as Not Significant (Table 6-1). Although parts of the Project is locatedadjacent to habitat considered to be valued by wildlife, only 9.1 percent of the total available habitat12 in theProject Area will be affected in the Project Area as a result of the Project Footprint. Only 0.5 ha (includingRight-of-Way and Footprint) will occur on relatively undisturbed land13, of which just 0.2% of the ProjectArea will be permanently lost to the Project Footprint. The greatest effect to ecological values as a result ofthe Project will occur to due loss of riparian vegetation at the Salmon River and loss of painted turtlebreeding and living habitat at the old oxbow, both of which will be offset at a ratio of 2:1 elsewhere in theProject Footprint (Appendix C and E).

Residual effects on fish or fish habitat are not expected following offsetting of riparian habitat. Despiteoffsetting, residual effects on painted turtles may be realized if artificial nesting habitat proves unsuccessful.The success of offsetting measures for the painted turtle should be monitored on a yearly basis followingimplementation of the Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan (Appendix E), until deemedsuccessful. In addition, the spread of weeds within the Project Area may result in additional deterioration inhabitat quality along the alignment. Mitigation measures employed throughout site preparation andconstruction and successful implementation of the Weed Management Plan (Appendix D) during operationwill be instrumental in preventing residual effects on vegetation, ecosystems, wildlife and wildlife habitat inthe Project Area.

12 Total available habitat is defined as land that may have been disturbed previously by residential, commercial,agricultural, or existing highway maintenance operations but is vegetated with native and noxious plant species. Itincludes all ecosystem units except Urban and Road Surface.13 Relatively undisturbed land is defined as partially disturbed ecosystems including river, treed riparian, shallow-waterwetland, mature forest and one cottonwood/rose/snowberry association site.

Table 6-1Potential residual effects on valued components and ecological indicators

ValuedComponent

Ecological Value EcologicalIndicator

Significanceof Effect*

Rationale

Water Quality Maintenance ofWater Quality

Water clarity /turbidity

Not Significant Mitigation measures will adequately address any potential residual effects.Works completed in isolation of flowing water.

Fish and FishHabitat

EcologicalFeaturesContributing toFish Habitat

Treed Riparian Not Significant Although riparian vegetation will be lost under the project footprint, similarvegetation exists downstream and revegetation will occur to offset riparianloss. There will be a minor effect until the transplanted vegetation reachesmaturity (reversibility). Mitigation measures will adequately address anypotential residual effects

Salmon River Not significant Salmon River channel will not be constricted. Instream work will only consistof armouring the banks to protect the new bridge abutments. Mitigationmeasures will adequately address any potential effects.

VegetationandEcosystems

Rare Ecosystems Shallow-waterwetland

Not Significant Offset habitat loss at a ratio of 2:1

Treed riparian Not Significant Although riparian vegetation will be lost under the project footprint, similarvegetation exists downstream and revegetation will occur to offset riparianloss. There will be a minor effect until the transplanted vegetation reachesmaturity (reversibility). Mitigation measures will adequately address anypotential residual effects

Cottonwood/Rose /Snowberry

Not Significant Protect from vegetation clearing in Right-of-Way

Marsh / Floodecosystem

Not Significant Mitigation such as avoidance will minimize effects on this ecosystem

ValuedComponent



Rationale

Rare Plants Mexicanmosquito fern

Not Significant Suitable habitat exists outside the Project Footprint; Pre-construction rareplant survey at old oxbow

Hairy waterclover


Gianthelleborine


Moss grass Not Significant Suitable habitat exists outside the Project Footprint; Pre-construction rareplant survey at old oxbow

Wildlife andWildlifeHabitat

Wildlifemovement,habitatconnectivity

Treed riparian Not Significant Low collision risk in the Project Footprint. Wildlife corridor under new bridgeand offset loss of riparian habitat in Project Area

Rare Wildlife Great Basinspadefoot

Not Significant Suitable habitat exists outside the Project Footprint; CEMP will includespecies specific sweeps for occurrence; mitigation measures avoid criticaltiming windows

Western toad Not Significant Suitable habitat exists outside the Project Footprint; CEMP will includespecies specific sweeps for occurrence; mitigation measures avoid criticaltiming windows.

Great blueheron

Not Significant Suitable habitat exists outside the Project Footprint. Mitigation measuresavoid critical timing windows

Commonnighthawk


Westernharvest mouse


Barn swallow Not Significant Suitable habitat exists outside the Project Footprint; CEMP will include

ValuedComponent



Rationale

species specific sweeps for occurrence; mitigation measures avoid criticaltiming windows

Westernscreech owl

Not Significant Suitable habitat exists outside the Project Footprint. Mitigation measuresavoid critical timing windows

Painted turtle Not Significant Although critical habitat will be lost under the project footprint, similar habitatexisting outside the Project Footprint and loss will be offset by creation ofalternative habitat nearby at a ratio of 2:1. Creation of alternative nestingsites to compensate for habitat fragmentation/isolation. There will be a minoreffect until new nesting sites are proved successful. Mitigation measures willadequately address any potential residual effects.

*Significance ratings formulated from Table 2-1

6 - Significance of Environmental Effects

6-5

6.2 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects are changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with otherpast, present and future human actions (Hegmann et al. 1999). This can occur because of direct physicalinteraction between two or more actions, or because of changes to the regional landscape due to thepresence of physical structures or changes in the type or level of human activity.

The Project will contribute marginally to cumulative effects in the local and regional area. The City ofSalmon Arm is an already existing disturbance on the landscape, and the linear corridor of the Trans-Canada Highway is an existing, long term, disturbance that is necessary for the transportation of goods andpeople across southern regions of Canada. Much of the land surrounding the Project Area is either pavedfor roadways and parking lots, or cleared for residential, commercial, or agricultural uses. The ProjectFootprint is expected to involve 17.1 ha of land (including the Right-of-Way), of which only 9.1 percent ofthe total available habitat14 in the Project Area will be affected in the Project Area as a result of the ProjectFootprint.

Permanent effects on riparian vegetation along the Salmon River are expected to be offset by restoration ofstreamside ecosystems adjacent to the Project Footprint. Although the Salmon River is already highlydisturbed upstream of the highway, the proposed disturbance to riparian function is not expected to becumulative because offsetting measures will likely enhance riparian function beyond what is currentlyrealized. Armoring of the channel banks will create a small change in seasonal aquatic habitat of (area tobe determined following detailed design) which is considered to be cumulative to the local area, but isconsidered to have no significant effect on fish or fish habitat because of the low value of instream habitatbeing altered.

Permanent effects on painted turtles are expected to be offset by the creation of living and nesting habitatadjacent to the old oxbow. If realized, residual effects on painted turtles are not expected to contributesignificantly to cumulative effects in the local area as a number of suitable wetland habitat sites exist in andaround Salmon Arm, and the population of affected turtles is small considering the size of the affected area.If habitat creation is unsuccessful at the old oxbow, turtles can disperse via direct access to the SalmonRiver and Shuswap Lake floodplain, or be translocated to suitable sites elsewhere in the locale.

Cumulative effect from weed encroachment beyond which is currently experienced is not expected to besignificant as the Project is located in what can be described as predominantly urban area.

14 Total available habitat is defined as land that may have been disturbed previously by residential, commercial,agricultural, or existing highway maintenance operations but is vegetated with native and noxious plant species. Itincludes all ecosystem units except Urban and Road Surface.

FINAL REPORT

7-1

7 SummaryThis EA for the proposed highway improvement project evaluated the baseline environment conditionswithin the Project Footprint and qualified environmental values within a 200-m radius of the proposedProject alignment. The potential effects of the Project on the environment were quantified to the extentpossible, and recommendations to lessen the effects were proposed based on provincial and federalregulations, BMPs, and observations of the field conditions at the site.

In most cases, portions of the Project Area to be developed have already been disturbed by existing roads(39%), residential, commercial, or agricultural developments (13%), and the encroachment by invasiveplant species. Permanent disturbance on relatively undisturbed habitat accounts for only 0.2% of theProject Area.

The largest potential for environmental effects will be realized at the new Salmon River bridge and onpainted turtles in the Project Area. The construction of the new Salmon River bridge will result in 1,215 m 2

of riparian ecosystem permanently affected and up to 247 m2 of instream aquatic habitat temporarilyaffected. The highway will result in the loss of 274 m2 of an old oxbow turtle habitat and isolation frompotential nesting sites. Offsets are planned to mitigate the effects of the Project, and will enhance habitatquality for fish and turtles from the current state.

Residual effects of the project are considered Not Significant. Cumulative effects realized on instreamaquatic habitat are considered not significant locally or regionally due to the low value fish habitat identifiedat the site, and the potential for habitat enhancement downstream of the Project. Cumulative effects onpainted turtles, wildlife habitats and ecosystems as a result of weed encroachment are not consideredsignificant locally or regionally due to the small size of affected turtle population, existence of availablehabitat in the locale, and the already urban nature of the Project area.

In addition to the general recommendations made in this report, a comprehensive and site-specificConstruction Environmental Management Plan will be developed and implemented for the project inaccordance with Section 165 of the Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (BC MOTI 2011) bythe successful contractor. The CEMP should include environmental protection measures specific to theProject Area and environmental conditions at the time of construction including a detailed Erosion andSediment Control Plan, a detailed Spill Response Plan, an Emergency Contingency Plan, and speciesspecific mitigation measures (as outlined in Section 5). These plans will provide a framework with whichthe Project remains compliant with all applicable environmental legislation and regulatory requirements.

The potential effects during the construction and operation of these proposed upgrades to the highway canbe successfully mitigated if the measures recommended in this report (Section 5 and Appendices C, D andE) are incorporated into the construction plan and actively implemented.

FINAL REPORT

References

British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (BC CDC). 2015. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer.Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. Available: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ Accessed Feb 13, 2015.

British Columbia DataBC (DataBC). 2015. iMapBC 2.0 (Public). Available online at:http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/geographic/view_and_analyze/imapbc/index.page Accessed Feb 13, 2015.

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO). 2013. Guideline for the selection of valuedcomponents and assessment of potential effects. Victoria, B.C.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture (BC MOA). 2013. B.C. Weed Control Act, Noxious Weeds in B.C.Available at http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/noxious.htm Accessed February 20, 2015.

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture (BC MOA). 2011. BC Weed Control Act. Available online at:http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/noxious.htm Accessed March 19, 2015.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). 2015. Fish Inventories Data Queries (FIDQ).Accessed on February 10, 2015.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). 2014a. Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelinesfor Urban and Rural Development in British Columbia. Government of British Columbia. Victoria, BC.Available online at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/devwithcare/ . Accessed February 2015.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). 2014b. Guidelines for Amphibian and ReptileConservation during Urban and Rural Development in British Columbia. Government of British Columbia.Victoria, BC. Available online at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/devwithcare/ AccessedNovember 2015.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MOE). 2006. Develop with Care Guidelines for Urban andRural Land Development in British Columbia, Section D: Site Inventory and Conservation Evaluation.Government of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BC MELP). 2012. Fish Stream CrossingGuidebook. Produced by B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, B.C. Ministry ofEnvironment, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Rev. ed. For. Prac. Invest. Br. Victoria, B.C.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BC MELP). 1999. British Columbia WildlifeHabitat Rating Standards. Government of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.


