4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Transcription

1 Marine Environment Study November POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 4.1 APPROACH As discussed in Section 3.5, the environmental assessment has taken a functional ecological approach to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project. This approach ensures that the assessment not only examines the effect of a particular resource (habitat or species) but also the subsequent effects on other resources linked to that first one. The assessment of the environmental impacts of the expansion of the Deltaport Container Terminal on the marine environment was undertaken in a logical fashion, proceeding from the identification of potential impacts through an analysis of their severity to an assessment of their significance and the development of required compensation and management measures. The process was broken down into five steps: Step 1: Document Project Actions A comprehensive and detailed description of the entire project is included in Section 2 of this report. Supplemental information on the timing of specific construction activities needed for the environmental assessment is included in the following sections. Also described below are planned impact mitigation and compensation measures that have been developed as the project design has evolved and the effects of the planned project on the marine resources identified. Step 2: Document Assessment Criteria The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that the significance of environmental effects be determined. While this determination is by statute to be done by the government agencies, the proponent can provide a draft or preliminary determination of significance as a part of the report. The significance criteria need to be developed early in the process for the assessment by the proponent and its consultants to be transparent, objective and repeatable. These criteria are reported below and are presented in detail in Appendix A Step 3: Identify Potential Impacts Potential impacts were first identified in a workshop attended by all the members of the Marine Studies team. Criteria for the identification of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs; Table 4.1-1) were then developed through discussions with the assessment team, followed by the identification of the project effects on the VECs. The results of the application of these criteria are presented in Section 4.2.

2 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Table Criteria for Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components Rarity or Uniqueness Species considered endangered or threatened at a provincial or national scale. In general these are provincially red listed species Habitats which support threatened or endangered species Unique habitats or species restricted in range; confined ecological communities Fragility/Vulnerability/Sensitivity Species or habitats particularly susceptible to anthropogenic disturbances Species which would experience difficulty in recovering to viable or manageable levels if disturbed Contribution to Diversity Areas which support a variety of habitat types Areas/habitats with complex species composition Sustainable Use of Species or Areas or species which, if disturbed or impacted, may threaten the Ecosystems sustainable use of the resource Ecosystem Function Species or habitats vital to the maintenance of natural systems beyond the site boundaries Keystone species whose disappearance can alter or disrupt the functioning of an entire ecosystem; e.g., sea otter Areas of high productivity, e.g., estuaries, Upwelling areas, kelp forests Areas which serve a particular function in the life cycle of species, such as calving, spawning, rearing, nesting, haul-out, migration Significant feeding grounds or concentrations of prey populations Step 4: Analyze Potential Impacts In the next step the potential environmental effects were analyzed with respect to: 1. Magnitude; 2. Geographic extent; 3. Duration and frequency; 4. Reversibility or irreversibility; and, 5. Likelihood (marine mammals only). Step 5: Assess Impact Significance Impact significance was deemed to be the assessment of the degree of concern surrounding a potential impact, assuming it occurred as described. Based on the impact analyses (Step 4) and on the characteristics of each affected VEC, impacts and residual effects were assessed for their significance based on the pre-established criteria described in Section 4.3. The results of this analysis are reported in Section 4.4, divided into three components of the project development: Assessment of the effects of the overall project design or footprint; Assessment of the effects of construction activities; and Assessment of the effects of ongoing operations of the terminal expansion.

3 Marine Environment Study November VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS (VECS) The habitats overlapping and adjacent to the project footprint and the list of species reported to use the area in and around Roberts Bank (Section 3) were reviewed by the marine studies team in the context of the criteria set out in Table Using this information, decisions were reached as to what habitats or species would be considered as Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). The habitats or marine species that met these criteria, along with the rationale for their inclusion, are discussed below. Eelgrass bed: There is a dense eelgrass bed in intercauseway area, part of which overlaps a portion the proposed project footprint. Eelgrass beds are considered very productive habitat in Canada (Chambers et al. 1999) and discussions with Fisheries and Oceans Canada staff (J. Johansen, pers. comm.) have emphasized the importance of these beds to the local and Georgia Basin ecological productivity. Eelgrass beds also provide refuge for many species of fishes and invertebrates and feeding areas for many species of waterfowl. The eelgrass bed in and near the footprint is an important source of primary production in the area and harbours Dungeness crabs (adults and juveniles), isopods, amphipods and many juvenile fishes, all of which are an important resource for higher trophic levels (Figure ). Eelgrass beds are also likely diminishing in B.C. a widespread loss of seagrass habitat has been documented throughout the world, including both the Atlantic and Pacific coastal areas of the U.S. (Phillips 1984). Thus eelgrass meet the criteria of rarity and ecological function for inclusion as VEC. Foreshore and salt marsh: The geomorphological analyses carried by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (Christiansen 2004) show that there will be no change to the local physical environment (wave energy and currents) that would affect the main foreshore in areas adjacent to the proposed project. However, a small salt marsh (estimated to be 700 m 2 in area) has recently developed along the foreshore of the existing Deltaport terminal and would be lost with the construction of the proposed project. Like eelgrass beds, salt marshes are an important source of primary production and provide shelter and food for animals from many trophic levels in the area (Figure ). Given their ecological importance in terms of productivity and increasing rarity (up to 70% loss in the Georgia Basin Butler and Campbell 1987), salt marshes meet the VEC criteria of rarity and ecological function. The importance of the foreshore habitats to the early saltwater rearing of Fraser River salmonids also fulfils the criterion of ecological function. Intertidal mudflats: The mudflats in the Deltaport area are heterogeneous and encompass several habitats. The shallow water and abundance of spatial and temporal refuges make them a good nursery habitat, as evidenced by the abundance of juvenile flounders, pricklebacks, surf smelt, salmonids, sculpins and crabs which inhabit the area. These animals recruit into local adult stocks and also provide a food source for animals from other trophic levels (Figure ). Mudflats thus fulfil one important criterion for acceptance as VEC, that of ecological function as an area serving a particular function in the life cycle of species. The project footprint encompasses eelgrass, mudflats and Enteromorpha, all of which and the combination of which are nursery habitats.

