APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - Metro Vancouver

Sheep Paddocks Trail Alignment Analysis

LEES+Associates

-128-

APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

August 2013

SHEEP PADDOCKS TRAIL

Phase 1: Route Selection

Environmental Impact Assessment

Sheep Paddocks Trail Phase 1 – Route Selection


ii AquaTerra Environmental Ltd.

22 August 2013 LEES + Associates Landscape Architects 509 – 318 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2V2 and Metro Vancouver Parks 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8

Attention: Mr. Nalon Smith and Ms. Jamie Vala Re: Sheep Paddocks Trail – Phase 1: Route Selection Environmental Impact

Assessment [FINAL] Please find enclosed a copy of the report titled ‘Sheep Paddocks Trail – Phase 1: Route

Selection’ for review and use by LEES+Associates and Metro Vancouver.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Chris Lee, M.Sc., RPBio. Principal / Senior Project Biologist AquaTerra Environmental Ltd.

Byron Kirkham, B.Sc., RPBio. Senior Biologist AquaTerra Environmental Ltd.



iii AquaTerra Environmental Ltd.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. iii LIST OF IN-TEXT TABLES ............................................................................................. iv LIST OF IN-TEXT FIGURES ............................................................................................ v LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................... v 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Objectives ............................................. 3 1.2 Existing Trails and Historical Compensation Efforts .................................... 3 1.3 Proposed Trail Route Options ......................................................................... 4

2 BACKGROUND REVIEW RESULTS ....................................................................... 5 2.1 Historical Reports ............................................................................................. 5

2.1.1 Colony Farm Land Use Plan 5 2.1.2 Lower Coquitlam River Fish Habitat and Flooding assessment 6 2.1.3 Environmental Inventory and Sensitive Area Analysis of the

Western Portion of Colony Farm Regional Park 7 2.1.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Studies for the Northwest Section of

Colony Farm Regional Park 10 2.2 Databases and Mapping Utilities – Sensitive Species / Species-at-

Risk ................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Existing Watercourse Data ............................................................................. 14 2.4 Aerial Photographs ......................................................................................... 15

3 FIELD SURVEYS AND ASSOCIATED FINDINGS ................................................ 16 3.1 Description of Watercourse Crossings and Fish Habitat ............................ 17

3.1.1 Route 1A 17 3.1.2 Route 1B 18 3.1.3 Route 2A 18 3.1.4 Route 2B 18 3.1.5 Route 3 21

3.2 Fish Observations ........................................................................................... 22 3.3 Compensation Requirement .......................................................................... 22 3.4 Description of Terrestrial Ecosystems and Associated Vegetation ........... 22

3.4.1 Invasive Species 23 3.5 Description of Observed Wildlife ................................................................... 25

3.5.1 Mammals 25 3.5.2 Birds 25 3.5.3 Amphibians and Reptiles 27 3.5.4 Invertebrates 27

4 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................... 27 4.1 Environmental Constraints for Each Route Option ..................................... 27 4.2 Impact Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................ 30

5 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 32 5.1 Recommended Route – Environmental Considerations ............................. 32

6 PHASE 2 DATA REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ 34 7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................ 34 8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 35



iv AquaTerra Environmental Ltd.

LIST OF IN-TEXT TABLES

Table 1: Anticipated Trail Construction Effort, Environmental Sensitivities, and

Associated Environmental Protection Measures

Table 2: Vegetation Sensitivity Class - Tera (2009)

Table 3: Compiled Confirmed and Potentially Occurring Sensitive Species / Species-at-

Risk Data for the Project Area

Table 4: Watercourse Crossing Locations and Attributes, Fish Observations, Crossing

Recommendations, and Compensation Requirements

Table 5: 2013 Field Surveys - Incidental Bird Observations

Table 6: Environmental Constraints for Proposed Trail Route Options - Italics (Tera

2009 comments); Bold (AquaTerra 2013 comments)

Table 7: Sheep Paddocks Trail - Phase 1 Impact Evaluation Matrix



v AquaTerra Environmental Ltd.

LIST OF IN-TEXT FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Area & Surrounding Areas (Colony Farm Land Use Plan [1995]

Figure 2: Project Area Land Use Designation (Metro Vancouver)

Figure 3: Proposed Trail Route Options

Figure 4: Trail Locations and Recommended Structures for Watercourse Crossings

Figure 5: Sheep Paddocks - Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Figure 6: Common Cattail Marsh - Blue-listed Ecosystem - Approximate Boundaries

(Tera 2009)

Figure 7: City of Coquitlam Q the Map Watercourse / Wetland Results

Figure 8: 1979 Provincial Floodplain Orthophotograph

Figure 9: 2006 Aerial Photograph Illustrating Sheep Paddocks in Southern Portion of

the Project Area

Figure 10: Areas Traversed During 2013 Field Surveys (Yellow)

Figure 11: Trail Route Options and Watercourse Crossings

Figure 12: Approximate Location of Route 3 Traversed by AquaTerra Personnel

Figure 13: Invasive Species Map - Tera and Robertson (2010)

Figure 14: Invasive Species Trail Assessment Areas

Figure 15: Areas of High Bird Diversity - Shrub Dominated Habitats - Trail Route 2A

Figure 16: AquaTerra Recommended Route - Based on Environmental Constraints

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) Mapping Results

Appendix B: Field Survey Photographs

Appendix C: Invasive Plant Details



1 AquaTerra Environmental Ltd.

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

Sheep Paddocks Trail (the ‘project’) is situated within Colony Farm Regional Park in the

City of Coquitlam, British Columbia. The project area is bordered by the Coquitlam River

to the east, the CPR tracks / Highway 7 (Lougheed Highway) to the west, Pitt River

Road to the north, and Mundy Creek to the south. The Coquitlam portion of Colony

Farm, inclusive of the project area, encompasses an area of approximately 250 acres.

Sheep Paddocks is an area in the upper Home Farm portion of Colony Farm (Figure 1),

which has been largely reverting to wetland habitat as a result of limited drainage.

Figure 1: Project Area (Red) & Surrounding Areas (Colony Farm Land Use Plan [1995])




The project area has been designated as ‘Recreation and Protected Natural Areas’ as

illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Project Area Land Use Designation (Metro Vancouver)




1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

The Sheep Paddocks Trail project has been divided into three (3) phases, as follows:

Phase 1 – Route Selection

Phase 2 – Detailed Design

Phase 3 – Construction and Post-Construction

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an integral component of Phase 1 - trail

route selection. The primary objectives of this EIA are as follows:

- Conduct preliminary field surveys to collect biophysical data within the project

area;

- Compile and summarize historical and field data to evaluate impacts to key

identified Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs);

- Based on the impact assessment findings, input data into the evaluation criteria

matrix in order to assist in the selection of the preferred route option;

- Determine what structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, boardwalks, fill/berms etc.), if

any, are required to implement each route option; and

- Propose construction methods and access for each trail option, determining the

least intrusive, low-impact methods for each trail segment, type and watercourse

crossing (consideration for stockpiling location options, phasing options, clearing

and grubbing requirements, erosion and sediment control [ESC] measures, and

in-stream works).

1.2 EXISTING TRAILS AND HISTORICAL COMPENSATION EFFORTS

The existing Sheep Paddocks Trail was closed in October 2007 citing safety concerns

associated with erosion and bank instability adjacent to the Coquitlam River. The Sheep

Paddocks area and riparian area adjacent to the Coquitlam River are prone to flooding

during winter storm events. Although Coquitlam River flows are regulated by the

Coquitlam Dam, peak flows have ranged from 59 m3/s in 1978 to 211 m3/s on November

16, 2003 with an annual average peak flow of 125 m3/s. Each of the abovementioned

events resulted in trail flooding and closure (Evely 2009).