British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks (BC MELP). 1998. Species InventoryFundamentals. Standards for Components of British Columbia’s Biodiversity. Government of BritishColumbia. B.C. 133 pp.

British Columbia Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (BC MFLNRO). 2014. DraftBest Management Practices for Amphibians and Reptile Salvages in British Columbia. Surrey B.C.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BC MOF). 1995. Riparian Management Area Guidebook. Available at:https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/riparian/rip-toc.htm Accessed August 2015.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (BC MWLAP). 2004. Best ManagementPractices for In-stream Works: Reduced Risk Timing Windows for Fish and Wildlife. Government of BritishColumbia. Victoria, B.C

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (BC MOTI). 2011. 2012 StandardSpecifications for Highway Construction. Government of British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.

B.C. Parks. 1999. Impact Assessment Process, Part 2 Users Guide. Available athttp://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/conserve/impact/impact.html Accessed August 27, 2015.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). 2008. Nest Survey Methods for Migratory Birds – Advice to Industry.Environment Canada. Delta, B.C.

City of Salmon Arm. 2011. City of Salmon Arm Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4000 Schedule A. 139pp+ appendices.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2012. COSEWIC assessment andstatus report on the Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas in Canada. Committee on the Status of EndangeredWildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiv + 71 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm).

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2007a. COSEWIC assessmentand status report on the Great Basin Spadefoot Spea intermontana. Prepared for the Committee on theStatus of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. v11 + 34 pp.(www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2007b. COSEWIC Status Reporton the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor. Prepared for the Committee on the Status of EndangeredWildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 27 pp. Available athttp://novascotia.ca/natr/wildlife/biodiversity/pdf/statusreports/sr_CommonNighthawk.pdf . AccessedOctober, 2015.

References

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 2006. COSEWIC assessment andstatus report on the Western Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta bellii (Pacific Coast population, Intermountain-Rocky Mountain population and Prairie/Western Boreal - Canadian Shield population) in Canada.Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 pp.www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm Accessed March 20, 2015.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2015. Project activities and criteria where DFO reviewis not required. Projects Near Water. Available at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.htmlAccessed November 10, 2015.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013. Practitioners Guide to Risk ManagementFramework for DFO Habitat Management Staff. Version 1.0. Available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/343443.pdf Accessed June, 2015

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2002. Practitioners Guide to Habitat Compensationfor DFO Habitat Management Staff. Version 1.0. Available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/270280.pdfAccessed June, 2015.

Eflora. 2015. Eflora BC: Electronic Atlas of the Flora of British Columbia. An initiative of the Spatial DataLab, Department of Geography UBC, and the UBC Herbarium. Available online at:http://linnet.geog.ubc.ca/DB_Query/QueryForm.aspx Accessed May 2, 2015.

Environment Canada. 2015a. Canadian Climate Normals 1981-2010 Station Data. Available athttp://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_1981_2010_e.html?stnID=1311&autofwd=1 AccessedFeb 11, 2015.

Environment Canada. 2015b. Wateroffice. Monthly Water Level Graph for Shuswap Lake at Salmon Arm.Available athttps://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/report_e.html?mode=Graph&type=h2oArc&stn=08LE070&dataType=Monthly&parameterType=Level&year=2011&y1Max=1&y1Min=1&y1Mean=1&y1Median=1&scale=normal.Accessed February 11, 2015.

Environmental Dynamics Inc., Wind, E., and Sarell S., (EDI et al.). 2013. Best Management Practices forAmphibians and Reptile Salvages in British Columbia. Prepared for the Ministry of Forest, Lands andNatural Resource Operations. Surrey B.C.

Forman R.T.T, D. Sperling, and J.A. Bissonette. 2003. Roads Ecology: Science and Solutions. IslandPress, Covelo, CA.

Future Legacy Consulting Group, Bufo Incorporated, and Ophiuchus Consulting, (FLCG). 2004. DiscussionPaper Habitat Conservation Strategy for Salmon Arm Bay. 48pp. Available online at: http://www.wa-ter.ca/SABDiscussionPaper.pdf Accessed June 6, 2015.


Government of British Columbia. 2015. Spill and Environmental Emergencies. Available at:http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=FCA7954D1335433686A938616F03B9CD Accessed November2015.

Government of British Columbia. 2004. Wildlife Amendment Act (Bill 51 – 2004). Available at:http://www.leg.bc.ca/37th5th/3rd_read/gov51-3.htm. Accessed February 11, 2015.

Government of British Columbia. 1996a. Water Act (RSBC 1996 c. 483). Available at:http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96483_01. Accessed February11, 2015.

Government of British Columbia. 1996b. Wildlife Act (RSBC 1996 c. 488). Available at:http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96488_01. Accessed February11, 2015.

Government of Canada. 2015. Species at Risk Public Registry. Species Profiles Available at:http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=748 Accessed March 10, 2015.

Government of Canada. 2014. Environmental Canada General Nesting Periods of Migratory Birds inCanada. Available online at: https://www.ec.gc.ca/paom-itmb/default.asp?lang=En&n=4F39A78F-1#_01_3Accessed February 11, 2015.

Government of Canada. 2014. Environmental Canada General Nesting Periods of Migratory Birds inCanada. Available online at: https://www.ec.gc.ca/paom-itmb/default.asp?lang=En&n=4F39A78F-1#_01_3Accessed November 11, 2015.

Government of Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act (SC 2002, c.29). Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-15.3/FullText.html. Access February 11, 2015.

Government of Canada. 1994. Migratory Birds Convention Act (SC 1994, c.22). Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/index.html. Accessed February 11, 2015.

Government of Canada. 1985a. Navigable Waters Protection Act (RSC 1985, c. N-22). Available at:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-22/. Accessed February 19, 2015

Government of Canada. 1985b. Fisheries Act (1985, c. F-14). Available at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-14/. Accessed February 11, 2015.

Gwanikar, S., S. Cross, D. MacDonald, J.R. Brown., D.Q. Tao, and T. Berger. 1998. Salmon River: WaterQuality Assessment and Recommended Objectives, Technical Appendix – Volume 1. Prepared forEnvironment Canada – Fraser River Action Plan.

References

Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D.Stalker. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment PR actioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS EnvironmentalConsulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull,Quebec.

Hope, G.D., W.R. Mitchell, D.A. Lloyd, W.R. Erikson, W.L. Harper, and B.M. Wilkeem. 1991. Chapter 10:Interior Douglas-fir Zone. In D. Meidinger and J. Pojar (Eds.), Ecosystems of British Columbia (pp. 154-166). B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria.

Jacques Whitford AXYS. 2007. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Salmon Arm CommercialDevelopment, Salmon Arm, B.C. Prepared for Salmon Arm Shopping Centers Ltd., Richmond, B.C.

Karraker, N. E., Gibbs, J. P., & Vonesh, J. R. 2008. Impacts of Road Deicing Salt on the Demography OfVernal Pool-Breeding Amphibians. Ecological Applications, 18(3), 724-734.

Lindsey, C. 2015. Salmon River Motel Property Owner. Personal communication on turtle sightings withNicole Basaraba of Associated on June 9, 2015.

Lloyd, D., K. Angove, G. Hope, and C. Thompson. 1990. A Guide to Site Investigation and Interpretation forthe Kamloops Forest Region. Land Management Handbook No. 23. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria.

Mackenzie, M.H., and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: A Guide to Identification. Res. Br.,B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handb. No. 52.

Martin, M. 1998. Update COSEWIC Status Report on Mexican Mosquito Fern, Azolla Mexicana, in Canada.Unpubl. rep. submitted to the Comm. of the Status of Endangered Wildl. in Can. Ottawa. 17 pp.

Meidinger D., and Pojar, J. 1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Forests.ISpecial Report Series No. 6. Victoria, B.C.

Province of British Columbia. 2015. Transportation Projects in BC. Available online athttp://www.th.gov.bc.ca/tranprojectsbc/#view=home Accessed June 6, 2015.

Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1998. Inventory Methods for Pond-breeding Amphibians andPainted Turtle, Version 2.0. Prepared by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks ResourcesInventory Branch.

Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1999. Overview Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Methodology.Prepared by the B.C. Ministry of Fisheries, Fisheries Inventory Section.

Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 2001. Reconnaissance (1:20000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory:Standards and Procedures. Prepared by the BC Fisheries Information Services Branch.


Saldi-Caromile, K., K. Bates, P. Skidmore, J. Barenti, D. Pineo. 2004. Stream Habitat RestorationGuidelines: Final Draft. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology andthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington.

Salmon Arm. 2015. City of Salmon Arm, Maps. Available online at: http://www.salmonarm.ca/ AccessedMarch, 2015.

Shuswap Lake Watch 2015. Shuswap Lake Peak History. Available athttp://www.shuswaplakewatch.com/index.php. Accessed February 11, 2015.

Smith, M. J., Schreiber, E. S. G., Scroggie, M. P., Kohout, M., Ough, K., Potts, J., & Clancy, T. I. M. 2007.Associations Between Anuran Tadpoles and Salinity in A Landscape Mosaic of Wetlands Impacted bySecondary Salinisation. Freshwater Biology, 52(1): 75-84.

Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. 2011. Salmon Arm Trans-Canada Highway Upgrades. Project2009-8610-120. Produced for Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Kamloops. 45pp + appendices.

Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. (Summit). 2013a. Environmental Impact Assessment: Trans-Canada Highway Salmon Arm; 30th St. SW to 10th St. S- Four Laning. Project: 2012-8209. Produced forMinistry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Kamloops. 65pp + appendices.

Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. (Summit). 2013b. Malakwa Bridge (0871) Replacement and Four-Laning - Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment - 100% Detailed Design. Final Report prepared for BCMinistry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Kamloops, B.C.

Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. (Summit). 2013c. Perry River Bridge Replacement and Four-Laning- Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment - 50% Detailed Design. Final Report prepared for BC Ministryof Transportation and Infrastructure, Kamloops, B.C.

Summit Environmental Inc. (Summit). 2013d. Assessment of Culvert Size Adequacy of Culverts alongTrans-Canada Highway #1 between 30th Street SW and 17th Street SW, Salmon Arm, B.C. Produced forAssociated Engineering B.C. Ltd.

Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. 2015. Highway 1 – Salmon Arm West 30 th Street SW to 10th StreetSW Environmental Assessment. Produced for Associated Engineering B.C. Ltd.

Transport Canada (2014). Navigation Protection Act. Available at https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/programs-632.html Accessed February 19, 2015.