4 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Juvenile salmonids: There is concern that construction and operation of the Deltaport Third Berth project might obstruct juvenile salmon movements, or otherwise harmfully alter, disrupt or destroy juvenile salmonid rearing habitat. Juvenile salmonids use the area covered by the footprint of the proposed project and are considered a VEC on the basis of their importance to ensure the sustainable use of the adult salmon populations. Adult Dungeness crabs: Adult Dungeness crabs are present in the footprint of the proposed project during most of the time in the eelgrass bed or within 50 m from it. Ovigerous female move into shallow water in late winter, and concentrations of adults were reported in the ship turning basin in September The Dungeness crab fishery is healthy and economically valuable (Zhang et al. 2002). Dungeness crab recruitment into a population is more affected by coastal currents than by the strength of the local spawning stock (Caddy 1986) hence it is doubtful that the health of the Roberts Bank crab fishery is related to the abundance and egg production of the local crab population. However the extent to which populations of Dungeness crabs beyond the site boundaries would be affected by a reduction in ovigerous females from the Deltaport area is unknown, and precautionary principles dictate that adult Dungeness crabs be considered a VEC to ensure the sustainable use of this fishery resource. Juvenile Dungeness crabs. Dungeness crab larvae remain planktonic for an average of three to four months (Pauley et al and references within). Larvae tend to settle during May-June (Section ; McConnaughey et al. 1992) although there is often a smaller settlement pulse in late summer (Stevens and Armstrong 1984). Juveniles will typically grow for three to four years before attaining a size warranting their entry into the fishery (McConnaughey et al. 1992). While adults are quite motile, juvenile Dungeness crabs tend to associate closely with the substrate and probably do not move from their settlement area for several months (Gunderson et al. 1990). They are thus vulnerable to any development affecting their settlement area. Such an area is known to exist in the footprint of the project and is considered a nursery area for juvenile Dungeness crabs. Post settlement mortality of juveniles has been shown to be important in determining the strength of Dungeness crab cohort (Eggleston and Armstrong 1995). Dungeness crab juveniles probably recruit into local adult populations (Rooper et al. 2002) and any change in their demographics may thus also be reflected in the local adult population. On this basis any change to juvenile Dungeness crab habitat may affect the sustainable use of the resource and the nursery habitat is considered a VEC. Intertidal/subtidal rocky habitats: These anthropogenically created areas of hard substrate include the crest protection and the rip rap base of the second berth. They provide habitat diversity and complexity that support a variety of fishes, invertebrates and algae. Both lingcod and rockfish (copper and juvenile yelloweye rockfish) have been documented by the deeper (22 m) subtidal rip rap and use that area for foraging, refuge and rearing. Smaller fishes (e.g., sculpins, eelpouts, pricklebacks, juvenile salmonids and forage fishes including surf smelt and sand lance) are present in the area and likely use the crest protection for foraging and refuge. The

5 Marine Environment Study November 2004 intertidal rip rap supports an abundance of invertebrates such as marine snails (Nucella lamellosa) and their eggs. These areas thus support many trophic levels in the Roberts Bank area (Figure ) and are included as VEC on the basis of the important ecological function they fulfil. Subtidal mud: This type of habitat is mostly present in the dredge basin. As described in Section 3.3.7, the dredge basin provides habitat for macroinvertebrates (particularly Dungeness crabs), flatfishes (predominantly Dover and English Sole), pricklebacks and eelpouts. The accumulation of detritus in the basin provides food for Dungeness crabs and the fine sediments likely support in/epifaunal communities (such as worms, clams, shrimp, brittle stars) that are consumed by flatfishes. This mud and sand habitat appears to be a juvenile flatfish rearing area. The extent to which these juvenile fishes recruit into the local fishery is however unknown. Consequently it is not possible to predict whether any impact to these fishes in the vicinity of the Deltaport expansion at that stage in their life cycle would affect the sustainable use of the species. The subtidal mud inclusion as VEC is justified on the basis of ecological function and potentially as area important for the sustainable use of some species. Two species, both of which use the subtidal habitat, are also considered VECs in their own right: lingcod and rockfish. Lingcod: Lingcod were observed in the rip rap at the base of the second berth in September and during the January fish survey. These fish are voracious predators and feed on sand lance, flatfish and shiner perch as juveniles while adults feed primarily on herring, Pacific hake but also Pacific sand lance, flatfish, rockfish, salmon, crabs and shrimp (Cass et al 1990). Adults migrate into suitable nearshore spawning locations (typically rock habitat with increased crevice space and strong tidal flushing) in the late fall in preparation for spawning between December and March with peak spawn periods between late January and mid-february (King 2001). Egg incubation is approximately six weeks (lingcod typically hatch between March and April) during which the eggs are susceptible to disturbances such as increases in turbidity and siltation on the egg nests that would reduce oxygen availability to the developing eggs. Lingcod egg masses were frequently observed within the rip rap, predominantly along the southern edge of the terminal and artificial reefs (Figure ). This indicates that lingcod are likely to use this habitat for spawning as the species is considered non-migratory (tagging studies have shown that 95% of lingcod will move within a 10 km radius Cass et al. 1990) and adults are likely to remain in close proximity to their spawning area for the duration of that activity (King and Beaith 2001). Lingcod larvae are planktonic and migrate to deeper waters during the night (Cass et al. 1990). Lingcod juveniles will use eelgrass and kelp beds during post-larval phases and move into diverse habitats during early juvenile phase, with smaller lingcod remaining in shallow waters (King 2001). This species is considered non-migratory. There is no evidence that lingcod populations in the Strait of Georgia are either declining or have increased to levels similar to those seen prior to the commercial lingcod closure in 1990 (King 2001). However larvae from local egg masses remain locally and efforts to minimize impacts to lingcod should therefore be focused on the egg survival stage. Lingcod eggs are a resource easily

6 Marine Environment Study November 2004 depleted and precautionary principles dictate that lingcod and their nesting habitat be considered a VEC on the basis of sustainability of resource and fragility of ecosystem. Rockfish: Copper rockfish are commonly found in nearshore areas with rocky substrate or with rock on sand. They have been reported to select habitat dependent on structure, food availability and success for mating and will move inshore to spawn. Adults are opportunistic carnivores with crustaceans (including juvenile Dungeness crabs), fish (herring, pile perch) and molluscs their main prey items (Casillas et al. 1998). They have also been reported to consume lingcod spawn (Hart 1973). Copper rockfish were documented in the rip rap at the base of the second berth and have likely selected this habitat for foraging, reproduction and refuge. Rockfish populations are declining in the Georgia Strait (Yamanaka and Lacko 2001) and are thus considered a VEC. Marine mammals. Six species of marine mammals are considered to be VECs: Southern resident killer whales: These whales have been well documented in the southern Straight of Georgia. Two studies (Felleman et al. 1988; Heimlich-Boran 1988) specifically noted the suspected importance of the southern Strait of Georgia habitat for these whales during salmon migration. Southern resident killer whales have declined at a rate of 20% in the past five years with a population of 81 individuals in 2001 (Krahn et al. 2002). They are a provincially red listed species and classified as Endangered by COSEWIC. This small, declining population may be susceptible to anthropogenic disturbances including habitat disruption and/or loss, changes in prey availability and pollution (both chemical and acoustic from shipping and construction). On the basis of its provincial and national status (rarity) as well as its sensitivity to anthropogenic disturbances (fragility), the Southern resident killer whale was categorized as a VEC. Transient killer whales: These whales are year round inhabitants of the B.C. coast. They are a provincially red listed species and classified as Threatened by COSEWIC. The primary prey of transient killer whales in the Georgia Basin is harbour seal (Baird & Dill 1995, Ford et al. 1998), therefore the whales could be susceptible to anthropogenic disturbances to prey availability. Their small population (~270 in B.C.; Ford & Ellis 1999) may also be susceptible to other anthropogenic influences including habitat disruption and/or loss or pollution (both chemical and acoustic from shipping and construction). Due to its provincial and national status as well as its sensitivity to anthropogenic disturbances, transient killer whales were categorized as a VEC. Harbour porpoises: These porpoises are considered a vulnerable (IUCN) coastal species limited to temperate and sub-arctic waters of the northern hemisphere (Gaskin 1984). The species is provincially blue listed and classified as a species of special concern by COSEWIC. They are shy, usually seen alone or in small groups of 2 5 animals (Gaskin 1984, 1992) and may be susceptible to anthropogenic disturbances such as habitat disruption and/or loss, changes in prey availability and pollution (both chemical and acoustic from shipping and construction). Due to its provincial and national status as well as its sensitivity to anthropogenic disturbances, harbour porpoises were categorized as a VEC. Humpback whales: These whales have an annual migration that takes them from tropical waters in the winter months to temperate waters in the summer months (Osborne 1999). In the early 20 th