In 1999, fish habitat was constructed in the northwest part of Colony Farm Regional Park

to compensation for the Lougheed Connector construction project (LCCP). The habitat

compensation was intended to provide off-channel rearing and over-wintering habitat for

salmonids. The outlet to the channel was not designed to account for beaver activity and

as a result, the channel only connects to the river at high tide and high water levels. The

Riverside School compensation project (RSCP) was undertaken to offset some of the

habitat losses associated with the Riverside School project. The intent of the




compensation area was to create a rearing and spawning stream and pond in the

southern part of the project area. Source water is from the Riverview area

1.3 PROPOSED TRAIL ROUTE OPTIONS

The proposed trail route options evaluated in this EIA are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Proposed Trail Route Options




2 BACKGROUND REVIEW RESULTS

There is an abundance of information available for Colony Farm Regional Park,

including fish, wildlife and vegetation inventories, habitat compensation monitoring

reports and species-at-risk/sensitive species survey findings as well as soil, flooding and

ecosystem sensitivity mapping. Metro Vancouver has conducted studies since 1996,

when the area was designated a ‘Regional Park’. Key studies pertinent to the Sheep

Paddocks Trail project are summarized below.

2.1 HISTORICAL REPORTS

2.1.1 COLONY FARM LAND USE PLAN

In 1995, the Colony Farm Land Use Study Steering Committee issued the Colony Farm

Land Use Plan, which was developed to:

- Identify key stakeholders and provide full opportunity for expression of the

various interests and ideas as to how Colony Farm should be used in the

medium-to-long term;

- Create a comprehensive inventory of present and potential agricultural,

environmental, recreational and educational/interpretive uses of Colony Farm,

and to identify characteristics of Colony Farm which may influence these current

or potential uses; and

- Form a range of land use options, which reflect the various and possibly

divergent views on the most appropriate uses of Colony Farm, select and

recommend a Land Use Plan which will have received the informed consent of

key stakeholders.

Colony Farm can be traced back to 1904 when the provincial government purchased

1,000 acres at the fertile confluence of the Coquitlam and Fraser Rivers as a site for a

mental health facility. The soil along the rivers was intended for use as a farm to provide

both food and rehabilitative labour for patients of the hospital being constructed on the

adjacent uplands. Many hospital staff lived at the site and the Colony Farm community

became nearly self-sufficient. Between the 1910s and 1930s, the farm became one of

the most well-known dairy farms, becoming the provinces showpiece. The 1940s

brought fires and floods; however, the farm continued to provide a source of food and

pride to the staff and patients for the next 35 years, until it was closed in 1983 as a result

of provincial government cut-backs. As farming activities ceased, the fields, woodlots,

ditches and hedgerows became increasingly important as wildlife habitat. Eleven (11)

habitat types have been identified in Colony Farm including marshes, wetlands,

grasslands, forest, hedgerows, ditches, waterways and riparian vegetation.




The Sheep Paddocks area north of Mundy Creek has been designated for wildlife

management. The Land Use Plan identifies the potential to maintain and enhance

biodiversity of plant species for the benefit of a wide variety of birds. Poorly drained

marsh habitats are also developing.

The resulting land use plan’s objective is to manage and protect Colony Farm based on

its importance for wildlife, agriculture and passive recreation. Land use principles

applicable to the project include:

- Keeping Colony Farm open and accessible to the public;

- Preserving and enhancing the biodiversity of Colony Farm;

- Maintaining and enhancing passive recreational opportunities on Colony Farm;

- Ensure compatibility of land uses on Colony Farm;

- Provide opportunities for public awareness, education and research; and

- All land-use must minimize the loss of land base from buildings, structures, roads

etc.

2.1.2 LOWER COQUITLAM RIVER FISH HABITAT AND FLOODING ASSESSMENT

In 2007, Fernhill Consulting issued the Lower Coquitlam River Fish Habitat and Flooding

Assessment report for the Watershed Watch Salmon Society and Kwikwetlem First

Nation. The report confirms that by the mid-2000s, A variety of restoration activities have

occurred in the lower of the three paddocks (paddock 1) including:

- Construction of off-channel inter-tidal slough habitat (3,800 m2), which was

immediately used by salmonids.

- Increase in small mammal habitat, improved opportunities for raptor foraging by

modifying 9,000 m2 of terrestrial habitat and seeding with shorter pasture grass to

out-compete Reed Canarygrass.

- Increase amphibian and reptile habitat and riparian vegetation biodiversity by

creating species-specific habitat and replanting with appropriate indigenous

plants as well as a sandy beach for turtles and rock dens for snakes.

- Increase the community stewardship ethic by providing limited access for

observation of new habitat coupled with interpretive education and descriptive

signage.

The report identifies restoration and enhancement options that could be considered to

offset impacts associated with trail construction, if required.




2.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND SENSITIVE AREA ANALYSIS OF

THE WESTERN PORTION OF COLONY FARM REGIONAL PARK

On 18 March 2009, Tera Planning Ltd. (‘Tera’) submitted a comprehensive

environmental study of the western portion of Colony Farm Regional Park, inclusive of

the site area. The study included information relating to topography, soils, drainage,

vegetation, wildlife habitat, fisheries and rare / endangered species.

Based on a review of background and field survey information, Tera identified

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) that were ranked for sensitivity based on a pre-

established matrix. ESAs included rivers/streams, riparian areas, lakes/wetlands,

forested areas and old-field habitat. The ESAs were developed, in part, to evaluate

environmental impacts associated with proposed trail locations. The report identifies

trails by segment – SP1 through SP7 as illustrated in Figure 4, which also recommends

the type of structure for each watercourse crossing.

Figure 4: Trail Locations and Recommended Structures for Watercourse Crossings




The report discusses the anticipated level of effort to construct each trail segment,

potential environmental issues, and associated protection measures. These topics have

been compiled and are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Anticipated Trail Construction Effort, Environmental Sensitivities, and

Associated Environmental Protection Measures. Trail

Segment Details Trail Construction Effort

Environmental

Sensitivity

Environmental

Protection

SP1

165 m (existing)

constructed to

multi-use

standards

Maintenance of trail /

vegetation

High – situated along

Coquitlam River in

Riparian Area

Protection of river

bank

SP2

480 m (existing) –

narrow (<1.5 m)

and overgrown.

Localized bank

failures

Widening of trail

High – situated along

Coquitlam River in

riparian area.

Encroaching

vegetation into trail

area. Significant

wildlife values

present.

At undercut/eroded

areas, 15 m setback

is recommended

coupled with erosion

protection.

SP3

640 m - narrow

trail, collapsing

berm used for trail

construction and

localized erosional

areas / bank

failures.

Improvements to five

identified stream crossings

and limited area between

marsh and river to allocate

trail with necessary

setbacks

High – marsh, river

and riparian habitats.

Where possible, trail

should be setback

from the Coquitlam

River a minimum of

15 m from top-of-

bank.

SP4 120 m long

Existing side-walk / trail

nearly to required

specifications

Moderate sensitivity

pole-sapling alder

boundary.

Maintenance of

crossing and

vegetation

maintenance

SP5 460 m (proposed)

Elevate trail with adequate

drainage or bridge/piled

deck structure in

wetted/stream areas

High at two

enhancement areas

as well as swamp,

stream areas.

Moderate sensitivity

elsewhere

Options to construct

trail and drainage in

this area to further

enhance existing fish

habitat.

SP6A 350 m

Under/near hydro RoW

(SP6A) will necessitate

periodic vegetation

clearing. Elevated trail

surface with borrow

elsewhere

High – Cattail Marsh

transitioning to Low

– Reed Canarygrass

Minimize impacts to

seasonally wetted

areas including

maintenance of high

water table.

SP6B 180 m Low – Reed

Canarygrass

Removal of Reed

Canarygrass.

SP7

230 m

(constructed in

2008)

Completed Addressed during

design

On-going Monitoring

and Enhancement




Each distinct habitat type (n=8) was delineated and ranked for environmental sensitivity,

based on inferred sensitivity (using a matrix scoring system) as illustrated in Figure 5

and summarized in Table 2.

Figure 5: Sheep Paddocks – Environmentally Sensitive Areas




Table 2: Vegetation Sensitivity Class - Tera (2009).