FINAL REPORT

A-1

Appendix A – Tables

Table A1 Amphibian and turtle active search, auditory, and trapping log

Survey Type Location(UTM 11 U)

Start – End Time Total effort(mins)

Species Observed /Heard

Active search

Cattail ditch line alonghighway

(335320 5618532)4.00-4.30 pm 60 -

Old oxbow and wetgrassland

(335538 5618456)5.30-6.30 p.m. 60 -


(335538 5618456)

6.40-7.20 p.m. 803 Painted turtles insouth end of Old

oxbow

Auditory


(335538 5618456)9.40-9.53 p.m. 26 1 Chorus frog in north

end of Old oxbow

Cattail ditch line alonghighway

(335320 5618532) 10.26-10.31 p.m. 30 -

Trapping

Old oxbow(335526 5618476) 6.30-10.00 p.m. 1,890* 3 long toed

salamander

Wet grassland(335556 5618443) 6.30-10.30 p.m. 720** 3 long toed

salamander

* nine traps set** three traps set


A-2p:\20148222\00_hwy_1_sa_west_ea\environmental_sciences\04.00_environmental_assessments\reporting\section 2 only_30th to 1st ave\100% detailed designfinal\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx

Table A2 Wells within 200 m of the Project Area

Well TagNumber

Yield Value(gallons/min)

Depth WellDrilled (m)

Diameter (m) Water Depth(m)

Well Use

21930 50 220.0 4.5 3.0 Unknown

8280 5 158.0 0.0 7.0 Unknown

18665 0 350.0 6.0 - Unknown

82895 35 148.0 5.0 - Artisan

20774 6 348.0 4.5 6.0 Unknown

57990 10 63.0 6.0 Unknown

94843 200 150.0 - 3.0 Private


A-3

Table A3 Location of vegetation plots conducted during field assessment

Vegetation Plot Grid Reference (11 U) Broad Ecosystem Unit or Association

Plot A 335539, 5618346 Treed riparian

Plot B 335598, 5618361 Treed riparian

Plot C 335617, 5618395 Treed riparian

Plot D 335515, 5618406 Cottonwood / Rose / Snowberry riparian association

Plot E 335541, 5618522 Shallow-water wetland association

Plot F 335569, 5618447 Reed canary grass/sedge transition wetland association

Plot G 335322, 5618596 Cattail marsh

Plot H 335320, 5618423 Cattail marsh

Plot I 336035, 5618397 Cottonwood / Rose / Snowberry riparian association



Table A4 Dominate vegetation found in each ecosystem unit in the Project Area

Common Name Latin NameMarsh / Flood / Wet

GrasslandMatureForest

TreedRiparian

Trees

Black Cottonwood Populus balsamifera

Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas maple Acer glabrum var. douglasii

Pacific willowSalix lasidandra var.lasiandra

Paper birch Betula paperifera

Trembling aspen Populus tremuloides

Willow sp. Salix sp.

Shrubs

Alder species Alnus sp.

Black Hawthorn Crataegus douglasii

Choke cherry Prunus virginiana

Common snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Douglas maple Acer glabrum

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana

Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor

Oregon grape Mahonia aquifolium

Prickly rose Rosa acicularis

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera

Red raspberry Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus

Western redcedar Thuja plicata

Forbs and Grasses

American speedwell

Bebb’s sedge Carex bebbii

Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis

Buttercup Ranunculus sp.

Clover sp.

Common cattail Typha latifolia

Common duckweed Lemna minor


A-5



TreedRiparian

Common horsetail Equisetum arvense

Common mitrewort Mitella nuda

Cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum

Great bulrushSchoenoplectustabernaemontani

Green sedge Carex viridula ssp. viridula

Hair bentgrass Agrostis scabra

Scouring rush Equisetum hyemale

Sedge sp.

Small flowered bulrush Scirpus microcarpus

Small flowered forget-me-not

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica

Thistle sp.

Invasive non-native /weedy

Box-elder Acer negundo

Burdock (Noxious) Arctium spp.

Canadian thistle(Noxious)

Cirsium arvense

Common chickweed(Nuisance)

Common dandelion (Notlisted)

Taraxacum officinale

Common tansy (Noxious) Tanacetum vulgare

Common timothy Phleum pratense

Curled dock (Nuisance) Rumex crispus

Field chicory(Not listed)

Chocorium intybus

Great mullein (Nuisance) Verbascum thapsus

Hound’s tongue(Noxious)

Cynoglossum officinale

Ivy sp.





TreedRiparian

Knapweed sp.

Nightshade sp. Solanum sp.

Pinegrass Calamagrostis rubescens

Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea

Rose sp. Rose sp.

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

Weeping willow Salix bablonica

Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus

Table A5 Rare plant species with the potential to occur in the Project Area (bold signifies those previously recorded within 10 km of theProject Area)

English Name Scientific Name BC List1 SARA2 Habitat Subtype

American sweet-flag Acorus americanus Red Swamp;Marsh;Riparian Shrub;Lake;Pond/Open Water;RiparianHerbaceous

Beaked spike-rush Eleocharis rostellata Blue Marsh;Meadow;Hot Spring

Bearded sedge Carex comosa Red Marsh;Riparian Herbaceous

Blue vervain Verbena hastata var.scabra

Blue Marsh;Meadow

Crested wood fern Dryopteris cristata Blue Swamp;Riparian Shrub;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet

Elliptic spike-rush Eleocharis elliptica Blue Fen;Meadow

Geyer's onion Allium geyeri var.tenerum

Blue Vernal Pools/Seasonal Seeps;Rock/Sparsely VegetatedRock;Riparian Herbaceous;Garry Oak Vernal Pool

Giant helleborine Epipactis gigantea Blue 3 Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Vernal Pools/Seasonal Seeps;RiparianForest;Riparian Shrub;Hot Spring;Riparian Herbaceous;WarmSpring;Cold Spring

Hairy water-clover Marsilea vestita Red Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Vernal Pools/Seasonal Seeps

Howell's quillwort Isoetes howellii Blue Vernal Pools/Seasonal Seeps

Long-leaved pondweed Potamogeton nodosus Blue Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Lake;Pond/Open Water

Mexican mosquitofern

Azolla mexicana Red 1-T (Jun2003)

Riparian Shrub;Pond/Open Water

Moss grass Coleanthus subtilis Blue Mudflats – Intertidal, Lake margins

Orange touch-me-not Impatiens aurella Blue Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Riparian Forest;RiparianShrub;Meadow;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet

Rocky Mountainclubrush

Schoenoplectussaximontanus

Red Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Lake;Pond/Open Water

Slender arrow-grass Triglochin debilis Blue Alkali Ponds/Salt Flats;Lake

English Name Scientific Name BC List1 SARA2 Habitat Subtype

Three-floweredwaterwort

Elatine rubella Blue Estuary;Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Pond/Open Water;Mudflats -Intertidal

Thyme-leaved spurge Chamaesyceserpyllifolia ssp.serpyllifolia

Blue Vernal Pools/Seasonal Seeps;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe

Water marigold Megalodonta beckii Blue Lake;Pond/Open Water

Yellow widelip orchid Liparis loeselii Red Bog;Fen;Riparian Shrub;Riparian Herbaceous

Ulota curvifolia Blue

Weissia brachycarpa Blue

Source: CDC (2015)1 B.C. Status: Red listed: indigenous species or subspecies (taxa) considered Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened in B.C.; Blue listed: indigenoustaxa considered vulnerable in B.C.2 Status under Species at Risk Act (SARA): federally designated species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern arelisted as Schedule 1. Once listed as Schedule 1, measures to protect and recover listed species are implemented.

Table A6 Wildlife species recorded in the Project Area

Common Name* Latin Name Marsh / Flood / WetGrassland

Mature Forest TreedRiparian

CultivatedFiled

River

American beaver Castor canadensis

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

American kestrel Falco sparverius

American robin Turdus migratorius

Bat species

Black-billed magpie Pica pica

Black-cappedchickadee

Poecile atricapilla

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Common raven Corvus corax

Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

Long toed salamander Ambystomamacrodactylum

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides

Pacific chorus frog Pseudacris regilla

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta pop 2

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Common Name* Latin Name Marsh / Flood / WetGrassland

Mature Forest TreedRiparian

CultivatedFiled

River

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius tricolor

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Wood duck Aix sponsa

Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia

Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris

Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata

Table A7 Locations of wildlife features recorded in the Project Area

Wildlife Feature Grid Reference (11 U)

Beaver dam 335403, 5618257

Beaver sign 335377, 5618276

Beaver sign 335445, 5618298

Wildlife tree 335451, 5618401







Old growth cottonwood 335629, 5618409

Old growth cottonwood 335426, 5618398

Marmot burrows 335948, 5618360

Potential turtle nesting site 338263, 5570293

Potential turtle nesting site 335320, 5618423

Table A8 Rare wildlife with the potential to occur in the Project Area (bold signifies those previously recorded within 20 km of the ProjectArea)

Common Name Scientific Name BCList1

SARA2 Class Habitat Subtype

American Avocet Recurvirostraamericana

Blue Birds Estuary;Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Alkali Ponds/Salt Flats;Lake;IntertidalMarine;Pond/Open Water

American Badger Taxidea taxus Red 1-E (Jun2003)

Mammals Sub-soil;Pasture/Old Field;Talus;Meadow;Grassland;Shrub -Natural;Sagebrush Steppe;Conifer Forest - Mesic (average);ConiferForest - Dry;Krummholtz;Antelope-brush Steppe;Shrub -Logged;Alpine Grassland

American Bittern Botauruslentiginosus

Blue Birds Estuary;Marsh;Lake;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Grassland;Pond/Open Water;Riparian Herbaceous

Barn Owl Tyto alba Blue 1-SC(Jun2003)

Birds Marsh;Riparian Forest;Riparian Shrub;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;Sagebrush Steppe;Mixed Forest(deciduous/coniferous mix);Urban/Suburban;RiparianHerbaceous;Antelope-brush Steppe;Gravel Bar

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Blue Birds Estuary;Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Riparian Forest;RiparianShrub;Stream/River;Lake;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;Shrub - Natural;SagebrushSteppe;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;MixedForest (deciduous/coniferous mix);Urban/Suburban;Pond/OpenWater;Riparian Herbaceous;Antelope-brush Steppe;Gravel Bar;Shrub- Logged;Industrial

Bobolink Dolichonyxoryzivorus

Blue Birds Pasture/Old Field;Cultivated Field;Meadow;Grassland

Bull Trout Salvelinusconfluentus

Blue Fish

California Gull Larus californicus Blue Birds Estuary;Kelp Bed;Marsh;Alkali Ponds/Salt



Flats;Stream/River;Lake;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Intertidal Marine;Meadow;Grassland;SubtidalMarine;Beach;Urban/Suburban;Pond/Open Water;GravelBar;Sheltered Waters - Marine

Caspian Tern Hydroprognecaspia

Blue Birds Estuary;Marsh;Stream/River;Lake;Intertidal Marine;SubtidalMarine;Beach;Urban/Suburban;Gravel Bar;Sheltered Waters - Marine

CheckeredSkipper

Pyrguscommunis

Blue Insects Pasture/Old Field;Meadow;Grassland;Conifer Forest -Dry;Urban/Suburban;Industrial

Chiselmouth Acrocheilusalutaceus

Blue Fish

CommonNighthawk

Chordeiles minor Yellow 1-T(Feb2010)

Birds Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Stream/River;Lake;Pasture/OldField;Cultivated Field;Hedgerow;Cliff;Rock/Sparsely VegetatedRock;Talus;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;MixedForest (deciduous/coniferous mix);Urban/Suburban;Pond/OpenWater;Antelope-brush Steppe;Gravel Bar