7 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Century a robust commercial hunt took place in the Georgia Basin for humpback whales and the CWS web site suggests that the numbers in B.C. is well below historical levels with an incomplete return to all portions of their former range. This species is provincially blue listed and classified as threatened by COSEWIC, with their numbers in B.C. in the low hundreds of individuals due to high population segregation. Their provincial and national status, small population, and susceptibility to anthropogenic disturbances categorize humpback whales as a VEC. Fin whales: It is believed that fin whales have an annual migration that brings them into the temperate waters of B.C. in the summer months (Osborne et al. 1988). These whales are often seen close to shore, usually where there is a deep water approach to the coast and COSEWIC reports that some young animals may frequent B.C. coastal waters. While there are no reliable abundance estimates for fin whales in B.C. waters, this population has been slow to recover from commercial whaling operations in B.C. This species is provincially blue listed and classified as a species of special concern by COSEWIC. Their provincial and national status, small population, and susceptibility to anthropogenic disturbances categorize fin whales as a VEC. Grey whales: These whales are found only in the North Pacific Oceans and adjacent waters (Jefferson et al. 1993). They are primarily bottom feeders and are restricted to coastal or shallow continental shelf areas. They are the most coastal of all great whales, and spend most of their life within tens of kilometres from the shore. They are seen in shallow areas (Calambokidis & Baird 1994) throughout the Georgia Basin all year long (Calambokidis et al. 1992). Population estimates for Pacific grey whales is 20,000 individuals (Calambokidis & Baird 1994), with an estimate of under 200 summer residents in the outer waters of the Washington and British Columbia. This species is provincially blue listed and was classified as a species of special concern by COSEWIC in 2004 for reasons including the potential impact of human activities. Their provincial and national status, small population, and susceptibility to anthropogenic disturbances categorize grey whales as a VEC. The following species of marine mammals were excluded as potential VECs based on three or more of the following seven exclusion criteria as shown in Table 4.2-1: 1) COSEWIC designation: Not at Risk 2) Large regional population 3) Population trend stable or increasing 4) Occurrence in Southern strait of Georgia zero or highly sporadic 5) Lower risk of death due to boat collision 6) Single animal in extreme of range 7) Lower relative disturbance by low frequency acoustic pollution

8 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Table Selected exclusion criteria for potential VECs Species Exclusion criteria Dall's porpoise 1, 2, 5, 7 Pacific white-sided dolphin 1, 4, 5, 7 Common dolphin 1, 4, 5, 7 False killer whale 1, 6, 5, 7 Minke whale 1, 2, 5 Steller's sea lion 2, 3, 5, 7 California sea lion 1, 3, 5, 7 Northern elephant seal 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 Harbour seal 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 Sea otter 3, 4, 5, 7 River otter 2, 5, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The project team used a matrix approach (Tables 4.3-1a & b) to assess foreseeable impacts of project-related activities on VECs. The proposed project was separated into its component activities, and the relative significance of the impacts on each VEC was evaluated per project activity using the following attributes (this methodology is elaborated in Appendix A4.1-1): Magnitude: absolute or relative change in the size or extent of a VEC within the study area, in relation to the state of the VEC in the study area. Magnitude could be high, moderate, low or nil. Geographic extent: extent of the area affected by the impact. The Deltaport Third Berth project encompasses 70 hectares (21 for footprint and 49 for the dredged basin) hence the whole project area covers less than one km 2. Most constructionrelated impacts were deemed to be confined to this area and are local. However, the operations and malfunction-related impacts potentially cover several levels (oil spill, ship-related impacts, etc.) and were thus deemed to have the potential to affect the larger Roberts Bank area (1 to 10 km 2 ). Geographic extent could range from immediate (project footprint) to local (area immediately adjacent) to regional (Georgia basin) to provincial. Frequency: recurrence interval of impacts that are periodic in nature (e.g., single occurrence, daily, weekly, annually). In the case of accidental spills, the frequency of such spills is unknown, but is anticipated to be low based on past experience at the VPA and on the existing and planned environmental mitigation measures. Frequency could be isolated (specified period), periodic (intermittent) or continuous. Duration: how long an effect may occur, based partly on the preliminary construction schedule. We include short- and long-term effects: construction and

9 Marine Environment Study November 2004 operations. Duration could be short or long-term, or residual (persisting indefinitely). Reversibility: extent to which the impact could be reversed, either naturally or through human manipulation. Either reversible or irreversible. Likelihood (marine mammals only): the probability that a marine mammal species would be affected by an impact. As marine mammals are transient animals the probability that they would be affected is dependent on their presence or location within the local project area. Severity rating: the severity rating of each issue subsumes its attributes. The severity of every impact was assessed based on the following matrices (refer to Appendix A4.1-1 for more details): Table 4.3-1a. Partial matrix for determining the severity rating of a potential environmental effect on VECs (excluding marine mammals) Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Severity Significance High Any Any Any Any High Significant* Moderate Regional or Local Any Any Reversible Moderate Non Significant Low or Regional, Any Any Irreversible Moderate Local or Immediate Moderate Immediate Isolated or Short term Reversible Low Non Periodic Significant Low Regional, Any Any Reversible Local or Immediate *Impact significant if proper compensation and/or mitigation measures are not enforced Table 4.3-1b. Partial matrix for determining the severity rating of a potential environmental effect on marine mammal VECs Magnitude Extent Frequency Duration Reversibility Likelihood Severity Significance High, Moderate or Low Any Any Any Any High or Moderate Moderate Regional or Local Any Any Reversible Low Low or Regional, Any Any Irreversible Low Moderate Local or Immediate Moderate Immediate Isolated or Short term Reversible Low Periodic Low Regional, Any Any Reversible Low Local or Immediate *Impact significant if proper compensation and/or mitigation measures are not enforced High or Moderate Moderate Low Significant* Non Significant Non Significant