2.1.4 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC STUDIES FOR THE NORTHWEST SECTION OF

COLONY FARM REGIONAL PARK

In December 2010, Tera and Robertson Environmental Services Ltd. completed a study

of terrestrial and aquatic studies with a focus on the condition and habitat value of the

two fisheries compensation projects and associated wetland complexes. The field work

included bird surveys and minnow trapping (to evaluate for fish presence) as well as

species-at-risk surveys.

The other objective included assisting Metro Vancouver Parks in the planning of trail

options for the local study area as described in the 2009 report (Section 2.1.1).

Concerns related to trail building were focused on potential impacts to hydrology and the

requirement for a comprehensive impact assessment on resulting stream and wetland

effects, as well as the identification of mitigation measures, contingent on the selected

trail alignment.

Proposed mitigation measures included:

- Elevated trail sections (boardwalks) where surface water accumulates;

- Reducing the fill footprint of the trail as much as possible;

- Providing a buffer between the trail and the proposed channel;

- Adhering to late summer construction window; and

- Restoring and enhancing in-stream and riparian vegetation.




2.2 DATABASES AND MAPPING UTILITIES – SENSITIVE SPECIES / SPECIES-

AT-RISK

Information relating to confirmed and potentially occurring sensitive species/species-at-

risk are available from a variety of sources including provincial and federal databases

and mapping sites as well as historical reports for the project area and surrounding

areas; however, no report has compiled the information into a single-list. As such,

AquaTerra queried accessible species-at-risk websites/databases including the Species-

at-Risk and Local Government website (http://speciesatrisk.bc.ca), the federal

government species-at-risk website (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca), the Committee on

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) website

(http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm), the provincial Conservation Data

Centre (CDC) website (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc) (Appendix A), and BC Ecosystem

Explorer (http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp) to assess for potential and confirmed

sensitive species and ecosystems within or adjacent to the project area. Historical

reports were also reviewed. The findings of the database, mapping and report review is

provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Compiled Confirmed and Potentially Occurring Sensitive Species / Species-at-

Risk Data for the Project Area.

Common Name Scientific Name Status

(federal, provincial)

Confirmation

([Y]es,

[N]o,

[B]reeding

Reference

Mammals

Pacific water shrew Sorex bendirii Endangered, Red N Potentially

Occurring

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

washingtonii Red Y

TERA/Robertson

2010

Birds

American bittern Botaurus

lentiginosus Blue Y

Beauchesne &

Quinlan 1999

Barn owl Tyto alba Special Concern Y, B

Beauchesne &

Quinlan 1999,

AquaTerra

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Special Concern,

Blue Y

Macnair and

Doix 2009,

AquaTerra

Common

nighthawk Chordeiles minor Threatened Y Evely 2009

Double-crested

cormorant

Phalacrocorax

auratus Blue Y

Beauchesne &

Quinlan 1999

Great blue heron Ardea herodias

fannini

Special Concern,

Blue Y, B

Beauchesne &

Quinlan 1999,

Macnair and

Doix 2009




Table 3: Con’t.



Confirmation

([Y]es,

[N]o,

[B]reeding

Reference

Green heron Butorides striatus Blue Y, B

Beauchesne &

Quinlan 1999.

Macnair and

Doix 2009

Olive-sided

flycatcher Contopus cooperi Threatened, Blue Y Evely 2009

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

pealei Special Concern Y

Beauchesne &

Quinlan 1999

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Special Concern Y Beauchesne &

Quinlan 1999

Yellow-billed loon Gavia adamsii Blue Y Pearson 2011

Reptiles and Amphibians

Northern red-

legged frog Rana aurora

Special Concern,

Blue N

Potentially

Occurring

Western painted

turtle Chrysemys picta Endangered, Red Y Evely 2009

Western toad Anaxyrus boreas Special Concern,

Blue N

Potentially

Occurring

Lepidopterans / Mollusca

Autumn

meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum Blue Y

Macnair and

Doix 2009

Beaverpond

baskettail Epitheca canis Blue Y

BC Conservation

Data Centre

Blue dasher Pachydiplax

longipennis Blue Y

Macnair and

Doix 2009

Oregon forestsnail Allogona

townsendiana Endangered, Red Y AquaTerra

Fish

Coastal cutthroat

trout Oncorhynchus clarkii Blue Y Pearson, 2011

Vegetation

Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea Blue Y Keystone 2008

Green-sheathed

Sedge Carex feta Red Y Keystone 2008

Large Canadian St.

John’s wort Hypericum majus

Yellow (re-classified

from Blue) Y Keystone 2008

Northern water-

meal Wolffia borealis Red Y CDC 2013

Nuttall’s

Waterweed Elodea nuttallii Blue Y CDC 2013

Small-flowered

bittercress Cardamine parviflora Blue Y CDC 2013

Vancouver Island

beggarticks Bidens amplissima Special Concern N

Potentially

Occurring




Table 3: Con’t.



Confirmation

([Y]es,

[N]o,

[B]reeding

Reference

Streambank lupine Lupinus rivularis Endangered N Potentially

Occurring

Ussurian water-

milfoil

Myriophyllum

ussuriense Blue Y CDC 2013

Western rush Juncus occidentalis Blue Y Keystone 2008

- Incorrectly identified. Actually the non-native C. tribuloides grass species.

There is a Great Blue Heron rookery within a designated Wildlife Management Area

(WMA) immediately to the south of Colony Farm park near the confluence of the

Coquitlam River (Figure 2). Herons rely on the habitats within the park and adjacent

areas to sustain the colony, particularly during breeding season. In 2013, the heron

rookery did not appear successful; however, the park and surrounding area continues to

be utilized by herons on a regular basis.

Listed Ecosystem Types

Listed ecosystem types within the project area are limited to the blue-listed Common

Cattail Marsh (Typha latifolia marsh – Wm05), which was identified in 2009 (Tera 2009)

in Sheep Paddock 3. The approximate boundaries of the Common Cattail Marsh are

illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Common Cattail Marsh – Blue-listed Ecosystem – Approximate Boundaries

(Tera 2009).




2.3 EXISTING WATERCOURSE DATA

A review of the DFO Mapster v3.1 (http://pacgis01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Mapster30/#

/SilverMapster) and Community Mapping Network (CMN) Sensitive Habitat Inventory

Mapping (SHIM) (http://www.cmnbc.ca/atlas_gallery/sensitive-habitat-inventory-and-

mapping-shim), and City of Coquitlam Q the Map (http://gis.coquitlam.ca/apps/qthemap/)

were queried to determine if supplementary data is available relating to watercourses

within the project area.

The DFO and SHIM search results returned limited information; however the City of

Coquitlam mapping utility included up-to-date information on ditches, drainages,

wetlands, and recent compensation areas as illustrated in Figure 7. Thirty (30) metre

default Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) setbacks are illustrated on the figure for

illustrative purposes (added by the City of Coquitlam). Of note, there is a seasonally

wetted area (Figure 7) that appears to generally follow the boundary of the blue-listed

Common Cattail Marsh. This wetted area appears to be within the approximate location

of trail alignment 2A (Figure 7).

Figure 7: City of Coquitlam Q the Map Watercourse / Wetland Results.

Common Cattail Marsh – approximate extents




2.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Available aerial photographs were reviewed to evaluate historical conditions within the

project area and to determine if historical/remnant infrastructure could be utilized to

facilitate trail construction.

The provincial floodplain orthophotograph from 1979 (Figure 8) illustrates an access

road from Pitt River Road southward in the approximate location of trail route option 2B.

This road was likely used during the installation of the hydro towers and may be suitable

for trail use if reinstated. The photograph also shows the 3 m contour in the vicinity of

trail route option 3.

Figure 8: 1979 provincial Floodplain Orthophotograph

The 2006 aerial photograph clearly illustrates historical conditions, when the southern

portion of the project area was divided into three (3) sheep paddocks, referenced as

Access Road

3 m contour




SP1, SP2 and SP3 (Figure 9). Likelihood that the areas dividing the paddocks may be

better suited for trails, being built up to provide some separation between the paddocks.