CommonSootywing

Pholisoracatullus

Blue Insects Pasture/Old Field;Cultivated Field;Hedgerow;Urban/Suburban

Dark Saltflat TigerBeetle

Cicindelaparowana

Red 1-E (Jul2012)

Insects Alkali Ponds/Salt Flats

Emma's Dancer Argia emma Blue Insects Riparian Shrub;Stream/River;Lake;Pond/Open Water;RiparianHerbaceous

Fisher Pekania pennanti Blue Mammals Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Riparian Forest;RiparianShrub;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;MixedForest (deciduous/coniferous mix);Krummholtz;RiparianHerbaceous;Gravel Bar



Fringed Myotis Myotisthysanodes

Blue 3 (Mar2005)

Mammals Stream/River;Caves;Cliff;Rock/Sparsely VegetatedRock;Talus;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;MixedForest (deciduous/coniferous mix);Antelope-brush Steppe

Gopher Snake,deserticolasubspecies

Pituophiscateniferdeserticola

Blue 1-T (Jan2005)

Reptiles Riparian Forest;Riparian Shrub;Sub-soil;Rock/Sparsely VegetatedRock;Talus;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe;Urban/Suburban;Riparian Herbaceous;Antelope-brushSteppe;Gravel Bar;Industrial

Great BasinSpadefoot

Speaintermontana

Blue 1-T(Jun2003)

Amphibians Lake;Meadow;Grassland;Sagebrush Steppe;Conifer Forest -Mesic (average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Pond/Open Water;Antelope-brush Steppe

Great BlueHeron, herodiassubspecies

Ardea herodiasherodias

Blue Birds Swamp;Marsh;Vernal Pools/Seasonal Seeps;RiparianForest;Stream/River;Lake;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;ConiferForest - Mesic (average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Conifer Forest -Moist/wet;Mixed Forest (deciduous/coniferousmix);Urban/Suburban;Pond/Open Water;Riparian Herbaceous

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos Blue Mammals Estuary;Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Riparian Forest;RiparianShrub;Stream/River;Caves;Pasture/Old Field;Talus;Tundra;AvalancheTrack;Meadow;Grassland;Sagebrush Steppe;Deciduous/BroadleafForest;Conifer Forest - Mesic (average);Conifer Forest - Dry;ConiferForest - Moist/wet;Mixed Forest (deciduous/coniferousmix);Beach;Urban/Suburban;Riparian Herbaceous;Gravel Bar

Horned Lark,merrillisubspecies

Eremophilaalpestris merrilli

Blue Birds Alkali Ponds/Salt Flats;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;Urban/Suburban

Lance-tippedDarner

Aeshnaconstricta

Red Insects Swamp;Marsh;Pond/Open Water



Lark Sparrow Chondestesgrammacus

Red Birds Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;Sagebrush Steppe;Antelope-brush Steppe

Lewis'sWoodpecker

Melanerpes lewis Red 1-T (Jul2012)

Birds Riparian Forest;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest -Dry;Urban/Suburban;Antelope-brush Steppe

Lilac-borderedCopper

Lycaena nivalis Blue Insects Riparian Forest;Riparian Shrub;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Dry;Mixed Forest(deciduous/coniferous mix);Riparian Herbaceous;Antelope-brushSteppe;Gravel Bar

Little BrownMyotis

Myotis lucifugus Yellow 1-E(Dec2014)

Mammals

Long-billedCurlew

Numeniusamericanus

Blue 1-SC(Jan2005)

Birds Pasture/Old Field;Cultivated Field;IntertidalMarine;Meadow;Grassland;Mudflats - Intertidal

Monarch Danausplexippus

Blue 1-SC(Jun2003)

Insects Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe;Urban/Suburban

Northern RubberBoa

Charina bottae Yellow 1-SC(Jan2005)

Reptiles Riparian Forest;Stream/River;Sub-soil;Rock/Sparsely VegetatedRock;Talus;Meadow;Grassland;Sagebrush Steppe;Conifer Forest -Mesic (average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Mixed Forest(deciduous/coniferous mix);Antelope-brush Steppe

Olive-sidedFlycatcher

Contopuscooperi

Blue 1-T(Feb2010)

Birds Bog;Fen;Swamp;Riparian Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;Mixed Forest(deciduous/coniferous mix);Pond/Open Water

Painted Turtle - Chrysemys Blue 1-SC Turtles Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Riparian Forest;Riparian



Intermountain -Rocky MountainPopulation

picta pop. 2 (Dec2007)

Shrub;Lake;Urban/Suburban;Pond/Open Water;RiparianHerbaceous;Gravel Bar;Industrial

PronghornClubtail

Gomphusgraslinellus

Blue Insects Stream/River;Lake

Sandhill Skipper Polites sabuleti Red Insects Meadow;Grassland;Sand Dune

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Blue 1-SC(Jul2012)

Birds Estuary;Marsh;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;Urban/Suburban;Pond/OpenWater;Riparian Herbaceous;Alpine/Subalpine Meadow;AlpineGrassland

Sinuous snaketail Ophiogomphusoccidentis

Blue Insects Stream;River;Lake

Spotted Bat Eudermamaculatum

Blue 1-SC(Jul2005)

Mammals Marsh;Riparian Shrub;Pasture/Old Field;Cliff;Rock/SparselyVegetated Rock;Talus;Sagebrush Steppe;Conifer Forest - Dry

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Red Birds Riparian Forest;Riparian Shrub;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Meadow;Grassland;SagebrushSteppe;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Mixed Forest (deciduous/coniferousmix);Urban/Suburban;Antelope-brush Steppe;Industrial;AlpineGrassland

Townsend's Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinustownsendii

Blue Mammals Riparian Forest;Caves;Grassland;Shrub -Natural;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;MixedForest (deciduous/coniferous mix);Urban/Suburban;Shrub -Logged;Industrial

Twelve-spottedSkimmer

Libellulapulchella

Blue Insects Marsh;Lake;Pond/Open Water



Vivid Dancer Argia vivida Red Insects Stream/River;Hot Spring;Warm Spring;Cold Spring

Western Grebe Aechmophorusoccidentalis

Red Birds Estuary;Marsh;Lake;Subtidal Marine;Pond/Open Water;ShelteredWaters - Marine

Western RiverCruiser

Macromiamagnifica

Blue Insects Stream/River;Lake;Pond/Open Water

Western Screech-Owl, macfarlaneisubspecies

Megascopskennicottiimacfarlanei

Red 1-E (Jan2005)

Birds Riparian Forest;Pasture/Old Field;CultivatedField;Hedgerow;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic(average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;MixedForest (deciduous/coniferous mix);Urban/Suburban

Western Skink Plestiodonskiltonianus

Blue 1-SC(Jan2005)

Reptiles Riparian Forest;Riparian Shrub;Stream/River;Sub-soil;Rock/Sparsely VegetatedRock;Talus;Meadow;Grassland;Sagebrush Steppe;ConiferForest - Mesic (average);Conifer Forest - Dry;Mixed Forest(deciduous/coniferous mix);Riparian Herbaceous;Antelope-brush Steppe;Gravel Bar

Western Small-footed Myotis

Myotisciliolabrum

Blue Mammals Riparian Forest;Riparian Shrub;Caves;Cliff;Rock/Sparsely VegetatedRock;Talus;Conifer Forest - Dry;Riparian Herbaceous;Gravel Bar

Western Toad Anaxyrusboreas

Blue 1-SC(Jan2005)

Amphibians Bog;Fen;Swamp;Marsh;Riparian Forest;RiparianShrub;Stream/River;Lake;Meadow;Grassland;Deciduous/Broadleaf Forest;Conifer Forest - Mesic (average);Conifer Forest -Dry;Conifer Forest - Moist/wet;Mixed Forest(deciduous/coniferous mix);Pond/Open Water;RiparianHerbaceous;Warm Spring;Gravel Bar

Search Criteria: Forest Districts: Okanagan Shuswap Forest District (DOS), Regional District: Columbia-Shuswap Regional District, BiogeoclimaticZone: IDF.1B.C. Status: Red listed: indigenous species or subspecies (taxa) considered Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened in B.C.; Blue-listed:indigenous taxa considered vulnerable in B.C.2Status under Species at Risk Act (SARA): federally designated species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern arelisted as Schedule 1. Once listed as Schedule 1, measures to protect and recover listed species are implemented.

FINAL REPORT

B-1

Appendix B - Site Photographs

Photograph 1: Existing bridge acrossthe Salmon River (Ri; May 2015).

Photograph 2:Salmon River Motel property Cf;

(May 2015).

Photograph 3: Salmon River Motelcampground (Cf; May 2015).

Photograph 4: Cultivated field at 30th

St SW (Cf; May 2015).

Photograph 5: Rural residentialproperties within the Project

Footprint along the existing highway(Cf; May 2015).

Photograph 6: Chicken farm to thenorth of the Project Area (Cf, Ur;

May 2015).

Photograph 7: Urban area andmature forest north of 1st Ave SW

(Ur; Mf; May 2015).

Photograph 8: The end of 42nd StSW looking south (Ur; May 2015).

Photograph 9:Road behind Country Campinglooking west (Ur; May 2015).

Photograph 10: Location ofproposed access road to private

property across cultivated fields (Cf;May 2015).

Photograph 11:Drainage ditches along Salmon

River Road containing water (May2015).

Photograph 12: Proposed crossingpoint for new Salmon River bridge.Note narrow strip of treed riparian

habitat (Ri, Rt; August 2015).

Photograph 13: Approach to SalmonRiver bridge crossing from Motel

property. Wildlife pole in centre oflawn. Treed Riparian in background

(Cf, Rt; May 2015).

Photograph 14: Evidence of beaveractivity in Treed Riparian habitat (Rt;

May 2015).

Photograph 15: Introduced box-elderdominate Treed Riparian habitat (Rt;

May 2015).

Photograph 16: Wildlife tree andAmerican kestrel nest site in treeline

along north boundary of Motelproperty (Fm; May 2015).

Photograph 17: Heavily disturbedtreeline along north boundary ofMotel property (Fm; May 2015)

Photograph 18: Reed canarygrass/sedge transition wetland

association located north of Motelproperty (Wm00; May 2015).

Photograph 19: Shallow-waterwetland association (old oxbow, Ww;May 2015). Three western painted

turtles observed in June 2015.

Photograph 20: Shallow-waterwetland association (old oxbow, Ww;

August 2015). Optimal time forwildlife salvage. Note cattle

trampling.

Photograph 21: Long-toedsalamander, caught in both old

oxbow and reed canary grass/sedgewetland (Mw, Ww; June 2015).

Photograph 22: Potential turtlenesting habitat at Motel property.Marmots living under sea can (Cf;

June 2015).

Photograph 23: Multiple potentialbarn swallow nest sites in

agricultural buildings (Cf; August2015).

Photograph 24: Disturbed CattailMarsh on west side of highway along

ditchline, looking south (Wm05;August 2015).

Photograph 25: Disturbed CattailMarsh on west side of highway,cultivated field in background,

looking west (Wm05; August 2015).