10 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Where an impact would apparently result in a significant effect (e.g., loss of an important component of fish habitat or VEC such as eelgrass) practical approaches to avoiding or mitigating adverse effects were identified and proposed for inclusion in the project plan. The purpose of mitigation/compensation is to offset significant effects, thus impacts that were determined to be significant were labelled as non-significant, providing proper compensation and/or mitigation measures are enforced. Further mitigative measures were also identified and are included in the environmental management strategy. In general, non significant impacts occur to a localized population or species over a short period of time (similar to natural variation) and have no measurable and/or meaningful effect on the integrity of the population as a whole. 4.4 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project is divided into three components, footprint, construction and operations: Footprint: habitats and resources within the footprint of the proposed project. Some of these habitats are considered by the agencies as important to the ongoing production of the marine resources at Roberts Bank. They are therefore VECs and thus any effect of the project on these habitats or resources is considered significant in the CEAA context. Mitigation or compensation components were added to the project design to offset these effects. Construction: construction activities needed to complete the project. They include the dredging and disposal of sediments, placement and compaction of fill, construction and placement of the caisson structures needed for the berth, dredging and reclamation of the fill for the container handling yard and berth. Operations: incremental effects of the project operations on the environmental resources of Roberts bank and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Haro Strait and the Georgia Basin within the geographic limitations set out in the project scoping document (Vancouver Port Authority, 2004). The impacts of these project components on the VECs and the compensations/mitigations proposed to offset these impacts are presented in the next subsections.

11 Marine Environment Study November Footprint Approximately 21.7 ha of existing intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat will be replaced by the terminal fill (Table b). A summary of the potentially affected species is presented in Table To compensate for the loss of this habitat, the VPA proposes to create a new eelgrass bed located near the expansion project (refer to Section 5.0 for details). In addition, the design for the terminal includes 1.35 ha of rip rap along the NE edge of the terminal fill (an increase of 0.15 ha from the current terminal) and incorporates 600 m 2 of salt marsh in the design of the new berth. Table Summary of potential footprint impacts Key impact issues Area affected Key concerns Planned mitigation / compensation Eelgrass bed 3.55 ha Loss of habitat 3.7 ha compensatory eelgrass habitat in intercauseway area (cf. Section 5.0) Salt marsh 300 m 2 Loss of habitat 600 m 2 salt marsh compensation area included in project design Foreshore 1.2 ha of Loss of fish Habitat recreated with 1.35 ha of rip rap rip rap habitat on the NE end of the project Intertidal 12.7 ha Loss of nursery 3.7 ha compensatory eelgrass habitat in mudflat habitat for juvenile intercauseway area (cf. Section 5.0) fishes and invertebrates Juvenile 1.2 ha of Loss of fish Habitat recreated with 1.35 ha of rip rap salmonids rip rap habitat on the NE end of the project Adult 12.7 ha Loss of intertidal 3.7 ha compensatory eelgrass habitat in Dungeness crabs mudflat habitat intercauseway area (cf. Section 5.0) Juvenile Dungeness crabs Approx 2 ha of habitat Loss of nursery habitat Subtidal mud 3.4 ha Loss of fish habitat Intertidal/sub tidal rocky habitats Some crest protection Loss of fish and invertebrate habitat Nursery habitat will likely re-establish itself along new foreshore; 2 compensation options exist if reestablishment is unsuccessful (cf. Section 4.4.1) Fishes will likely relocate to the dredge basin where there are similar substrates for rearing New rip rap embankment around dredge channel

12 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Eelgrass bed: Approximately 3.55 ha of eelgrass bed (Z. marina and Z. japonica) will be directly affected by the terminal fill (the area is approximate as eelgrass is a dynamic ecosystem whose cover varies). A proposed compensatory eelgrass habitat (c.f. Section 5.0) has been included in the project design to offset this loss. Salt marsh: It is estimated that a narrow band of salt marsh (300 m 2 ) will be eliminated by the terminal fill. To compensate for this loss, a salt marsh approximately double this area (600 m 2 ) has been included in the project design as a component of the mitigation and compensation plan. Foreshore: The actual extent of the foreshore on the existing footprint includes 1.2 ha of rip rap. This habitat will be recreated on the NE edge of the project. The new rip rap will be installed and cover an estimated area of 1.35 ha, thus generating an excess of 0.15 ha. Intertidal mudflat: The terminal fill will impact approximately 12.7 ha of intertidal mudflat, which presently acts as nursery habitat for juvenile fishes and invertebrates. The proposed compensatory eelgrass bed (c.f. Section 5.0) will be created to compensate for the aggregated loss of intertidal nursery habitat. Juvenile salmonids: The terminal fill will generate 0.15 additional ha in rip rap and thus provide functional intertidal fish habitat for juvenile salmonids. This component of the project will have a positive impact on this VEC. Adult Dungeness crabs: Adult crabs use the intertidal mudflat to be covered by the proposed project footprint to forage on bivalves and detritus and for shelter (they bury into the substrate at low tide) and will thus be prevented from using this habitat. They will also be directly impacted during the fill (c.f. next section on Construction). The number of adult Dungeness crabs using the footprint area at any given time is however low (c.f. Section 3.0) and the biological surveys show that crabs also use the adjacent eelgrass bed for the same purposes. Crabs using the footprint area will thus likely be displaced to adjacent areas such as the newly created eelgrass bed. This will compensate for their lost use of the footprint area. Any potential adult loss will be mitigated as the intertidal area will be surveyed immediately prior to beginning of construction and adults found will be relocated in suitable adjacent area. Juvenile Dungeness crabs: Juvenile crabs use the intertidal mudflat to be covered by the proposed project footprint as nursery habitat (refuge and growth) and will thus be prevented from using this habitat. The extent of this habitat is estimated at 2 ha. The existence of the present nursery habitat depends on two factors: 1) physical transport and settlement of the larvae to the site and 2) biological conditions suitable for refuge and growth of settled juveniles. The range of physical variables responsible for the settlement of crab larvae in the area is known from the study conducted by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (see Section and Christiansen 2004), and the biological surveys have established that juvenile crab densities are highest within a mixed cover of Enteromorpha sp. and eelgrass. This is similar to what has been reported for juvenile Dungeness crab habitat preferences in Washington (Armstrong et al., 1987; McMillan et al. 1995). The existing nursery habitat will likely re-