Figure 9: 2006 Aerial Photograph Illustrating Sheep Paddocks in Southern Portion of

the Project Area.

3 FIELD SURVEYS AND ASSOCIATED FINDINGS

AquaTerra (2-4 personnel) conducted field surveys to evaluate trail-related impacts on

06, 10, 13 and 25 July 2013. The Phase 1 field surveys were not intended to be as

rigorous as certain previous ecological studies conducted for the Colony Farm area

given that the primary focus of the EIA was to assist in the determination of the preferred

trail alignment(s). Areas traversed by AquaTerra personnel are illustrated in Figure 10.

Field photographs taken during the field surveys are provided in Appendix B.




Figure 10: Areas Traversed During 2013 Field Surveys (Yellow)

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS AND FISH HABITAT

Watercourse crossings for each proposed trail route are discussed below, summarized

in Table 4 and illustrated on Figure 11.

3.1.1 ROUTE 1A

Much of Route 1A is set well back from the Coquitlam River, with localized erosional

areas being generally limited to the northern portion of the alignment. Linear drainage

swales are also present on the west side of the existing trail. The swales appear to be

seasonally isolated from Mundy Creek and the adjacent compensation area in Sheep

Paddock 1. No watercourse crossings are anticipated to be required to accommodate

trail route 1, as there is already an established trail through this area and no watercourse

crossings were observed during the field surveys.




3.1.2 ROUTE 1B

Trail route 1B will require six (6) watercourse crossings; however, of note, because this

trail alignment was present historical prior to trail closure, many of the crossings have

already been installed or are in the process of being constructed (refer to Table 4 for

details). Lateral erosion and undercutting areas coincide with the cut / concave bank of

the Coquitlam River, as the flow energy during high flows are directed towards these

areas. Some of the watercourses along route 1B appear to have been constructed

and/or historically modified to accommodate logging and agricultural practices.

Specifically, a wood stave culvert was observed in the vicinity of 1B-3 and wooden

supports/piles embedded within the banks of was observed at 1B-4, which served as log

bumpers to direct logs to wet sorters in the Fraser River. Each of the channels have

steep (near vertical) banks and are dominated by organics. During high flows, the

Coquitlam River likely backs up into these watercourses, resulting in flooding.

3.1.3 ROUTE 2A

Immediately west of the 2A-west and 2A-east node is a low-lying pond, which contained

water at the time of the field surveys. AquaTerra personnel identified a narrow (<1 m)

low-lying swale containing water to the northeast of the pond, suggesting the pond

receives periodic inputs from upslope areas, including drainage from the CP rail-line. An

outlet to the pond was not identified; however, overland flow or a discharge swale

masked by dense vegetation are possible. The City of Coquitlam watercourse map

(Figure 7) illustrate the pond as an isolated waterbody. No watercourses were identified

along the 2A-east alignment. The 2A-west alignment also does not require the crossing

of any watercourses; however, ditches are situated on both sides of the CP rail-line and

this alignment comes into close proximity to the eastern ditch. Water was observed

intermittently within the ditch at the time of the field surveys.

3.1.4 ROUTE 2B

Adjacent to Pitt River Road is an unmapped drainage ditch at the base of slope in the

vicinity of the proposed trail (crossing 2B-1). The ditch appears to receive stormwater

inputs from the north, which are conveyed into the Lougheed Connector Compensation

Project (crossing 2B-2) as well as the channel running southward. A second unmapped

drainage ditch is situated between the CP rail-line and the mapped watercourse running

north-south (refer to Figure 7). This unmapped ditch may have originally be installed in

the late 1970s during the hydro tower installation (Figure 8). Stormwater inputs from

areas to the west and the CP rail line will also necessitate crossings (crossings 2B-3[a],

2B-3[b], 2B-4, and 2B-5). 2B-2, 2B-4 and 2B-5 could not be located during the field

survey and are presumed to be dry or consist of a poorly defined channel. Between

crossings 2B-3a and 2B-3b is a large pond complex (~10-15 m across; Figure 4).




Table 4: Watercourse Crossing Locations and Attributes, Fish Observations, Crossing Recommendations, and Compensation Requirements.

Watercourse Crossing ID

UTMs Permanency Fish Observed Substrate Bankful Width

(measured July 2013)

Wetted Width (T)ypical and

(A)ctual

Estimated Crossing

Width

Existing Crossing (Y/N)

Recommended Crossing

Estimated RAR/SPR* Setback

Compensation Requirement?

Estimated Compensation

Area – RAR/SPR*

1B-1 514342E

5454824N Permanent No 100% organics 3.7 m

1.6 m (T) 0.6 m (A)

6.0 m N Clearspan Footbridge

10 m / 30 m Y 80 m2 / 240 m2

1B-2 514388E

5454853N Permanent No

95% organics 5% cobble

1.8 m 0.7 m (T) 0.4 m (A)

7.5 m Y Existing

Clearspan Footbridge

10 m / 30 m N 80 m2 / 240 m2

1B-3 514424E

5454877N Permanent

Yes - downstream

100% organics 1.2 m 0.2 m (T) 0.1 m (A)

8.0 m Y (partial) Clearspan Footbridge

10 m / 30 m Y 80 m2 / 240 m2

1B-4 514484E

5454885N Permanent

Yes, at confluence

100% organics 2.1 m 1.2 m (T) 0.4 m (A)

5.0 m N

Temporary wood planks

Clearspan Footbridge

10 m / 30 m Y 80 m2 / 240 m2

1B-5 514667E

5455075N Permanent No

90% organics 10% gravel/cobble

1.5 m 0.8 m (T)

(dry) 7.0 m Y

Existing Clearspan Footbridge

10 m / 30 m N 80 m2 / 240 m2

1B-6 514789E

5455181N Permanent

No. TSB in ponded area to

south

90% organics 10% rip-rap

0.8 m 0.6 m (T)

dry 5.0 m Y

Existing Clearspan Footbridge

10 m / 30 m N 80 m2 / 240 m2

2B-1

514655E 5455270N

to 514495E

5455307N

Permanent No 100% organics 2.4 – 3.0 m 2.0 m

3.5-5.0 m *may not be

required contingent on trail location

N Culvert 10 m / 15 m Y 80 m2 / 120 m2

2B-2 5145500E 5455210N

Permanent No 100% organics Could not locate; dry

Further Assessment

Required

Further Assessment

Required N

Further Assessment Required

10 m / 15 m Y 80 m2 / 120 m2

2B-3(a,b) 514416E

5454979N Permanent No 100% organics 3.0 m

2.0 m (T) 0.1 m (A)

5.0 m N Clearspan Footbridge

10 m / 15 m Y 80 m2 / 120 m2

2B-4 514370E

5454885N Seasonal No 100% organics

Could not locate; dry

Further Assessment

Required

Further Assessment

Required N


10 m / 15 m Y 80 m2 / 120 m2

2B-5 514343E

5454837N Seasonal No 100% organics

Could not locate; dry or

culverted

Further Assessment

Required

Further Assessment

Required

Unknown – potential culvert


10 m / 15 m Y 80 m2 / 120 m2

3 various Permanent Yes; TSB 100% organics

Ponded water / sheet flow,

channelized areas

Ponded water / sheet flow, channelized

areas

Elevated boardwalk (~150 m)

N

Elevated boardwalk (~150 m) or elevated

pathway with culverts

15 m (ponds/ wetlands) / 30

m Y 1,100 m2**

* assumes 6 m clearing width and existing 2 m wide area (net 4 m). RAR = Riparian Areas Regulation; SPR = Streamside Protection Regulation ** assumes 3 m wide boardwalk/trail and 1 m on either side of the boardwalk for additional clearing over the 220 m length.




Figure 11: Trail Route Options with Watercourse Crossings.

Flows from 2B-3, 2B-4 and 2B-5 are conveyed into the project area through culverts

situated under Lougheed Highway.