Photograph 26: Disturbed CattailMarsh by Salmon River Road

(Wm05; August 2015). Potentialturtle nesting habitat along road

verge.

Photograph 27: Marsh/Floodecosystem near existing bridge(Wm05/Fm02; August 2015).

Photograph 28: Marsh/Floodecosystem near existing bridge,surrounded by noxious common

tansy weed (August 2015).

Photograph 29: Disturbed fieldbehind Country Camping with Red-listed Cottonwood-Snowberry-Rosecommunity in background (CF, Fm;

May 2015).

Photograph 30: Common tansyinfestation in disturbed field (Cf; May

2015)

Photograph 31: Marmot burrows indisturbed field (Cf; May 2015).

Photograph 32: Electrofishing inSalmon River (Ri; June 2015).

Photograph 33: Slimy sculpin caughtduring electrofishing in the Salmon

River (Ri, June 2015).

Photograph 34: Sandy substrate ofSalmon River with house cat and

C-1

Appendix C - Riparian Planting Plan

November 13, 2015File: 2014-8222.000.008

Kevin GordonSenior Transportation TechUrban Systems200-286 St. Paul StreetKamloops, B.C. V2C 6G4

Re: HWY 1 SALMON ARM WEST - RIPARIAN PLANTING PLAN

Dear Mr. Gordon:

Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated; formally Summit Environmental Consultants Inc.)is pleased to provide this Riparian Planting Plan for the Trans-Canada Highway 1 – Salmon Arm West 1st

Ave. SW to 30th St. SW Four-Laning Project1.

It is our understanding that the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) plans to upgrade asection of Trans-Canada Highway 1 (hereafter known as the “highway”), approximately 3 km west of theCity of Salmon Arm. The project involves four-laning 1.3 km of the highway and includes the constructionof a new four lane bridge over the Salmon River. MOTI retained the engineering firm Urban Systems Ltd.(Urban Systems) to complete the functional and detailed design for upgrading the section of the highwayfrom 1st Ave SW to 30th Street SW (the “Project”).

Urban Systems retained Associated to carry out the environmental assessment (EA) for the Project1. As aresult of the EA it was confirmed the Project will result in the removal of 1,215 m 2 of riparian habitat withinthe footprint of the new bridge crossing the Salmon River.

To offset the loss from the Project Footprint (1,215 m2), it is recommended that 2,430 m2 of riparian habitatbe created or enhanced within the Project Area (offsetting ratio of 2:1 based on area). The areas availablefor riparian planting include the lot where the Salmon Arm Motel currently exists, and the lot immediatelynortheast of the new bridge design (Figure 1). These areas were chosen because they are directlyadjacent to the Salmon River and riparian habitat here is currently sparse and disturbed. As the SalmonRiver Motel will be demolished there is an opportunity to enhance habitat along this section of the SalmonRiver. Planting these areas will increase the width of riparian habitat in some locations to 15 m, andenhance the ecological function of the area by providing shade and cover along the river. In addition theplanting will increase habitat for wildlife such as amphibians, ungulates and birds.

1 Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated) 2015. Trans-Canada Highway 1 -Salmon Arm West 1st Ave.SW to 30th St. SW Four Laning Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Urban System and the Ministry ofTransportation and Infrastructure. Vernon, B.C. Pp. 96 + appendices.

November 13, 2015Kevin GordonUrban Systems- 2 -

Effort must be made to salvage the shrubs and trees of an appropriate size, for replanting at the site. Inaddition the site will need to be cleared of all existing structures. The topsoil in the area may be compactedand should be tilled to allow maximum root growth.

Landscaping and planting must only include native species that were identified onsite (Table 1). Table 2outlines the recommended planting prescription which includes a mix of trees, shrubs and plantingmethods. Number of plants required for planting was estimated using an area calculation based oncreating natural conditions once the plants are fully grown. To create natural conditions, shrub spacing atone per 2 m2, and tree spacing at one per 9 m2 is recommended. Generally, planting will be in clumps ofthree in microsites which are favourable for plant growth. Areas that have sparse tree or shrub cover will bethe primary focus when planting. The largest polygon, West Planting Area (Figure 1), is 1565 m 2 and basedon the area calculations, should be planted with 86 trees and 389 shrubs (Table 2). The second polygon,East Planting Area (Figure 1), is 835 m2 and should be planted with 46 trees and 209 shrubs (Table 2).Otherwise, shrub and tree replacements shall be one-year-old native rooted stock of good quality to provideoptimum survival, growth and development for the site.

Table 1 Tree and shrub species found on site.

Common Name Scientific Name Site Requirements

Choke cherry Prunus virginiana Dry open forests

Nootka rose Rosa nutkana Dry to moist sites, open to closed forest

Prickly rose Rosa acicularis Dry to moist sites, open to closed fore

Red osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera Moist soil, stream banks, thickets

Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Dry to moist sites; low to mid elevations

Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Dry to Moist sites

Narrow-leaf willow Salix exigua Nutt. Moist sites

Sitka willow Salix sitchensis Moist sites

Tea-leaved willow Salix planifolia Moist sites

Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera or P.trichocarpa Moist open forests

Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Moist sites

Douglas maple Acer glabrum var. douglasii Moist to dry open forests

November 13, 2015Kevin GordonUrban Systems- 3 -

Table 2 Planting Area Prescription

LocationArea

(2430 m2) Plant TypeEnhancementRequirements Recommended Species For Planting

WestPlanting

Area

1565 Trees 1 tree /9 m2 = 86 52 of Black cottonwood and 34Trembling Aspen

Shrubs 1 shrub/2 m2 = 391shrubs

78 each of: snowberry, red osierdogwood, Douglas maple, blackhawthorn and 79 willow

EastPlanting

Area

835 Trees 1 tree/9 m2 = 46 trees 28 Black cottonwood and 18 TremblingAspen

Shrubs 1 shrub/2 m2 = 209shrubs

42 each of: snowberry, red osierdogwood, Douglas maple, blackhawthorn and 41 willow

Assumptions: Riparian species will be planted along the banks of the Salmon River following the proposed

criteria:o West Area: a 15 m wide riparian strip along the north bank of the Salmon River to the west of

the new bridge will be planted in a random pattern in clumps of 3-5 plants where growth will befavorable

East Area: a 15 m wide riparian strip along the north bank of the Salmon River to the east of thenew bridge will be planted in a random pattern in clumps of 3-5 plants where growth will befavorable Planting will extend north towards the vacant lot where the Salmon Arm Motel is currentpositioned.

Landscaping and planting must only include native species that occur on site. Trees should be at least one year old rooted stock and shrub plugs Willow and black cottonwood are tolerant of wet conditions and should be planted closer to the

edge of the water. All planted clumps of plants should be flagged for ease of identification during subsequent

monitoring, If required, the clumps of plants should be fenced (using chicken wire and rebar stakes) to deter

damage by wildlife.

D-1

Appendix D - Weed Management Plan

November 13, 2015File: 2014-8222.000.008

Kevin Gordon, CTechSenior Transportation TechUrban Systems Ltd.200-286 St. Paul StreetKamloops, B.C. V2C 6G4

Re: HWY 1 SALMON ARM WEST - WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN

Dear Mr. Gordon:

Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated; formally Summit Environmental Consultants Inc.)is pleased to provide this Weed Management Plan for the Trans-Canada Highway 1 Salmon Arm West 1st

Ave. SW to 30th St. SW Four-Laning Project1.

It is our understanding that the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) plans to upgrade asection of Trans-City of Salmon Arm. The project involves four-laning 1.3 km of the highway and includes the constructionof a new four lane bridge over the Salmon River. MOTI retained the engineering firm Urban Systems Ltd.(Urban Systems) to complete the functional and detailed design for upgrading the section of the highwayfrom 1st Ave SW to 30th

Urban Systems retained AE to carry out the environmental assessment (EA) for the Project 1. Developing aWeed Management Plan for the Project Area was recommended as part of the EA.

Federal regulations regarding weed management focus on preventing the introduction of invasive speciesto Canada; therefore, weed management for species already introduced generally defaults to provincial andmunicipal regulations. The Weed Control Act of B.C. can apply to the project if noxious or invasive weedsare detected within the proposed area of disturbance. 2 Nuisance weeds are not regulated by the BC WeedControl Act, but noxious weeds must be controlled under the Act. The following Letter report outlines aWeed Management Plan for the Salmon Arm West Project.

1 Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated) 2015. Trans-Canada Highway 1 -Salmon Arm West 1st Ave.SW to 30th St. SW Four Laning Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Urban System and the Ministry ofTransportation and Infrastructure. Vernon, B.C. Pp. 96 + appendices.2 Government of British Columbia. 1996b. Weed Control Act. Available athttp://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96487_01. (Accessed February 5, 2015).

November 13, 2015Kevin Gordon, CTechUrban Systems Ltd.- 2 -

The goal of the Weed Management Plan is to control and manage priority noxious weed species currentlyfound in the Project Area. To support this goal the objectives of this Plan are:

1. manage and remove priority noxious weed species in compensation areas within the project area;2. prevent the introduction of new weed species during upgrading activities; and3. prevent the spread of priority weed species during construction.

Weed species are generally highly competitive plants that can reduce the productivity and biodiversity of anecosystem, and can reduce the carrying capacity for livestock and wildlife.3 Weed species haveestablished throughout the Project Area. Twenty one different weed species were identified in the ProjectArea during the EA.

Noxious weed species recorded during the field surveys are as follows (Appendix A):

burdock (Arctium spp);Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense);common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare);hound's tongue (Cynoglossum officinale);knapweed (Centaurea sp.); andyellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus ).

The riparian and wetland ecosystems in the Project Area are located between the existing highway andSalmon River Road, and around the oxbow feature east of the proposed new alignment. These areas areheavily disturbed and colonized by noxious and nuisance weed species such as: common tansy, reedcanary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), tongue, and yellow flag iris. Weed species in the treedriparian areas include burdock, nightshade (Solanum nigrum L.), and common tansy. Roadside right-of-ways contain weed species such as common tansy, burdock and knapweed. The lot to the west of CountryCamping, where a proposed access road is planned, is heavily infested with common tansy.

3 Province of British Columbia. 2002. Weeds of B.C. Available online: http://www.weedsbc.ca/browse.html. (AccessedFebruary 5, 2015).

November 13, 2015Kevin Gordon, CTechUrban Systems Ltd.- 3 -

We recognize that construction activities will follow the recommendations set out in the 2012 StandardSpecifications for Highway Construction, Section 165: Protection of the Environment 4. Taking thosemeasures into account, the following control and mitigation measures regarding weed management arerecommended to assist MOTI in planning and executing the proposed improvements to the highway, whileprotecting sensitive ecological components. General management methods and specific species strategiesare included in Appendix A.

This Weed Management Plan will specifically focus on two noxious species , yellow flag iris and commontansy; however, treatment methods for these species will manage for the other noxious species listedabove. Treatments will focus on three areas:

Area 1: Wetland Compensation Area;Area 2: Riparian Compensation Area; andArea 3: Road clearing works in common tansy infested areas.