13 Marine Environment Study November 2004 establish itself along the newly created foreshore on the NE border of the project: Christiansen (2004) shows that the currents (both direction and velocity) will be very similar to the present conditions and it is likely that Dungeness megalops will continue to settle in the area. Appropriate biological conditions for their development and survival may however take some time to re-establish and precautionary principles dictate that other options be examined should the new nursery habitat prove unsatisfactory. Two such options have been identified: The first option is to locate existing juvenile Dungeness habitat in the area adjacent to the project footprint which has similar physical and biological variables to that of the existing juvenile rearing habitat. If such a habitat is found it will be enhanced (either expanded or improved through addition of refuges or modification of substrate). The second option (if no habitat is found in the adjacent area) would be to create a new juvenile Dungeness crab nursery habitat to replicate the biological conditions observed in the present area. Ongoing studies to establish compensation habitat for juvenile Dungeness crabs lost to dredging operations in Washington have been partially successful (Armstrong et al. 1995; Dumbauld et al., 2000; Visser, 2003) and show that a combination of location and substrate may create suitable conditions for juvenile Dungeness crab settlement and survival. Subtidal mud: The proposed project footprint will directly eliminate 3.4 ha of subtidal mud. Most of the fishes using the subtidal area (sculpins and flatfishes) are mobile and will move out of the area prior to construction. They will likely relocate in the dredge basin which will be deeper (from 10 m depth to 20 m depth) as a result of the construction. The sediment size in the basin will likely remain the same and provide rearing conditions similar to those currently present. Intertidal/subtidal rocky habitats: Some of the crest protection will be eliminated during construction of the third berth. This habitat will be compensated by the new rip rap embankment around the new footprint. This rip rap, given the same elevation, will likely colonize with similar invertebrates and be used by small fish. The other identified VECs (rockfish, lingcod, marine mammals) will not be affected by the footprint of the project Construction The proposed construction schedule is shown in Figure Using this schedule, the marine construction component of the expansion project has been divided into five main chronological phases (dates are approximate). Their main impacts are: 1. Dredging of berth: excavation of million cubic metres of material either under the wharf extension or at the end of the berth. This dredging is scheduled to take place from mid November 2005 to the end of February 2006 (3.5 months). The material would be wasted to the ocean-dumping site off Roberts Bank.

14 Marine Environment Study November 2004 The main impacts are expected to be physical disturbance of the seabed; direct impacts to marine organisms; impact on water and sediment quality (turbulence and debris); noise impacts on marine fauna. 2. Construction of dykes for terminal fill dredging control. This phase will be completed in December 2005, and will use imported clean gravels that will ultimately retain the dredge material used to reclaim the terminal. There will be direct impacts to marine organisms present in the footprint during that time of year, such as crabs, bivalves, polychaetes and amphipods. 3. Dredging for the terminal - excavation of 2 million cubic metres of material from the bench opposite the ship access channel (or in the alternate from the Fraser River) between March 2006 and July 2006 (5 months). Waste material (silt and clay fractions that will not settle on the terminal) will also be wasted to the ocean-dumping site. The main impacts of this phase are physical disturbance of the seabed, direct impacts to some marine organisms and local impacts on water and sediment quality (turbidity). 4. Placement of clean sands and gravels under the berth and caisson - placement of approximately 1.15 million cubic meters of materials under the berth and caisson. This material would imported using the Fraser River Titan and be placed starting in January 2006 and continue to mid-may 2006, following the dredging of this area. Following placement, the fill will be densified, likely be using vibro-floatation techniques starting in March 2006 and ending in July The main impacts will be physical disturbance of the seabed, direct impacts to some marine organisms, and on water quality. Noise from the densification work may also have short-term effects on the marine fauna. 5. The caissons would be placed following the densification of the fill starting at the end of the third quarter of 2006 and continuing until the fourth quarter of Following this step protective works such as rip rap would be completed by mid-way through the first quarter of The main impacts pertain to the fauna which may have moved in the footprint of the caissons in the period between densification and commencement of the placement of the caissons. Once this work is completed, the marine portion of the terminal will be generally complete. Work will continue on the very important components such as the container cranes, container handling yards and infrastructure through 2006, 2007 and 2008 but the marine works would be essentially done by late 2007.

15 Marine Environment Study November 2004 To mitigate the effects of these activities, dredging guidelines have been established by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the protection of marine resources at Roberts Bank: No dredging is permitted in waters less than -5m (CD) deep from March 1 to August 15 for the protection of juvenile salmon unless the works area adequately isolated from fish bearing waters to the satisfaction of FOC; and, From October 15 to March 31 there shall be no works conducted which will result in a significant disturbance to the seabed of outer Roberts Bank which is situated in water greater than five (5) meters deep at daily low water. 9 These guidelines, to be adopted for the construction of the proposed container terminal, will also focus substrate disturbance and silt generation in periods of low productivity in the specific portions of the ecosystem. Hence any impact at low trophic levels will have lower probabilities of repercussions to the higher trophic levels (Figure ). Periods of sensitivity for VECs potentially affected by constructio impacts are presented in Table Table Summary of sensitivity periods for potentially affected VECs Species Period of sensitivity Juvenile chum and pink Late August to late May Juvenile chinook June to July Adult Dungeness crabs October 15 to March 31 Juvenile Dungeness crabs June to September Lingcod and flatfishes October 15 to March 31 Killer whales May to mid-october Physical Effects during Dredging During the dredging there will be locally significant levels of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and turbidity near the cutter head of the dredge. A review of the available literature indicates that levels of turbidity are concentrated near the bottom (3-5 meters vertically from the cutter head) and that a sediment plume may move in and out with the tide cycles. The dredged material will be silt and finer particles that can remain in suspension in the tidal currents. A search of the available literature did not find any documentation of actual sediment concentrations either from earlier dredging works at Roberts Bank or for analogous situations in Burrard Inlet. 9 Letter to John Jordan, VPA, January , from S. Macfarlane, Head, Water Use Section, FOC

16 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Figure Proposed construction schedule from AMEC (October 2004)

17 Marine Environment Study November 2004 A study by Lasalle (1990) reviewed data from U.S. studies for different locations and different types of dredges including cutterhead dredges. Sediment levels near the surface were generally < 150 ppm and < 500 ppm near the bottom but the author considered these to be worst-case estimates. If these TSS levels were used along with durations of > 36 hours in dose/response models (Newcombe and Jensen, 1996; Anderson et al, 1996) the conclusions would be severe habitat effects and effects on fishes in the area. However, a similar conclusion would also be reached if the ambient TSS data for the Tsawwassen ferry terminal site (Kistritz and Harrison, 1983; Table ) were used for long duration events. Table Near surface TSS 0.4 km off Tsawwassen Ferry terminal (1972 to 1979) (mg/l). Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec These results provide an indication of baseline conditions as influenced by the sediment load in the Fraser River plume in the Georgia Basin. While these levels justify the timing of FOC s dredging guidelines they also point that absolute TSS values may not be the best guidelines. The effects on the VECs from these construction activities, and the recommended mitigative and compensatory works are detailed in the following paragraphs. Eelgrass bed within and adjacent to the footprint: All construction phases will directly or indirectly affect the eelgrass bed through either habitat disturbance or increase in water turbidity, which reduces the levels of photosynthesis. Winter is the best time to work near eelgrass beds as disruptions to this ecosystem s productivity are then minimal. As previously mentioned an eelgrass bed will be created to compensate for the loss of eelgrass. Mitigative measures include minimizing the generation of silt or to contain it, water turbidity monitoring during construction to enforce the levels stipulated in the environmental monitoring plan and settling the dredgeate in a contained area. Intertidal mudflat: Most juveniles (marine fishes and invertebrates) settle or hatch in the area from February to August, after which time they attain a size to avoid substantial predation and move out of the area to complete another stage of their life history. Dredging may only cause potential short-term disruptions of habitat as most of the dredging will be concentrated before the period of settlement and in areas deeper than the primary areas of juvenile settlement; there will however be loss of habitat following construction of dykes and the terminal fill as the footprint of the project is used by many juveniles vertebrates and invertebrates and by bivalves. An environmental monitoring plan will be implemented throughout construction to mitigate any construction related environmental effects of construction; as a part of this plan the footprint will be surveyed at low tide for capture and relocation of juvenile crabs and fishes to mitigate the effects of the terminal fill; silt curtains may be used if turbidity exceeds the levels stipulated in the environmental monitoring plan and will mitigate any effect of dredging on ambient fauna and