Figure 12: Approximate Location of Route 3 Traversed by AquaTerra Personnel (Red –

July 13; Violet – July 25).

3.1.5 ROUTE 3

AquaTerra personnel assessed the 3 route options on 13 and 25 July 2013. On 13 July

2013, AquaTerra observed numerous areas containing standing water along the eastern

portion of the proposed route (Figure 12), becoming marginally drier to the east. Typical

water depth was approximately 0.3 m, with localized deeper areas in areas frequented

by beavers. On 25 July 2013, AquaTerra personnel traversed a secondary route, further

north (Figure 12), to assess for drier conditions, if any. Conditions were similar

throughout (i.e., pockets of standing water and deeper ponded areas). Upon a closer

inspection of the City of Coquitlam Q the Map (Section 2.3) high resolution aerial

photograph, AquaTerra personnel confirmed that much of this area was occupied by

areas of standing water. Although a detailed topographical survey was completed in

2012, Route 3 was not included. A detailed topographical survey would be required for

this alignment to ascertain the potential for a route in this area utilizing localized high

spots to minimize the requirement for boardwalks or drainage provisions.




3.2 FISH OBSERVATIONS

No formal fish sampling or trapping was conducted as part of the Phase 1 – Route

Selection work. Numerous studies have been undertaken to evaluate fish presence

(including seasonal variation) and supplementary surveys can be undertaken in

subsequent phases. Incidental fish observations were recorded during the field surveys.

AquaTerra personnel observed three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)

regularly throughout the project area, including seasonally inundated areas between

watercourses 1B-5 and 1B-6, ponded areas along the traversed trail alignment 3 option,

and near the wood stave (near crossing 1B-3). Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) fry

were also regularly observed along the edge of the Coquitlam River but were not

observed inland.

3.3 COMPENSATION REQUIREMENT

Currently, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is transitioning away from

compensatory requirements for low-impact projects as they adopt/implement the

changes to the Fisheries Act enacted under Bill C-38 – the Jobs, Growth and Long-term

Prosperity Act. However, at the request of Metro Vancouver, AquaTerra conducted a

preliminary assessment of typical compensation requirements assuming existing

regulatory conditions and requirements. In numerous cases, particularly for route option

1B, existing crossings would limit the compensation requirements, which would only be

required if the crossing area was widened. Moreover, compensation is typically not

required when a certain project call follow the DFO Operational Statement for Clearspan

Bridges1; however, when numerous clearspan bridge crossings are required on the

same watercourse, DFO may request compensation. Preliminary compensation details

are summarized in Table 4.

3.4 DESCRIPTION OF TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED

VEGETATION

Ecosystems and associated vegetation within the project area have been assessed in a

variety of ways, most comprehensively by Tera Planning in 2009 (Section 2.1.3) – Table

2. AquaTerra inventoried dominant vegetation assemblages along each of the

alignments, to be utilized during subsequent phases. Similarly, AquaTerra inventoried

each of the trees along proposed trail routes 1A and 1B with a diameter-at-breast-height

(DBH) approaching or greater than 1.0 m. Inventoried trees were limited to areas within

approximately 5 m of the existing trails.

1 http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/os-eo/cs-bridge-ponts-pl-eng.htm




3.4.1 INVASIVE SPECIES

Historical reports identified seven (7) particularly invasive species including quackgrass

(Elmymus repens), common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus), hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris

radicata), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed canarygrass (Phalaris

arundinacea), japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), and himalayan blackberry (Rubus

discolor) (Figure 13). Other invasive species identified within the project area by

AquaTerra personnel with potential management implications include dalmatian toadflax

(Linaria dalmatica), curled dock (Rumex crispus), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), and

yellow-(flag) iris (Iris pseudacorus).

Figure 13: Invasive Species Map – Tera and Robertson (2010).

To assess the invasive species prevalence within each proposed trail route, AquaTerra

divided the trail route options in sections (Figure 14). A summary matrix of invasive

species encountered, detailed locations of isolated invasive populations, and

management considerations is provided in Appendix C. During the detailed design, the

invasive plant areas can be mapped along the selected route alignment(s).




Figure 14 – Invasive Species Trail Assessment Areas.




3.5 DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVED WILDLIFE

3.5.1 MAMMALS

Mammal sign, including black bear (Ursus americanus) scat, North American beaver

(Castor canadensis) forage, territorial markers, and downed vegetation as well as direct

observation of striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), exotic eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus

carolinensis), and mink (Mustela vison) were documented / marked with GPS waypoints

(to be utilized during subsequent phases) during the field surveys. Areas with an

established tree cover had a higher prevalence of mammals/mammal sign, which is

likely due in part to the dense shrub cover in shrub-dominated ecosystems (i.e., areas

under the BC Hydro RoW), which is difficult to navigate.

3.5.2 BIRDS

A total of thirty (30) bird species were documented during the 2013 field surveys, an

expected result given the timing of the field surveys and breeding season. Observed bird

species are summarized in Table 5. GPS coordinates were recorded and can be utilized

during subsequent design phases. Bird density was generally highest within shrub-

dominated habitats associated with potential trail routes 2A, 2B and 3.

Table 5: 2013 Field Surveys – Incidental Bird Observations

Common Name Scientific Name American goldfinch Spinus tristis American robin Turdus migratorius Barn swallow (blue-listed) Hirundo rustica Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Black-throated gray warbler Setophaga nigrescens Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Common raven Corvus corax Common yellow-throat Geothlypis trichas Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Great Blue Heron (blue-listed) Ardea herodias fannini Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Northwestern crow Corvus caurinus Purple finch Haemorhous purpureus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Rufuous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis




Table 5: Con’t. Common Name Scientific Name Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata

The areas where bird diversity was highest in route 2A coincided with localized shrub-

dominated habitats as shown on Figure 15.

Figure 15: Areas of High Bird Diversity – Shrub Dominated Habitats – Trail Route 2A.

No raptor nests were observed during the field survey; however, Red-tailed Hawks were

observed on a regular basis, suggesting a nest may be nearby.




3.5.3 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Amphibians observed during the field surveys were limited to exotic Green Frogs (Rana

clamitans), which were observed along the watercourse paralleling the Coquitlam River

adjacent to trail alignment 1B as well as the wetted areas along the traversed trail

alignment 3. Green Frogs were also heard calling from the Riverside School

Compensation Project area. No reptiles or reptile sign were observed during the field

surveys.

3.5.4 INVERTEBRATES

Incidental invertebrate observations included Mourning Cloak (Nymphalis antiopa),

Cabbage White (Pieris rapae), and swallowtail (Papilio sp.) butterflies (alignment 2A) as

well as Common Whitetail (Libellula lydia) and Blue Dasher (Pachydiplax longipennis)

dragonflies. The Blue Dasher is a blue-listed dragonfly, which was observed along route

2A near ponded area. Exotic Grovesnails (Cepaea nemoralis) were also observed

throughout the project area, with densities highest within the Reed Canarygrass

monostands and along the rail-line.

4 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This section includes an evaluation of historical and current data to comprehensively

assess potential impacts, environmental constraints, and maintenance issues associated

with each trail route option. Potential impacts were also evaluated using an Impact

Evaluation matrix developed by LEES+Associates Ltd. (Section 4.2).

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS FOR EACH TRAIL ROUTE OPTION

AquaTerra assessed the environmental constraints for the trail route options using

findings from the Tera (2009) report (Section 2.1.3) and incorporating 2013 field survey

observations, the results of which are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Environmental Constraints for Proposed Trail Route Options – Italics (Tera

2009 comments); Bold (AquaTerra 2013 comments). Tera (2009)

Segment

Identifier

LEES+Assoc.

Segment

Identifier

Environmental Constraints

SP1 1A (south of

2A node)

No constraints identified.

Part of existing trail




Table 6: Con’t. Tera (2009)

Segment

Identifier

LEES+Assoc.