Treatment prescriptions are presented in Table 1 and treatment areas are illustrated in Figure 1(appended).

4 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. 2011. Standard Specification for Highway Construction 2012. Victoria,B.C. Available online at: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/transportation -infrastructure/engineering-standards-guidelines/standard-specifications-for-highway-construction. Accessed November 10, 2015.

Table 1 Weed treatment areas and prescriptions

Treatment Area Weed Species Treatment Prescription Monitoring and Maintenance

Area 1 WetlandCompensation Area

Yellow flag iris(Irispseudacorus).

Dig out roots and dispose of plants in alicenced facility. Regular cutting willhelp manage the spread with theremoval of the taproot before July.

Monitor regrowth during ongoing wetland compensation andmonitoring5. Mow or dig out any regrowth each year.

Area 2 RiparianCompensation Area

Common tansy(Tanacetumvulgare);

Mow the Riparian Compensation Areawhere possible, in the spring prior toseed production. Mow around plantedclumps in this area to keep weeds incheck and allow native plants to thrive.

Monitor regrowth during ongoing riparian compensation andmonitoring6. Mow around planted clumps each year.

Area 3 Road clearingworks in common tansyareas

Common tansy(Tanacetumvulgare);

Mow plants and remove surface soillayer for road construction. Store soilseparately and dispose of in a licensedfacility. Do not reuse on site elsewhere.

Maintenance will be incorporated and continued based onthe 2012 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction,Section 165: Protection of the Environment4

5 Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated) 2015. Trans-Canada Highway 1 - Salmon Arm West 1st Ave. SW to 30 th St. SW Four LaningEnvironmental Assessment. Appendix E Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan. Letter Report. Prepared for Urban Sys tems. Ltd. Vernon, B.C.Pp. 4.6 Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated) 2015. Trans-Canada Highway 1 - Salmon Arm West 1st Ave. SW to 30 th St. SW Four LaningEnvironmental Assessment. Appendix C Riparian Planting Plan. Letter Report. Prepared for Urban Systems Ltd. Vernon, B.C. Pp. 11 + appendices.

The following general management measures are proposed for pre-construction:

Pre-treat the three treatment areas (Table 1), where feasible. Wash all equipment entering and exiting the construction zone at a car wash or pre-designated

sites to prevent the spread of mud and weeds. Where this is not feasible, equipment will bemanually cleaned when involved with activities in weed infested areas.

Onsite staff, operators and subcontractors will be made aware of weed prevention plan throughonsite meetings.

Weed management will include a combination of measures that best control the growth noxious weedspecies found in the Project Area. Methods used to manage noxious species will help to control otherweeds species found onsite. These measures include:

Haul trucks and other vehicles will not drive though areas infested with weed. Limit the potential spread of weed species by limiting the amount of construction equipment used in

weed invested areas or the number of passes equipment make through these areas. Clearing and grubbing activities will be limited to only the area necessary for equipment and

personnel to safely and efficiently conduct their activities. Vegetation will be retained as much aspossible, especially in the treed riparian, oxbow and marsh ecosystems. This will limit soildisturbance and the introduction of weeds species into areas that are not currently affected.

Overburden that encompasses weed species will be contained onsite or taken to a designatedfacility that accepts soils contaminated with weeds.

Overburden contaminated with noxious weed seeds will not be used for any reclamationapplications.

Mechanical and chemical control methods will be applied based the recommendations made by acertified herbicide applicator and follow guidelines.

Disturbed or sparely vegetated areas will be covered or hydro seeded as soon as possible with astandard native seed mix, to discourage the establishment of weed species.

Only Certified Canada No. 1 Weed Free seed mixes will be used.

Monitoring for weed species will be part of the Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan andthe Riparian Compensation Plan.

Some areas may require additional planting or seeding to discourage weed encroachment andencourage native species establishment.

Appendix A General Control Methods

Mechanical methods (e.g. hand pulling, brushing, or mowing) can be used to remove invasive plants thatoccur at any other location within the Project Area; however, hand pulling is the best method to removespecies in ecologically sensitive areas like wetlands and riparian areas (Table 1). Some species reproducevegetatively through their root systems; therefore, it is important to remove the entire root of the plant. Careis to be taken to ensure hand pulling occurs before the plants seed and that seed heads are not dispersedduring the removal process. Removed invasive plants should be bagged and deposited at the nearestlandfill that will accept these species.

Herbicide application using a backpack sprayer for stem application on open cut stems (i.e. after brushing)or broad cast application is highly effective at controlling growth. This work will be conducted by a certifiedherbicide applicator, and will be done in optimal weather conditions (i.e. days with no wind or rain) tomitigate impacts to non-target species. Application guidelines must be followed when applying herbicideswith the appropriate setbacks from water and sensitive areas. It is important to limit herbicide application asmuch as possible within areas vegetated with native species and wet areas in order to minimize potentialeffects on non-target species from spray drift and soil adsorption. If herbicide applications are chosen thetype of herbicide applied will be based on recommendations made by the certified herbicide applicator.

Table 1 General weed management for six species found in the Project Area

WeedSpecies

Dispersal Timing Weed Identification Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment

Burdock Seed

Flowers between Julyand October, with

potential seedproduction 6,000 to

16,000 seeds.

Mowing prior to flowering ismost effective. Regular cuttingand tillage will help manage

the spread with the removal ofthe taproot. Method can be

applied at all sites in theProject Area.

Broad herbicide treatment suchas glyphosate is recommended

to control. Method can beapplied at sites in the Project

Area that are away from water.

CanadaThistle

Seed andvegetativelyfrom roots

New shoots areproduced in May andJune. Flowers in mid

spring with thepotential to produce1500 to 5000 seeds

Mowing at the bud stage ismost effective. Regular cuttingand tillage will help managethe spread. Method can be


Spot herbicide treatment inspring us ing 2,4,D, and follow-

up in fall after a frost withpicoloram or glyphosate.

Method can be applied at sitesin the Project Area that are

away from water.

WeedSpecies


CommonTansy


Flowers between Julyand September

Mowing prior to flowering ismost effective. Regular cuttingand tillage will help managethe spread. Method can be


The bes t application of herbicideis between early flower and thebloom stage. Method can beapplied at sites in the Project

Area that are away from water.

Diffuseknapweed

Seed

Flowers in early June,seeds formed byAugust, with the

potential to produceover 1800 seeds .

Hand-pulling, cutting ormowing before seed-set andremoval of cuttings from thesite. Method can be applied

at all sites in the Project Area.

Stem herbicide application inspring and follow-up in fall if

required, prior to plants going toseed. Method can be applied atsites in the Project Area that are

away from water.

HoundsTongue

Seed

Produces a rosette inspring and autumn,with the potential to

produce 2000 to 4000seeds

Mowing prior to flowering ismost effective. Regular cuttingand tillage will help managethe spread. Method can be


Herbicide application applied inspring, summer or autumn can

achieve long-term control

WeedSpecies


Spottedknapweed

Seed

Flowers in spring andagain in August, with

the potential toproduce over 400

seeds.

Herbicide application in springand follow-up in fall if required,prior to plants going to seed.Method can be applied at sites

in the Project Area that areaway from water.

Hand-pulling, cutting or mowingbefore seed-set and removal ofcuttings from the s ite. Method

can be applied at all sites in theProject Area.

YellowFlag Iris


Flowers between Mayand June, withpotential seedproduction overseveral hundred

Dig out roots.Mowing prior to flowering is

most effective. Regular cuttingand tillage will help manage

the spread with the removal ofthe taproot before July.

Method can be applied at allsites in the Project Area.

Herbicide application is notrecommended as this plant isusually found in or near water.

Control methods and photos adapted from:Province of British Columbia. 2015. Field Guide to Noxious and Other Selected Weeds of British Columbia. Victoria, BC. Online at:

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/weedguid/weedguid.htm. Accessed November 10, 2015.Invasive Species Council of British Columbia. 2014. Invasive Species. Williams Lake, BC. Online at: http://bcinvasives.ca/search/no-

results/ff49f1ffdb7d8225c358ee46b4adf9bc/. Accessed November 10, 2015.Province of British Columbia. 2002. Guide to Weeds in British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Burnaby, B.C. P.p. 195.

E-1

Appendix E - Wetland Compensation andEnhancement Plan

REPORT

Urban Systems Ltd.

Salmon Arm WestWetland Compensation and EnhancementPlan

June 2016

CONFIDENTIALITY AND © COPYRIGHT

This document is for the sole use of the addressee and Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. The document contains proprietary andconfidential information that shall not be reproduced in any manner or disclosed to or discussed with any other parties without the expresswritten permission of Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property ofAssociated Environmental Consultants Inc. in accordance with Canadian copyright law.

This report was prepared by Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. for the account of Urban Systems Ltd. The material in it reflectsAssociated Environmental Consultants Inc.’s best judgement, in the light of the information available to it, at the time of preparation. Any usewhich a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties.Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisionsmade or actions based on this report.

REPORT

i

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE NO.

Table of Contents iList of Tables iiList of Figures iii1 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Objectives 1-3

1.2 Baseline Environment 1-3

1.3 Permitting and Scheduling 1-4

2 Habitat Design and Targets 2-52.1 Habitat Description 2-5

2.2 Monitoring Targets 2-6

3 Construction and Monitoring Guidance 3-73.1 Phase One - Wetland construction 3-7

3.2 Phase Two – Turtle Nesting Habitat 3-9

3.3 Phase Three – Monitoring and Maintenance 3-10

4 Future Considerations 4-11References 1Appendix A - Photographs 1Appendix B – Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan: R2-952-501 3

Urban Systems Ltd. List of Tables

ii

List of Tables

PAGE NO.

Table 3-1 Recommended Turtle Nesting Soil/Substrate Mix 3-10

Urban Systems Ltd. List of Figures

iii

List of Figures

PAGE NO.

Figure 1-1 Project Location 1-2

REPORT

1-1

1 IntroductionThe B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) plans to upgrade a section of Trans-CanadaHighway 1 (the highway), approximately 3 km west of the City of Salmon Arm. The project involves four-laning 1.3 km of the highway including constructing a new four lane bridge over the Salmon River. Theproject is located from 1st Ave. SW to 30th Street SW (Figure 1-1). MOTI retained the engineering firm,Urban Systems Ltd. (Urban Systems), to complete the functional and detailed design.

Urban Systems retained Associated Environmental Consultants Inc. (Associated; formally SummitEnvironmental Consultants) to carry out the environmental assessment (EA) for the Project (Associated2015). Following the EA it was confirmed that 274 m2 of a remnant oxbow would be affected by the Project.This oxbow provides habitat for the native freshwater western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii;provincially Blue-listed1 species and federally listed as Special Concern and occur on Schedule 1 of theSpecies at Risk Act2), the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), and the pacific chorus frog(Pseudocris regilla). These species were identified in the oxbow during amphibian and turtle surveysconducted under the EA. In addition, this oxbow may support other amphibian species as the Columbiaspotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana), and the western toad(Anaxyrus boreas); the latter two are provincially Blue-listed species, also occurring occur on Schedule 1 ofthe Species at Risk Act.