18 Marine Environment Study November 2004 flora; the creation of compensatory habitat (an eelgrass bed) will compensate for the aggregated loss of intertidal habitat from the terminal fill. Juvenile salmonids: Pink and chum salmon juveniles make extensive use of the nearshore area from December to late May (Table and Appendix A3.3-4); chinook juveniles likely use the same area in June and July. These fishes may be deterred from entering the area during construction but will relocate easily. The expected effects of the construction phases on juvenile salmonids are potential for short-term disruption of pink and chum habitat use during dredging activities, dyke construction or placement of gravel and sand. No impact is expected on juvenile chinook during these same activities, as they are unlikely to use the area at this time of year. There is potential for short-term disruption of pink, chum and chinook habitat use during densification and terminal fill. An environmental monitoring plan will be implemented during construction and, as a part of that plan, bubble or silt curtains may be used to keep juvenile salmon away from the specific works if monitoring indicates their presence to be in numbers such as to be a potential problem, thus mitigating any effects of construction. Adult Dungeness crabs: Female Dungeness crab move in shallow water to release their fertilized eggs in January - March. This period is thus considered sensitive for these animals. FOC s timing restrictions to protect Dungeness crabs on the outer areas of Roberts Bank are to avoid conducting work resulting in significant disturbance to the seabed in waters deeper than 10 m from October 15 to March 31. There is potential for the short-term disruption of female Dungeness crabs late winter migration and losses of individuals through entrainment during dredging activities as currently scheduled, and potential for losses of individuals during dyke construction, placement of gravel/sand, densification and terminal. An environmental monitoring plan will be implemented to mitigate any effect of the construction phases. FOC guidelines do not allow dredging and disruption of substrate below 10 m CD between October 15 and March 31 to minimize disruption to or losses of individual adult Dungeness crabs and, if followed, would mitigate or eliminate any impacts to adult Dungeness crabs. In addition, the footprint area will be surveyed at low tide prior to the start of specific activities to allow capture and relocation of adult crabs to mitigate any effect of habitat disruption during the terminal fill. Juvenile Dungeness crabs: The period of highest sensitivity for juvenile Dungeness crabs is between June to September, when juveniles settle and seek refuge in the Enteromorpha/Zostera zone of overlap. These animals are then small and into one of their most important growth phases (their dry weight has been reported to increase more than 200 times during that time Stevens and Armstrong 1984). Disturbances to the substrate or algal cover increase their risk of mortality through either increased risk of predation or disruption of foraging opportunities. Juvenile Dungeness crabs probably move out of the proposed project footprint area in winter as evidenced by the lower density of juveniles recorded by this study in December. The reduction in Enteromorpha cover at that time of year also makes the area less suitable for them.

19 Marine Environment Study November 2004 The expected effects of the construction phases on juvenile Dungeness crabs are a low potential for short-term disruption of habitat or animals during dredging as most dredging activities will be outside the footprint area; there is however a medium to high potential for losses of juveniles during construction of dykes and terminal fill as these animals will still be in the substrate. The placement of sands/gravels and densification activities will have low potential for losses of juveniles as their habitat will not be directly affected. An environmental monitoring plan will be implemented to mitigate any effects of the construction phases. As part of this plan, the footprint will be surveyed at low tide just prior to dyke construction to allow capture and relocation of juvenile crabs and will help to mitigate any effects of the fill. Following construction the lost nursery habitat will likely re-establish itself along the newly created foreshore on the NE border of the project and the physical conditions projections indicate that Dungeness larvae will likely settle in the area (Christiansen, 2004). Nevertheless options for further mitigation are being contemplated as detailed in Section Subtidal mud: There are expected habitat losses of subtidal mud during dredging of the berth, the terminal fill and the construction of the dykes as the mudflats will be filled or dredged; there is also potential for further habitat disruption through the generation of silt during the placement of clean sand and gravel. The species most affected by loss or disruption of subtidal mud are lingcod and various flatfishes. The greatest impact to juvenile flatfishes will likely be from dredging activity that may result in entrainment. However their rearing habitat will be largely unaffected as the new dredge basin will be deeper (from 10 m depth to 20 m depth) and sediment size will likely remain the same and provide rearing conditions similar to the currently ones. Intertidal and subtidal rocky habitat: Fishes using these habitats (primarily copper rockfish) will be displaced during construction but would likely move to the rip rap habitats on the southern perimeter of the existing terminal and then re-inhabit the new rocky habitats following construction. Given the expected increase in habitat area following construction, no net loss of habitat is expected. FOC guidelines do not allow dredging and disruption of substrate below 10 m CD between October 15 and March 31. This will minimize disruptions to or losses of individual adult lingcod and their egg masses and to flatfishes. Construction of the proposed Third Berth will result in the temporary loss of rocky habitats (both inter- and sub-tidal) on the northern and western edges of the existing terminal. These will be replaced at the completion of the construction of the Third Berth and there will be a net gain (0.15 ha) in the aerial extent of the habitats. Thus, the loss of these habitats is limited to the construction period (December 2005 to March 2008). In addition, a portion of the existing crest protection will be removed.