Segment

Identifier


SP2 1A (north of

2A node)

Active erosion / undercutting. Cannot use existing trail footprint

for entire length. 15 m setback in certain areas would require

disturbance but enhancement planting is an option to off-set

impacts.

Limited ability to relocate trail but fewer erosional areas

relative to the 1B (SP3) route option and fewer watercourse

crossings. Feasibility contingent on localized slope

stabilization (NHC) and minor trail adjustments. This

alignment would provide users with a portion of trail close

to Coquitlam River and prevent disturbance to blue-listed

Common Cattail Marsh ecosystem (route 2A). Lower risk of

spreading invasives relative to non-treed route options due

to shade.

SP3 / 1B

Greatest Impact and Limited Flexibility to Mitigate Impacts.

~40% of trail located at top of two cutting banks of the Coquitlam

River

Trail crosses a total of six (6) streams, five of which have

oversteepened banks and are subject to backwatering.

Some watercourse crossings have already been

installed/are in the process of being removed. AquaTerra

identified some options to relocate portions of the trail

further west, away from erosional areas. Lower risk of

spreading invasives relative to non-treed route options due

to shade. Periodic flooding / inundation risk.

SP6A 2A (west route

option)

Cattail Marsh for almost its entire length of 260 m (high

sensitivity). Although close to rail line and hydro RoW (reduced

impact), presence of Cattail Marsh will result in significant

impact.

Close to CPR line and encroaches on blue-listed ecosystem

(Common Cattail Marsh). Trail should be aligned to reduce

proximity to shrub-dominated areas to reduce direct

disturbance to birds.

SP6B 2A (east route

option)

Connects to Segment SP2, which includes cut bank erosion.

Bisects portion of blue-listed ecosystem, but encroachment

is less than 2A (western route) option. Generally lower

habitat value relative to other route options.




Table 6: Con’t. Tera (2009)

Segment

Identifier

LEES+Assoc.

Segment

Identifier


SP7

2A (section

between 1A

and 2A split)

No constraints identified.

Area dominated by Reed Canarygrass – low ecological

value. Situated to the west of recent compensation efforts.

SP4 2B (along Pitt

River Road)

One ditch running along the base of slope, which may

require a crossing depending on the trail alignment. Some

vegetation removal will likely be required.

Much of trail can be accommodated using existing pathway.

Room along eastern portion to add shoulder to existing

sidewalk.

SP5

2B (adjacent

to CPR

tracks)

Two streams associated with a wetland.

Extensive wetlands and ponded areas due to beaver activity.

Lower impact and ability to mitigate through design.

Rail setback issues and dense shrub vegetation, which will

require removal, resulting in fragmentation. High bird

foraging and nesting values. Some established invasives,

which will proliferate/spread contingent on trail alignment,

recreational use, and mitigation measures implemented

during construction. Beaver activity has caused much of

this area to be seasonally inundated, which would have cost

implications to maintain the trail and drainage.

Not

assessed 3

Route option assessed as Tera 2009 report noted this area

had a lower (moderate) habitat sensitivity relative to

surrounding area and was not prone to flooding (Coquitlam

River); however, due to be on-going beaver activity, much

of this route was flooded (0.3 m depth) during the 13 July

2013 field survey, which would necessitate expanses of

elevated boardwalks or the implementation of beaver

control measures. On 25 July 2013, AquaTerra traversed an

area further north to determine if the lands became drier as

alluded to in the 1979 flood map orthophoto (Figure 8);

however, AquaTerra personnel noted large contiguous

ponded areas in these areas as well, confirming that under

current habitat conditions, the route 3 trail alignment would

likely necessitate numerous boardwalks or drainage

provisions.




4.2 IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX

The environmental section of the Sheep Paddocks Trail – Phase 1 Impact Evaluation

Matrix, developed by LEES+Associates, was completed by AquaTerra (Table 7) and is

based on available background information and recent field survey observations.

Table 7: Sheep Paddocks Trail – Phase 1 Impact Evaluation Matrix

1 2 3 4

Significant Benefits

Marginal Benefits

Mitigatable Impacts

Significant Impacts

Criteria

Trail alignment routes under consideration

River Route Segment 1A (South end)

River Route Segment 1B (North end)

Inland Route Segment 2A (South end)

Inland Route Segment 2B (North end)

Inland Route - connection to River route Segment 3 (North end)

Will removal of significant amounts of

vegetation or significant trees

be required?

No – trail already

established.

Some grubbing/ trimming to

accommodate wider trail.

Yes, some shrub areas.

Yes, more shrub removal relative to 2A (south end).

Significant shrub

vegetation removal required.

Will significant habitat

compensation be required to develop this

section of trail? (how much?)

None anticipated.

No anticipated costs.

Although some crossings installed/ partially installed, additional

clearing and in-stream work will be required to accommodate

trail.

None anticipated.


None anticipated.


Compensation requirements will depend on

detailed design and

ability to realign route further north.

Will the trail fragment sensitive

ecosystems or have significant

impacts on wildlife?


established.


established. Some minor realignments

will have localized impacts.

2A-west route option will

impact Wm05 – blue-listed

Common Cattail Marsh – less impact on 2A-east.

Will require significant removal of

shrub vegetation

used by birds and fragment

habitat.

Will require significant removal of

shrub vegetation

used by birds and fragment

habitat. Will the trail

displace sensitive species

or species of interest?

Not anticipated Not anticipated Not anticipated

May result in on-going

disturbance to nesting /

foraging birds.

May result in on-going

disturbance to nesting /

foraging birds.

Will a minimum 15m buffer be

possible around watercourses?

Not applicable

No – encroachment will be required for crossings;

however, many crossings already present.

Yes – option to relocate trail away from

compensation area and

ponded areas.

No - 4-5 crossings may be required, but crossings

are small. Trail also situated close to pond

complex.

No - 1-2 crossings may

be required (poorly defined

channels) contingent on

finalized alignment.




Table 7: Con’t.

1 2 4 5

Significant Benefits

Marginal Benefits

Mitigatable Impacts

Significant Impacts

Criteria

Trail alignment routes under consideration

River Route Segment 1A (South end)

River Route Segment 1B (North end)

Inland Route Segment 2A (South end)

Inland Route Segment 2B (North end)

Inland Route - connection to River route Segment 3 (North end)

Will a minimum 15m buffer be

possible around seasonally

inundated areas and ponded

areas?

Not applicable

No – inundated

areas to the west of 1B, particularly towards Pitt River Road.



ponded areas.



ponded areas.

Will depend on finalized

alignment, but presence of

standing water during field survey

may results in significant

challenges.

Will the trail introduce or

spread invasives?

Moderate potential – main

threat is Policeman’s

Helmet.

Moderate potential –

main threat is Policeman’s

Helmet.

Moderate - High Potential

– variety of invasives observed along this

route.

High Potential – numerous

invasives observed along this

route.

Low-moderate potential. Wetter

conditions will limit

establishment.

Will trail alignment

facilitate invasive management

removal?

Periodic invasive

removal was undertaken by

Metro Vancouver

Parks prior to trail closure.

Periodic invasive

removal was undertaken by

Metro Vancouver

Parks prior to trail closure.

Establishment / spread of

invasives may outweigh ability for removal.

Establishment / spread of

invasives may outweigh ability for removal.

Wetter conditions will

limit establishment.

Will wildlife corridors be enhanced or

impeded due to construction of

the trail alignment?

Existing trail / associated

corridor will be maintained.

Existing trail / associated

corridor will be maintained.

Marginal use by wildlife

given limited cover.

Although wildlife

movement will be enhanced,

increasing access could increase rail-

related mortalities.

Marginal use by wildlife

given limited cover.

Although wildlife



related mortalities.

Dense shrub layer currently limits wildlife movement. Although wildlife



related mortalities

Is Beaver management required along this segment?

Minimal Moderate Minimal Minimal Substantial

Cost Implication Low Moderate Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate-

High




5 RECOMMENDATIONS

AquaTerra recommends the following for consideration during the route selection

process to minimize impacts to aquatic / terrestrial habitats and their inhabitants:

1. Minimize disturbance to the blue-listed Common Cattail Marsh (Wm05)

ecosystem in the vicinity of Alignment 2A (Figure 6 and Figure 7).