Anecdotal information collected during the EA (C. Lindsey, personal communication 2015) suggested asmall number of turtles have been observed crossing the parking area of the motel, towards the road fillsalong the existing highway alignment and side roads for nesting. Although these areas are not optimalnesting habitat for the painted turtles, they are located under the footprint of the proposed highwayrealignment. To offset for the loss of oxbow and isolation from potential nesting habitat, we have prepareda plan to construct a new wetland and nesting habitat for painted turtles in the vicinity of the remainingexisting oxbow.

As part of environmental mitigation for the project, a 2:1 replacement ratio was recommended for the loss ofhabitat provided by the remnant oxbow (Associated 2015). More than the 548 m2 of compensation habitatrequired under this replacement ratio was achieved with the plan to create 700 m 2 of wetland habitat and anadditional 300 m2 of enhanced nesting habitat. This report outlines the steps required to complete thewetland compensation and enhancement. This field-fit design may be adjusted by a QualifiedEnvironmental Professional (QEP) during construction to follow the natural contours of the landscape.

1 B.C. Status: Red listed: indigenous species or subspecies (taxa) considered Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatenedin B.C.; Blue-listed: indigenous taxa considered vulnerable in B.C.2 Status under Species at Risk Act (SARA): federally designated species listed as Extirpated, Endangered,Threatened, or of Special Concern are listed as Schedule 1. Once listed as Schedule 1, measures to protect andrecover listed species are implemented

Urban Systems Ltd. 1 - Introduction

1-3

1.1 OBJECTIVES

The goal of the wetland compensation and enhancement plan is to replace the type of habitat that will belost in the remnant oxbow under the project footprint, and to enhance the existing western painted turtle andamphibian habitat in the area. This will be done by constructing a wetland directly adjacent to the oxbow.To support this goal the objectives of this Plan are:

create naturalized wetland habitat suitable for turtles and amphibians; provide basking structures for turtles; and enhance nesting habitat for turtles adjacent to the wetland.

These habitats will be monitored following construction to determine species use and for maintenance thatmay be required.

1.2 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

The project will directly affect 274 m2 of deep and moderately deep wetland habitat (remnant oxbow), bringthe road right-of-way next to the wetland, and block potential migration routes to nesting habitat. The closeproximity of the wetland to the highway will increase the indirect effects of the road operation on thewetland, which may include increased noise, road runoff, and invasive species.

The remnant oxbow is a shallow wetland that floods during the spring. The majority of the oxbow dries upby late summer, with the exception of deeper pools on either end of the oxbow. The site is located in anagricultural field north of the proposed bridge crossing. The existing oxbow is approximately 100 m long, 8m wide and was once connected to the Salmon River (Appendix A: Photographs).

Mature trees and shrubs that surround the margins of the oxbow include black hawthorn (Crataegusdouglasii), box-elder (Acer negundo), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and weeping willow (Salixbablonica). The herb layer is dominated by the introduced reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea),various sedges (Carex. spp), bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and small-flowered forget-me-not(Myosotis laxa). Also occurring in the standing water is common duckweed (Lemna minor), and Americanspeedwell (Veronica beccabunga var.americana), and the noxious yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus).Although the site is an important habitat feature in the Project Area because it supports rare aquatic orsemi-aquatic plants, amphibians, and turtles, it shows signs of disturbance from cattle and previous farmingactivities.

Adjacent to the oxbow is a reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)/sedge transition wetland. It appearsto be a remnant of the river’s floodplain and is only evident in those areas where the soil level has not beenbuilt up for agriculture or dwellings. It is dominated by introduced reed canary grass and bluejoint grass,with little diversity apart from some field sedge (Carex praegracilis) and Bebb’s sedge (C. bebbii). Thiswetland potentially provides suitable habitat for a number of rare semi-aquatic plants as well as amphibians,

Urban Systems Ltd. 1 - Introduction

1-4

like the long-toed salamander that was found in this area during surveys. By the plant survey in August, theentire site had dried out and was heavily grazed and trampled by cattle.

Western painted turtles and amphibians require aquatic and terrestrial habitat to complete their life cycles.Western painted turtles are typically found in marshes, ponds and slow moving reaches of rivers and lakeswith abundant emergent vegetation, exposed cattail or bulrush mats. In addition, course woody debris, matsof vegetation and boulders can be used for basking (COSEWIC 2006; Basaraba 2014). Shallow water withemergent vegetation is typically used by juvenile and neonates (Reese and Welsh 1998). Winterhibernation for juveniles and adults occurs in the muddy bottoms of wetlands that do not freeze (COSEWIC2006, Basaraba 2014), while terrestrial habitat can be used for nesting if substrates allow. Females canmove up to 200 m from the shoreline looking for appropriate habitat. Nesting habitat is generally in welldrained sand/loam soils that can maintain structure and are exposed to the sun (COSEWIC 2006; Ernstand Lovich 2009).

1.3 PERMITTING AND SCHEDULING

A provincial General Wildlife Permit and Animal Care Committee approval will be required prior toconduction in order to conduct an amphibian and turtle salvage in the area. The salvage should beconducted immediately prior to construction.

Once amphibians and turtles have been removed from the site, and it has been determined that duediligence has been met, construction can begin under supervision from a QEP.

Construction should be scheduled to take place within the least-risk timing window (late June to September)for amphibians and reptiles. This Plan has been segregated into three phases, as follows:

Phase 1: Construction of the wetland based on the wetland design (Section 2). Clearing and grubbing andconstruction of the wetland must occur within the least risk window for turtles and amphibians. This isgenerally between late June and September to avoid hibernation and the breeding season. It isrecommended that salvage operations and constructions occur in the drier months of August and earlySeptember as this will reduce the time required for salvage.

Phase 2: Construction of the 300 m2 turtle nest enhancement area should occur during at the same timeas the wetland construction within the least-risk timing window (late June to September).

Phase 3: This phase consists of monitoring and if required the removal of invasive species around theconstructed wetland and enhancement for the following year. Additional planting of native species mayalso be required around the constructed wetland. Monitoring for the presence of amphibians and turtlesshould occur the following spring, and the nesting surveys in June. During these surveys, inventory ofnative vegetation and invasive species cover should be monitored. In addition vegetation removal from theturtle nesting area and removal of invasive species from the constructed wetland should also occur at thistime.

Urban Systems Ltd. 2 - Habitat Design and Targets

2-5

2 Habitat Design and TargetsSedge wetlands occur in the Project Area along the Salmon River and will be a model for constructedhabitat.

2.1 HABITAT DESCRIPTION

Wetland HabitatThe goal is to create wetland habitat that provides suitable breeding and overwintering habitat for bothturtles and amphibians within three years of construction. Sedge wetlands occur in the Project Area alongthe Salmon River and will be a model for constructed habitat. The constructed wetland will reflect a beakedsedge-water sedge marsh (Wm01) wetland classification as described in Wetlands of BC (MacKenzie andMoran 2004), planted with native vegetation found in the area. The wetland will be at least 550 m2 and upto 700 m2, and 1.5 m at its deepest. The wetland design will follow the natural contours of the landscape,where possible and include three depth contours (BC FLNRO 2014a; Appendix B):

Tier 1 – deep zone - located below the water table for a depth of 1.5 m (±10 cm) and 3 m to 10 mwide;

Tier 2 – moderately deep zone - habitats between the depths of 0.6 m (±10 cm) and 2.5 m to 4.5 mwide; and

Tier 3 – shallow zone - habitats between the depths of 0.3 m (±10 cm) that blends into the existingcontours.

Woody debris will be placed and suitable emergent vegetation planted to create naturalized habitat. It isexpected that natural vegetation will be established and self-sustaining within five years, and invasiveweeds will be monitored and managed to maintain habitat integrity as part of the Weed Management Plan(Associated 2015a). The site should be fenced to prevent livestock from accessing the sensitive wetlandhabitat, and barriers placed to prevent turtles and amphibians from accessing the road.

Basking StructuresBasking structures for turtles will be placed in the wetland, including large rocks or logs exposed above thewater level. Exposure to sun and accessibility from both water and shore line are key considerations for theplacement of these.

Nesting HabitatThe goal is to create suitable nesting habitat adjacent to the wetland that will be used for nesting withinthree years of construction. Nesting habitat will consist of suitable substrates mounded in areas that remaindry during high water conditions. Suitable substrates are “diggable” but substrate composition may beselected to offset specific environmental parameters (i.e. coarser textured substrates may be used during

Urban Systems Ltd. 2 - Habitat Design and Targets

2-6

wet years). Therefore, a range of substrate options have been recommended here to accommodate avariety of conditions. In general, nesting habitat will incorporate the following key characteristics:

sparse overhead vegetation; south to southwest exposure; little to no tree or shrub canopy; and well drained sandy/loamy soils.

2.2 MONITORING TARGETS

To determine the success of this Plan, targets are defined during Construction and Post-ConstructionMonitoring.

1. Construction TargetsAn environmental monitor will be on-site during construction and will be evaluating the success ofconstruction based on these targets:

wetland area built as per design; expansion of the wetland by at least 550 m2 with a target of 700 m2; removal of invasive species; re-vegetation of the wetland with native vegetation; placement of at least two basking structures; and construction of 300 m2 of turtle nesting habitat.

2. Post-Construction Monitoring Targets:Monitoring will take place annually in late spring for the first three years after construction, and again on thefifth year post-construction. Monitoring must take place during the same time of year to provide comparabledata. Results of initial monitoring will determine how much further monitoring may be required untilenhancement habitats are self-sustaining. Targets include:

native plant cover two thirds greater than invasive species cover within 5 years; stable shore margins (no evidence of erosion) within 1 year; evidence of turtle nesting within 3 years; and turtle and amphibian presence within 3 years.

It is recommended that adaptive management treatments are implemented to increase the likelihood ofsuccess, and to determine an end-point of the program. If this Plan is not performing as expected, adaptivemanagement strategies that could be implemented include:

additional native planting; employment of sediment and erosion control measures; improvements to nesting habitat substrate such as removal of vegetation; or predator exclusion fencing.

Urban Systems Ltd. 3 - Construction and Monitoring Guidance

3-7

3 Construction and Monitoring GuidanceA QEP must be onsite during construction of the wetland and turtle nesting area to provide direction andguide the field-fit wetland design to the contours and features onsite in addition to reviewing the plantingconsiderations. Prior to construction, exclusion and silt fencing must be established around the ProjectFootprint to completely exclude amphibians and turtles from the construction area.

The wetland construction plan is based on the assumption that prior to any construction activities thenecessary salvages have been conducted to remove wildlife from the construction footprint. In addition, thesite is properly isolated to keep animals outside of the construction area.

Wetland compensation and habitat enhancement design and construction recommendations made in thisPlan are consistent with the following references:

Guidance for Conserving Oregon’s Native Turtles including Best Management Practices. (ODFW2015);

Wetlands of British Columbia: a Guide to Identification (MacKenzie and Moran 2004); Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation during Urban and Real Land Development in

British Columbia (2014): A companion document to Develop with Care (BC FLNRO 2014a); Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and conservation in British Columbia: Wetland

Enhancement and Restoration Chapter Eleven (Wetland Stewardship Partnership 2009); Draft Best Management Practice for Amphibian and Reptile Salvages in British Columbia. 2014.