20 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Marine Mammals: The main effects of construction activities on marine mammals are noise and the possibility of release of environmental immunotoxic contaminants from dredging (both during phases 1,4 and 5). These two issues are discussed in turn. Noise. Marine mammals are of particular concern because they employ sound in an active or passive manner for a variety of purposes including navigation, communication, and foraging (through echolocation or simple listening). Because of this, noise is an important issue with potential effects that range from simple tolerance by animals through to acoustic masking, avoidance behaviour and in extreme cases, to temporary and permanent losses in hearing. Direct lethal effects have yet to proven by the literature, but avoidance, altered behaviour and fleeing have been documented. Importantly, the sound source for some strandings were reported at db re 1 1m. Richardson et al. (1995) provide a valuable conceptual tool for understanding how noise may affect marine mammals, detailing difference zones of noise influence around sound sources. These include: the zone of audibility, where marine mammals would be able to detect the noise over ambient levels; the zone of responsiveness, where marine mammals detect and respond to the sound source; the zone of masking, where sounds interfere with marine mammal sounds and their detection by conspecifics and finally the zone of hearing loss, discomfort or injury, where sounds can physically damage the auditory systems. Suction dredging often produces broadband sounds, usually between 20 Hz and 1 khz (but tones up to 6 khz are often produced) with most energy occurring at lower frequencies (usually around Hz), but even at 1 khz source levels may be ~167 db re (Richardson et al. 1995). Many of the marine mammal species found proximate to the expansion project site are sensitive to these sounds, with odontocetes and pinnipeds most sensitive to higher frequencies and mysticetes most sensitive to lower frequencies. Functional models predict mysticete hearing ranges from ~20 Hz to 20 khz, while underwater audiograms for killer whales range from 1 khz to ~150 khz. Sounds from dredging are likely to be audible to some marine mammals up to 25 km away, and can elicit behavioural and physical responses at closer distances. For continuous noise (e.g., rig operation), whales begin to avoid sounds at exposure levels of 110 db and more than 80% of species show avoidance to sounds of 130 db. Hopper and transfer dredgers both can exceed km, only dropping below this value at ~2-10 km. Drilling operations also increase local anthropogenic noise, although it is usually not as loud as dredging. Underwater noises produced by drilling on man-made islands is usually below 500 Hz with source levels under 110 db re (Richardson et al. 1995). Most mysticetes are likely more sensitive to these sounds than odontocetes and pinnipeds. For example, grey whales appear to be sensitive to sounds produced by drillship and dredge sounds, with changes in behaviour seen at varying distances from the sounds source (Richardson et al. 1995). For quieter sources, avoidance occurs between 4 and 20 m, while grey whales will avoid louder sources at distances as great as 1,100 m (Richardson et al. 1995). Grey whales are also sensitive to sounds produced by airguns in seismic exploration. For example, they appear to react to sounds with received levels of greater than 160 db re 1µPa, which corresponds to a distance of approximately 5.0 km for larger arrays (65.5 L) of airguns. Reactions include changes in

21 Marine Environment Study November 2004 breathing rates, shorter surfacings and dives, course alterations/avoidance and relocating to areas with lower received levels (sound-shadows) (Richardson et al. 1995). Zones of acoustic influence. Considering limited data on bottom type and profile, we employ a simple mathematical model to estimate sound level losses due to spherical and cylindrical spreading in shallow coastal waters (Marsh & Schulkin 1962) to estimate a theoretical received sound levels at 1 km, 5 km and 10 km from the dredge site. Given that the Straight of Georgia quickly deepens to > 200m, these values must be considered minimum values until a more sophisticated model is employed. In the absence of specific data on the sound source to be use at the expansion site, we substituted published values of source level at peak frequency (approximately 100 Hz) for marine dredges published in Greene (1987) and Richardson et al. (1995). We also model received sound at 1 khz, the frequency component of dredge noise to which killer whales and other odontocete whales are sensitive to (Szymanski et al. 1999) and calculate a theoretical minimum zone of audibility for this species. The following equation is used to estimate received levels at 1 km, 5 km and 10 km for a dredge producing sound at 100 Hz and 1 khz with source levels of 185 db re 1 µpa (Figure 1m and 167 db re 1 1m (Figure ) respectively. L r =L s - 20 log R 1 15 log R/R 1 - αr where L r = received level in db re 1 µpa at 100 Hz L s = source level at one meter in the same units R1= transition range where spherical spreading changes to cylindrical spreading (generally defined as the depth of the water in the area) R = range from sound source in meters α = absorption of 100 Hz sound by water in db per meter (from Richardson et al :73) Therefore, the theoretical received level of 100 Hz sound at 1 km would be: L 1 = 185 (20 log 100) 15 log (1000/100) E-06 (1000) = db the theoretical received level of 100 Hz sound at 5 km would be: L 5 = 185 (20 log 100) 15 log (5000/100) E-06 (5000) = db and the theoretical received level of 100 Hz sound at 10 km would be: L 10 = 185 (20 log 100) 15 log (10000/100) E-06 (10000) = db

22 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Figure Theoretical received levels of 100 Hz at 185 db re 1 1m radiating from Roberts Bank Port Expansion Project Figure Theoretical received levels of 1 khz at 167 db re 1 1m radiating from Roberts Bank Port Expansion Project, plus the theoretical zone of audibility for killer whales.

23 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Considering these estimated received levels and the fact that for continuous noise many baleen whales begin to avoid these sounds at exposure levels of 110 db and more than 80% of species show avoidance to sounds of 130 db, dredge noises may affect the behaviour of baleen whales at distances greater than 10 km from the expansion site. Marine dredges appear to produce less intense sounds (< 170 db) at the frequencies that most odontocete whales are sensitive to (> 1 khz), although little data exist for low frequency hearing in many species (Richardson et al. 1995). Despite this, we employed published data on the hearing sensitivity of killer whales to 1 khz sounds (105 db, see Szymanski et al. 1999) to establish theoretical estimates of received sound and a minimum zone of audibility (where sound drops below hearing threshold) for 1 khz noise at the expansion site. One khz is the lowest frequency that killer whales are known to be sensitive to, and is in the higher range of noise produced by marine dredges. The theoretical received level of 1 khz sound at 1 km would be: L 1 = 167 (20 log 100) 15 log (1000/100) (1000) = db Therefore, the theoretical received level of 1 khz sound at 5 km would be: L 5 = 167 (20 log 100) 15 log (5000/100) (5000) = db and the theoretical received level of 1 khz sound at 10 km would be: L 10 = 167 (20 log 100) 15 log (10000/100) (10000) = db The theoretical zone of audibility for 1 khz sound with a source level of 167 db re 1 1 m is approximately 3,700 m for killer whales. Dredges can also produce higher frequency sounds, which may be detectable at distance by killer whales. These theoretical estimates do not incorporate data on actual ambient noise in the area, nor changes in sound detection capabilities that may stem from differences in behavioural states (for example, it is not entirely clear how hearing capabilities change in relation to behavioural states such as hunting through passive listening). Mitigation measures. The main mitigative measures to be enforced during construction to reduce or eliminate the effects of noise on marine mammals are: Ensure timing of construction from mid October to April to reduce impact on southern resident killer whales; In-water noisy construction activities should be ramped up slowly to prevent startling of marine mammals and allow them to leave the area; Efforts should be made to reduce noisy activities such as vibro floatation (cf. Section 5.0);