2. Utilize existing infrastructure wherever possible, including existing trails, areas

separating the former paddocks, and the former access road used to install the

hydro-towers (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

3. Minimize habitat fragmentation.

4. Locate trails well away from high value habitats (e.g., isolated shrub cluster in

trail route 2A).

5. If trail route 2B is selected, locate the trail away from the pond complex situated

between crossings 2B-3a and 2B-3b.

6. Avoid placing trails parallel to watercourses for extended distances, with a

preference of crossing perpendicular to the flow, where possible.

7. Consider the design / installation of flow control structures to reduce flooding.

8. Consider the use of oversized culverts to facilitate wildlife passage. Wildlife

passage may not be advisable in certain areas – i.e., for areas near the CPR

tracks or roadways. Passage should only be considered if there is sufficient

habitat on both sides of the culvert to support the target species and / or if there

is limited ability for wildlife to move through an area in the absence of an

oversized culvert.

5.1 RECOMMENDED ROUTE – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the review of historical reports and field survey observations, AquaTerra

recommends the following trail routes, which are based solely on environmental

considerations, understanding that numerous other factors / considerations must be

evaluated prior to selecting the most suitable routes: Route 1A or 2A (eastern route) to

node, then across to 1B. (Figure 16).




Figure 16: AquaTerra Recommended Route – Based on Environmental Constraints

Avoid erosional area in 1A and shrub habitats – bisect low-value grass-dominated areas to west. Provides additional buffer for Coquitlam River.

Avoid sensitive Common Cattail Marsh Ecosystem

Avoid numerous watercourse crossings and erosional areas in 1B.

Minimize habitat fragmentation by keeping trail close to edge of habitat boundary

Utilize historical access road (1979 ortho)

Utilize existing infrastructure

Avoid erosional areas in 1B.

Importation of Fill material will be required to achieve required elevation / prevent seasonal flooding. Some shrub vegetation removal required.




6 PHASE 2 DATA REQUIREMENTS

The following tasks / studies are anticipated to be required following the selection of the

preferred trail routes:

- Detailed impact assessment for selected trail alignment;

- Detailed compensation / enhancement strategy to offset impacts associated with

trail construction including detailed area calculations and cost estimates;

- Determination of crossing requirements at crossings 2B-2 and 2B-4 (if this route

is selected), as the watercourses, if present, were dry during the summer field

surveys;

- Liaise with regulatory agencies, present existing data and determine

supplementary information requirements, if any, to support submittals;

- Investigate longer-term use strategy of Riverview and the potential influx of future

residents into the park. The trails should be designed to meet the objectives of

the Colony Farm Land Use Plan;

- Danger Tree / Hazard Tree assessment along the routes as a result of beaver

activity and appropriate mitigation strategies;

- Inventory significant trees along selected alignment(s) to assist in detailed trail

design in an effort to minimize tree disturbance;

- Set up remote trail cameras along selected route(s) to evaluate wildlife use and

the required, if any, for supplementary mitigation; and

- Work with an engineer/ to confirm watercourse crossing requirements and to

verify slope/bank stability.

7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS

The following permits and approvals are anticipated to be required prior to the onset of

trail construction.

Federal

DFO Project Review Approval (Fisheries Act) – 30-60 day review period

Provincial

Scientific Fish Collection Permit (Wildlife Act) – 30 day processing time

Wildlife Salvage Permit (Wildlife Act) – 30 day processing time

Animal Care Permit (Wildlife Act) – 30 day processing time

Section 9 Notification or Approval (Water Act) – 45 days (notification) and 140 days

(approval)




8 REFERENCES

Beauchesne, Suzanne, and Carolyn Quinlan. GVRD Parks Central Area. 1999. Colony

Farm Regional Park Bird Summary Colony Farm Land Use Study Steering Committee 1995. Colony Farm Land Use Plan.

Available on-line: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/parks_lscr/ColonyFarmSustainabilityPlan/ColonyFarmDocs/ColonyFarmLandUsePlan1995.pdf

Evely, A. 2009. Colony Farm Regional Park Biophysical Summary. Prepared for Colony

Farm Sustainability Planning Program. Fernhill 2007. Lower Coquitlam River Fish Habitat and Flooding Assessment. Fisheries Act. R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14. Consolidated Statutes of Canada. Fish Protection Act. S.B.C. 1997, c. 21. Statutes of British Columbia. Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. 2008. Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Enhancement

Recommendations for the Colony Farm Restoration Project. MacNair, J. and T. Doix. 2009. Colony Farm Estuary – BC Hydro Bridge Coastal

Restoration Program Restoration Site Monitoring. Pearson, M. 2011. Fish Use of Sheep Paddocks Habitat Enhancements in Colony Farm

Regional Park During Winter. Tera Planning Ltd. 2009. Environmental Inventory and Sensitive Area Analysis of the

Western Portion of Colony Farm Regional Park. Tera Planning Ltd. and Robertson Environmental Services Ltd. 2010. Terrestrial and

Aquatic Studies for the Northwest Section of Colony Farm Regional Park.



APPENDIX A

BC CONSERVATION DATA CENTRE (CDC) MAPPING RESULTS

BC Conservation Data Centre - Occurrence ReportCDC Results

0 1250 2500 3750 m.

Index Map

Legend

Occurrence data is updated frequently.This map should be considered out ofdate 6 months after

July 19, 2013For more information about the BC CDCvisit: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc/

MAP COMPILATIONProjection: Albers Equal Area ConicDatum: NAD 83 Scale: 1:41,455

Map center: 49° 14' 18" N, 122° 47' 46" W

Province of British ColumbiaMinistry of Environment

Map Created July 19, 2013



APPENDIX B

FIELD SURVEY PHOTOGRAPHS

SHEEP PADDOCKS TRAIL PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS TRAIL HABITATS Photo 01: Alignment 1A – measuring tree DBHs.

Photo 02: Localized bank failure – Alignment 1A.

Photo 03: Alignment1B – trail situated very close to top-of-bank.

Photo 04: Alignment 2B – measuring watercourse attributes.

Photo 05: Alignment 1B – near Pitt River Road.

Photo 06: Looking northwest towards alignment 2A.

Photo 07: Approximate alignment 2A looking northward.

Photo 08: Dense shrub area to the west of alignment 2A – high biodiversity area for birds.

Photo 09: South portion of alignment 2B looking northward.

Photo 10: Alignment 2B – Central Portion - looking northward.

Photo 11: Alignment 2B - example of encroachment of invasives when area is cleared.

Photo 12: Alignment 2B looking north from towers.

Photo 13: Alignment 2B from Pitt River Road.

Photo 14: Alignment 3 from area west of junction of Alignment 1B.

Photo 15: Alignment 3 - dense shrub cover in areas where water not present.

Photo 16: Alignment 3 – numerous areas of standing water / ponded water due to beaver activity.

FISH, WILDLIFE, SENSITIVE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN Photo 01: Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena) – a rare BC bird found only in the Colony Farms area.

Photo 02: Mourning Cloak (Nymphalis antiopa).

Photo 03: Juvenile Coho rearing in the lower reaches of the Coquitlam River

Photo 04: Three-spined Stickleback schooling in areas of ponded water to the east of alignment 1B.

Photo 05: One of the many nest sites observed within Alignments 1A-B.

Photo 06: Yellow-Flag Iris – an invasive species of management concern – Alignment 1A.

Photo 07: Treated Japanese Knotweed in Area 1B. Other clusters still present as well as in Alignment 2B close to railroad tracks.

Photo 08: Scotch Broom – a species of management concern.

Photo 09: Policeman’s Helmet / Himalayan Balsam – an invasive species of management concern.

Photo 10: American Beaver territorial marker.

Photo 11: Numerous Red Alder and Black Cottonwood snags for use by bird species.

Photo 12: Beaver sign, observed throughout the project area.