(BC FLNRO 2014b); and Develop with Care 2014: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in

British Columbia (BC FLNRO 2014c).

Guidance for construction of the wetland and turtle nesting habitat is outlined below.

3.1 PHASE ONE - WETLAND CONSTRUCTION

General Site Construction and Considerations

Establish silt fencing around the native wetland to maintain water quality and prevent site erosion. Contour the new highway to direct potential sources of containments such as oil and road salt away

from the wetland to maintain water quality. Excavated soils and contaminated materials will betaken to a designated facility that accepts contaminated materials.

Obtain water quality data on the oxbow prior to the highway and wetland construction. Preserve native trees and shrubs in the area. Excavate the groundwater basin and grade the areas into the three tiers. Designate 50% of the constructed wetland as Tier 1 with a depth of 1.5 m.


3-8

Construct side slopes of the constructed wetland to a ratio ranging from 5:1 to 10:1 where feasible.It is particularly important to have gentle slopes around the wetland but more specifically leading upthe nest enhancement area for the turtles (See Phase 2).

Vegetate disturbed areas with a certified native B.C. Interior wetland seed mix. Seeds from thenative plants currently onsite (i.e. sedges) can be collected and used to plant the area. Handcollection of these seeds is the optimal methods to ensure the collection is free of invasive speciesand that the plants are locally adapted to the site.

Place down woody debris (collected from the site if available) along shoreline and around thewetland edges to create terrestrial habitat for amphibians.

Place cement lock block or large rocks along the toe of the slope of the road to prevent turtles anddiscourage other wildlife from crossing the road or nesting on the shoulder for at least 100 m ineach direction beginning at the wetland. Large rocks must be placed as not to create interstitialspaces in which turtles or other animals can become trapped. Placement should create acontinuous wall as least 60 cm tall.

Construct a barbwire fence around the wetland and the nest enhancement areas to keep livestockout of the area. A gap of 15 cm left at the fence bottom will allow turtles to move freely.

Basking Structures

Maintain natural basking structures as down logs, rocks, or native vegetation mats. Install at least two basking structures (ideally a large log 3 m) in the constructed wetland area. Place basking structures in full or partially sun exposed areas opposite of each other. Place part of the structure on shore to anchor the structure and at an angle. This will provide

shallow and deep water habitat for turtles while basking. Place logs with smaller branches or smaller diameters as basking structures for smaller turtles and

neonates3.

Planting ConsiderationsEffort must be made to salvage native seed, forbs and wetland plants for revegetation at the site; otherwise,replacement plants and seed must be rooted stock of good quality to provide optimum survival, growth anddevelopment for the site. Planting should be based on the following designed wetland tiers:

Tier 1: the deep zone will not be planted.Tier 2: recommended plants for the medium zone include duckweed, (Equisetum fluviatile), nativesedges, and other wetland plants that have been salvaged in the oxbow.Tier 3: recommended plants include sedges such as field and Bebb’s sedge, small-floweredforget-me-not and mosses found onsite. These can be planted or seeded along the edges of theponds where it meets shallow waters.

3 Neonate: a newborn turtle less than a year old.


3-9

3.2 PHASE TWO – TURTLE NESTING HABITAT

Construct nest enhancement area 20 meters from the high water mark of the wetland and avoidplacement around native trees.

Remove vegetation and grub the ground in the proposed nest enhancement area to expose andupturn the soil.

Place two different mixtures from the recommended range of substrate mix found in Table 3-1(ODFW 2015). Turtles are also known to nest along road shoulders, where road gravel/crush hasbeen used (Basaraba 2014, Toronto Zoo 2015). This substrate may be an option as one of theavailable mixes for the nesting area given that it falls within the recommended substrate ranges(Toronto Zoo 2015). This is to provide different substrate compositions as turtles may selectdifferent substrates depending on the environmental parameters of that year (Toronto Zoo 2015).

Native soils are preferred to maintain onsite soil microbes and to prevent the introduction of weeds. Ideal aggregate (gravel) size is 0.6 cm or less (rounded if available), but expert recommendations

range from 2 cm to 0.3 cm. The purpose of the aggregate is to aid in weed suppression. Place six 3 m by 10 m mounds of alternating soils mixtures as described in Appendix B. Soil

mounds should measure between 30 cm and 90 cm deep (ODFW 2015). Gently slope mounds (<15%) and face mounds south or southwest where they will receive full solar

radiation (ODFW 2015).


3-10

Table 3-1 Recommended Turtle Nesting Soil/Substrate Mix

Soil/Substrate Type* Percent of Total MixSubstrate A**

Percent of Total MixSubstrate B**

Fine clay (<0.002 mm) 25 12.5

Loam (0.002 mm -0.062 mm) 25 25

Sand (0.062 mm - 2.0 mm) 25 50

Small Aggregate (2 mm – 20 mm) 25 12.5

Source: ODFW. 2015. Guidance for Conserving Oregon’s Native Turtlesincluding Best Management Practices. Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife. Pp 99.*These mixtures may have to be tailor made for the Project.**Road crush may also be a substrate option, if it falls within therecommended ranges in the above table.

3.3 PHASE THREE – MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE

The primary concern for the wetland compensation area will be maintaining hydrology and controlling theencroachment on invasive species in the wetland and turtle nesting areas. Therefore, additional works maybe required after the first year, depending on the results of an annual assessment. These include:

Removal and control of noxious and invasive weeds. Re-vegetating and seeding of native species, if necessary. Monitoring the presence of amphibians and turtles in the wetland following construction.

Annual post construction assessments should be conducted to:

Ensure that the design requirements were met as suggested in Section 3.1. Document weed infestation to compare to pre-construction infestations. Regular removal of

invasive and noxious species may be required to maintain habitat integrity. Documentation and removal of vegetation that has encroached into the turtle nesting area. Regular

vegetation removal in the nesting area may be required to maintain functional nesting habitat(Ovaska and Englestoft 2012; BC FLNRO 2014).

Monitoring for turtle and amphibian use of the constructed wetland and nesting areas.

Urban Systems Ltd. 4 - Future Considerations

4-11

4 Future ConsiderationsWetland construction and enhancement is used to compensate for the loss of habitat; however, restoringfunction of the ecosystem may take a number of years. Annual post-construction monitoring of the wetlandis recommended, at least for the first three years, to ensure that the design requirements are met. It maytake two or three years before turtles begin to use the nest enhancement area (Englestoft and Ovaska2015). In addition, changes to the design, monitoring frequency and incorporating adaptive management(as outlined in Section 2.2), may be required to ensure the success of the habitat compensation.

REPORT

-1

References

Associated Environmental Inc. (Associated). 2015. Trans-Canada Highway 1 -Salmon Arm West 1st Ave.SW to 30th St. SW Four Laning Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Urban System and theMinistry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Vernon, B.C. Pp. 96 + appendices.

Associated Environmental Inc. (Associated). 2015a. Trans-Canada Highway 1 - Salmon Arm West 1st Ave.SW to 30th St. SW Four Laning Environmental Assessment. Appendix D – Weed ManagementPlan. Letter Report. Prepared for Urban Systems Ltd. Vernon, B.C. Pp. 11 + appendices

Basaraba, N. 2014. The ecology of Western Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta bellii) in a NorthernCanadian Reservoir. Thesis Submitted in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofMasters of Environmental Science. Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, B.C.

Baker, J., Beebee T., Buckley, J., Gent, A. and Orchard, D. (2011). Amphibian Habitat ManagementHandbook. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Bournemouth. Pp. 39.

B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (BC FLNRO). 2014a. Develop with Care2014: Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation during Urban and Real LandDevelopment in British Columbia. Victoria, B.C. Pp. 142.

B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. 2014b. Best Management Practices forAmphibian and Reptile Salvages in British Columbia. DRAFT Document. Prepared by Wind, E., M.Sarell, N. Sands and S. Sloboda. Surrey, B.C. Pp. 57.

B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. 2014c. Develop with Care 2014:Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in British Columbia. Availableonline at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/devwithcare/#Main. Accessed November4, 2015.

City of Salmon Arm. 2011. City of Salmon Arm Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 4000 Schedule A.Salmon Arm, B.C.

Corkran C.C., and C. Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. 2nd Edition.Lone Pine Publishing. Vancouver, British Columbia.

COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western painted turtle Chrysemys pictabellii (pacific coast population, intermountain-rocky mountain population and prairie/western boreal- Canadian Shield population) in Canada. Vol. vii + 40 pp. Ottawa: Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada [Web access September 2009,www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm].

Englestoft, C. and K. Ovaska. 2015. Western Painted Turtle Surveys and Stewardship Activities onVancouver Island in 2014. Report Prepared for Habitat Acquisition Trust. Victoria, B.C. Pp. 31.

Ernst, C.H., and J.E. Lovich. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Urban Systems Ltd.

-2

Lindsey C. 2015. Personal communication (in person discussion). Salmon River Motel property owner.Salmon Arm, B.C.

MacKenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004 Wetlands of British Columbia: a Guide to Identification. Res. Br.,C.B. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. Land Manage. Handook. No. 52.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2015. Guidance for Conserving Oregon’s Native Turtlesincluding Best Management Practices. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pp 99.

Ovaska, K., and C. Englestoft. 2012. Western Painted Turtle Surveys and Stewardship Activities onVancouver Island in 2011. Report Prepared for Habitat Acquisition Trust. Victoria, B.C. Pp. 31.

Packard, G.C., M.J.Packard, C.L. Morjan, and F.J. Janzen. 2002. Cold-tolerance of hatchling painted turtles(Chrysemys picta bellii) from the southern limit of distribution. Journal of Herpetology 36:300-304.

Reese, D.A., and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 1998. Habitat use by western pond turtles in the Trinity River, California.The Journal of Wildlife Management 62:842-853.

Toronto Zoo. 2015. Resources – Constructing Artificial Turtle Nests. Available athttp://www.torontozoo.com/AdoptAPond/Turtlenests.asp?opx=2. Accessed October 30, 2015.

Wetland Stewardship Partnership. 2009. Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and conservation inBritish Columbia: Wetland Enhancement and Restoration Chapter Eleven. March 2009. Availableonline at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca%2Fwld%2Fdocuments%2Fbmp%2Fwetlandways2009%2FWetland%2520Ways%2520Ch%252011%2520Enhancement.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2015.

REPORT

A-1

Appendix A - Photographs

Photograph 4-1. Deep pond area of the remnent oxbow

Photograph 2. reed canary/sedge transition wetland

Urban Systems Ltd. Appendix A - Photographs

A-2

Photo 3. Long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) larvae found in the reedcanary/sedge transition wetland

Urban Systems Ltd. Appendix B – Wetland Compensation and Enhancement Plan: R2-952-501

A-3

Appendix B – Wetland Compensation andEnhancement Plan: R2-952-501

FINAL REPORT - gov.bc.ca · final\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx 1.4.5...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT - gov.bc.ca · final\report_salmon arm west_ea 100% design final_20151124.docx 1.4.5...