Photo 13: Non-native / invasive Green Frog – observed throughout the project area.



APPENDIX C

INVASIVE PLANT DETAILS

Trail Route Section Overview of Invasive Species Encountered Detailed Locations of isolated populations of invasives Management Considerations

SouthExisting trail margins dominated by Himalayan Blackberry

with sporadic areas populated by Reed Canarygrass

Himalayan Blackberry was well established. As a result, on-going

treatment would be required, conferring limited success.

Central Sporadic / scattered Himalayan Blackberry at trail margins with increased native shrub and tree cover relative to the

southern section.



North

Transitions to more dense deciduous forest cover relative to the central section. Sporadic Himalayan Blackberry

was observed within open canopy areas near the north and south terminus of this section, whereas Policeman's

Helmet was observed to be more prevalent in central sections with sufficient canopy cover. The area was

colonized by several small populations of English Holly, English Ivy, and Peavine. A small colony of Purple

Loosestrife was identified and Sycamore Maple were also observed.

English Holly (1 small) 10U 514228E 5454459N English Holly (1 small) 10U 514319E 5454495N English Holly (1 small) 10U 514311E 5454493N

Peavine (1 small) 10U 514350E 5454514N English Holly (1 small) 10U 514353E 5454517N English Holly (1 small) 10U 514372E 5454536N

Policeman's Helmet starts 10U 545384E 5454561N English Holly (1 medium) 10U 514389E 5454566N English Holly (1 medium) 10U 514387E 5454588N

English Ivy (<2m2) 10U 514386E 5454590N

Purple Loosestrife (approx. 5m2) 514338E 5454689N

English Ivy (<2m2) 10U 514338E 5454692N Sycamore Maple (3) 10U 514325E 5454749N

Many of these identified occurences of English Holly, English Ivy and Purple

Loosestrife were in the early stages of establishment and could be easily

eradicated

South

This section is dominated by Reed Canarygrass forming a dense monostand throughout. Minor, scattered Himalayan Blackberry, Thistle, and Curled Dock were observed closer

to the south gate with extensive coverage of Creeping Buttercup transitioning to nearly 100% Reed Canarygrass

and only scattered trace blackberry and thistle further north.

Scotch Broom (1 medium) 10U 514083E 5454439N Thistle (1 small) 10U 514109E 5454496N

Scotch Broom (1 large) 10U 514163E 5454560N

Reed Canarygrass was well established and as a result management options would be limited and treatment would

likely have limited success.

Central

This bench area was dominated by Himalayan Blackberry with minor scattered thistle observed at the west edge of the bench. The north edge of this section transitioned to

Reed Canarygrass with minor, scattered Himalayan Blackberry, Morning Glory and Blueweed.



Northwest

Invasives, other than Reed Canarygrass, which dominated this section were largely to confined to areas closest to the

railway right-of-way and included Himalayan Blackberry, Morning Glory, and Prickly Sow Thistle. Some minor

Policeman's Helmet was observed along the edge of the tracks within approximately 5 metres of the trail alignment.

Reed Canarygrass was well established and significant efforts would have to be undertaken to increase shrub density in

this area.

NortheastReed Canarygrass was the dominate vegetation

throughout this section.

Reed Canarygrass was well established and significant efforts would have to be undertaken to increase shrub density in

this area.

South

This section slowly transitions to dense deciduous forest from the open areas closer to the overhead powerline right-of-way. Sporadic Himalayan Blackberry and trace levels of Policeman's Helmet were observed throughout. Other identified invasives included are large area of Yellow-flag Iris, minor Morning Glory as well as individual occurences of Bull Thistle, Burdock, Dalmatian Toadflax, English Ivy,

and Purple Loosestrife. A treated colony of Japanese Knotweed was identified at a side-channel confluence with

the Coquitlam River (Crossing 1B-2)

Sycamore Maple (1 small/1 large) 10U 514331E 5454789N

Yellow-flag Iris (~100m2) 10U 514334E 5454803N Morning Glory (small) 10U 514336E 5454810N

Bull Thistle (small) 10U 514336E 5454810N Burdock (1) 10U 514343E 5454820N

Dalmation Toadflax (1) 10U 514343E 5454820N Purple Loosestrife (1) 10U 514345E 5454829N

Japanese Knotweed (~50-75m2) 10U 514377E 5454852N

Purple Loosestrife (<1m2) 10U 514396E 5454867N

English Ivy (<2m2) 10U 514398E 5454871N

Japanese Knotweed had been previously treated but significant re-growth has

occurred and additional untreated plants were observed along the side-channel

banks, further upstream of the treatment area.

Central

Several sections of dense Policeman's Helmet were identified in this section with gaps where it is completely absent. Himalayan Blackberry remained present further

off the trail alignment but was scattered and in low densities. The area was dominated by native tree and

shrub species and was relatively unimpacted by invasives with the exception of established areas of Policeman's

Helmet. A small untreated colony of Japanese Knotweed

(<5m2) was located near the north end of this section. Purple Loosestrife and Yellow-flag Iris were identifed

within a wetted area north of the trail.

Japanese Knotweed (~1x4m) 10U 514691E 5455114N Purple Loosestrife (~1x4m) 10U 514734E 5455181N

Yellow-flag Iris (<4m2) 10U 514734E 5455181N

Japanese Knotweed was small - immediate treatment recommended to

avoid further spread.

North

Several sections of dense Policeman's Helmet were identified in this section with gaps were it is completely

absent. Himalayan Blackberry remained present further off the trail alignment but was genearlly scattered and in low densities near the Coquitlam River transititioning to

increasing density approaching Pitt River Road.

South

Several invasive species were observed in close proximity to the railway right-of-way including Sweet-White Clover,

Oxe-Eye Daisy, Dalmation Toadflax, and Prickly Sow Thistle. Surrounding disturbed/cleared areas used

previously to access transmission towers were heavily impacted by both Policeman's Helmet and Japanese

Knotweed. Himalayan Blackberry and Reed Canarygrass dominated the east limit of the railway right-of-way at the

west edge of the trail alignment. Within the majority of the trail alignment outside of those areas impacted by

Policeman's Helmet and Japanese Knotweed vegetation consisted primarily of native tree and shrub (e.g., willow)

as well as aquatic species with limited Himalayan Blackberry and Reed Canarygrass.

Japanese Knotweed - located along the east edge of the railway right-of-way between 10U 514412E 5455016N10U and 514398E 5454977N (approx. 50 x 25 m) and a second smaller

area (approx. 3 x 8m) at 10U 514378E 5454919N. Policeman's Helmet - followed a former access road to

transmission tower between 10U 514413E 5455022N and 10U 514458E 5455009N (approx. 50 x 10m).

Trail alignment would significantly increase the likelihood of spread of

Policeman's Helmet proximate to the transmission tower.

North

Several invasive species were observed in close proximity to the railway right-of-way including Sweet-White Clover, Oxe-Eye Daisy, Dalmation Toadflax, Prickly Sow Thistle, and Purple Loosestrife. Himalayan Blackberry and Reed Canarygrass dominated the east limit of the railway right-of-way at the west edge of the trail alignment. Within the trail alignment and further east the vegetation generally transitioned to native and shrub (e.g., willow) as well as aquatic species with limited Himalayan Blackberry and

Reed Canarygrass.

Purple Loosestrife (~5x8m) 10U 514461E 5455236N

Pitt River Road

Lupine was observed within grass-covered areas and the edge of vegetation along Pitt River Road. Himalayan

Blackberry and Reed Canarygrass formed a dense layer along the south edge the mowed, grass-covered area adjacent to the south of the existing Pitt River Road.

Approximately 14 Scotch Broom plants were identifed near the edge of the existing paved trail southwest of the

bridge.

Trail 3BGenerally this alignment was free of significant invasive

species, with the exception of scattered Himalayan Blackberry and scattered colonies of Reed Canarygrass

Trail 1A

Trail 2A

Trail 1B

Trail 2B

Date post:	31-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - Metro Vancouver

Documents