24 Marine Environment Study November 2004 A calibrated hydrophone should be used to estimate the frequency and noise levels of the various components of dredging operations. This will allow distinction of the possible activities that may cause avoidance effects in killer whales and other marine mammals; The presence of marine mammals in the immediate area or the incoming movement of southern resident killer whales into the area should be monitored to restrict use of only those components of dredging that may produce sound levels/frequencies thought to acoustically harass VECs (see point above). To do so, three cameras (facing N, S and W) should be deployed at the terminal facility to monitor the immediate area. Two broadband hydrophone arrays (which are simply three underwater microphones in parallel) should also be concurrently deployed to acoustically detect incoming southern resident killer whales at distances (~5 km) beyond the scope of cameras and to allow detection during the hours of darkness, thus representing 24/7 coverage (see The arrays (which can determine the distance and direction of the sound source) would be placed at the Sandheads buoy and at the terminal facility to monitor the inward movement of animals from the south and the north to determine when they are about to enter the predicted zone of influence of any identified noisy dredging operation, and to assess when animals have left the area. Regular communications with the local whale watching operators would also provide important supplementary information to killer whale movement patterns; and, Collation and analysis of observational and acoustic data should be conducted immediately by a qualified research team, to evaluate whether they are any effects on marine mammals, specifically southern resident killer whales. Environmental immunotoxic contaminants. As upper trophic level predators, marine mammals are at risk to bioaccumulation of heavy metals and persistent organic contaminants. Dredging will temporarily resuspend these particles allowing possible absorption into the food chain. Several studies have revealed significant heavy metal and organic contaminant burdens in the tissues of porpoises from both the east and west coasts of Canada (Calambokidis 1986; Palka et al. 1996; Westgate et al. 1997), yet very little is known of the effects these burdens have on the animals carrying them (e.g., Grant & Ross 2002), but they have been identified as a conservation issue for this species (Jefferson 1990). California sea lions are known to accumulate organic contaminants (Le Boeuf et al. 1995; Le Boeuf et al. 2003) and are among the most contaminated marine mammals studied (Le Boeuf et al. 2003). Contaminant burdens in Steller sea lions have been studied throughout much of their range (e.g., Kim et al. 1996; Lee et al. 1996; Hayteas & Duffield 1997; Kubota et al. 2001; Beckmen et al. 2002). Studies of harbour seals in B.C. and Washington State waters indicate that they are at risk to accumulating contaminants in their tissues (reviewed in Calambokidis & Baird 1994) which may lead to immuno-suppression (e.g., Ross et al. 1996b, Simms & Ross 2000) and susceptibility to other stressors (Ross et al. 1996a). Contaminants are not expected to be of concern in the Deltaport area as all water quality parameters met applicable provincial water quality objectives or guidelines (EVS, 2004). Moreover, all 25 core sediment samples and 20 surface grab sediment samples collected in the

25 Marine Environment Study November 2004 expansion project footprint met the Disposal at Sea Criteria for metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as per the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Hemmera 2004). Mitigative measures: No sewage/refuge/ballast dumping strictly enforced; Use of bottom chute or equivalent during dredge dumping to decrease contaminant exchange and turbidity; Levels of chronic oil pollution should be monitored on a regular basis; Every effort should be made to minimize the effects of construction of the project on water quality in the area; and, Oil spill contingency plan should be in place. Other mitigative measures to be in effect during construction concern the potential for ship collision. These measures are: All vessel operators working on the projects construction or operation should be given a briefing, alerting them to the possible presence of cetaceans in the area and the rules for safe operation around these animals; Define areas of high cetacean density; If high speed vessels are used, they should be required to avoid or to slow to 10 knots when passing through areas of high cetacean density (areas of high mysticete usage); Observers should be used when passing through areas of high cetacean density (areas of high mysticete/killer whale usage); Vessel operators should be required to use regular and predefined routes; and, Bows of vessels could be fitted with DNA collection devices that could be used to quantify the numbers of strikes Operations The effects of the operations of container terminal are expected to be continuous once the construction is completed. Most effects relate to noise impacts on the marine fauna, with the exception of the potential for introduced species. Introduced species. The expected increase in ship traffic once the project becomes operational will augment the probability of introduction of exogenous marine species in the Roberts Banks area. There are three possible sources of species introduction from container

26 Marine Environment Study November 2004 ships: ballast waters, containers (which likely affect terrestrial species such as plants) and ship hulls. The VPA has in place an Environmental Management Plan to control for the possibility of introductions via containers and maintains a strict ballast waters monitoring program. The VPA fully collaborates with the local and municipal and federal government agencies to monitor the intertidal area for introduced species. A similar program involving the collaboration of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Vancouver Port Authority, Ducks Unlimited, Canadian Wildlife Service, the Corporation of Delta and the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has recently led to the temporary eradication of English cordgrass Spartina anglica (subject to monitoring) from the area immediately adjacent to the Roberts Bank causeway. This impact is thus considered non significant. Other VECs: Impacts from operations on the eelgrass bed, the foreshore, salt marsh, intertidal mudflats, subtidal mud and rocky habitat, and adult and juvenile Dungeness crabs are considered non significant. Any potential impact will be mitigated through the enforcement of VPA s Environmental Management Plan. There exists a very low likelihood that the new terminal operations disrupt the migration and or habitat use of juvenile salmonids. Such impacts are considered minimal and can be mitigated through the creation of a vegetated ledge along the foreshore to provide additional foraging opportunities and shelter. Marine mammals: The increase in ship traffic could affect marine mammals mainly through acoustic pollution and increased risk of boat collision. Acoustic pollution. Sound frequencies for man made sources affecting orcas to avoid are 1-2 khz, and < 1 khz for large whales. Large commercial vessels produce powerful low frequencies sounds. Source levels ranging from db re m, at frequencies ranging from Hz are produced by ships ranging in size from 135 to 337 m. Typically, the larger, faster and more laden the boat the louder the sound. Shipping also produces distant traffic noise elevating sea noise across Hz (Richardson et al. 1995). Continuous noise from boat traffic can cause smaller cetaceans like harbour porpoises to avoid boats underway (e.g., Polacheck & Thorpe 1990); they are known to react to survey vessels at distances as great as 1 km (Palka & Hammond 2001), moving away from the survey vessel. This suggests that in areas of high shipping traffic, harbour porpoises may be excluded from that habitat. Resident killer whales also react to boat traffic (Williams et al. 2002a, Williams et al. 2002b) and disturbances caused by whale watching vessels and shipping traffic have been noted as a potential cause of decline in this population (Anonymous 2002b). It is unknown if transients killer whales react in the same way. Humpback whales also appear to be easily disturbed by shipping traffic (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995), exhibiting avoidance (durations spanning hours to days), changes in vocal behaviour and occasionally conducting agonistic charges towards boats. Minke whales are also likely to avoid ships (see Palka & Hammond 2001). Grey whales are known to avoid ships primarily in breeding areas, but do exhibit changes in behaviour associated with boat traffic in other areas (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995). Environment Australia give guidelines that sounds of > 140 db in feeding, breeding and resting areas may be considered likely to significantly disturb whales (see Pidcock et al. 2003).

27 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Boat collision risk. FOC does not regulate boat distances to whales but recommend 500 m. The latest review of ship strikes and cetacean indicates that fin whales are struck most frequently (Laist et al. 2001). Humpback and grey whales are also struck commonly, and minke whales occasionally. Ford et al (1994) reported a ferry in B.C. severely injuring a killer whale calf and propeller wounds have been noted on a northern resident in Most lethal interactions occur with ships 80 m or longer traveling at 14 knots or greater. No severe or lethal injuries were sustained at ship speeds below 10 knots. The majority of collisions occur over or near the continental shelf and collisions may have a significant effect on small populations (Laist et al. 2001). Collisions with tankers and cargo ships have the highest chance of killing whales, but dredgers are also known to cause fatalities. Clyne and Leaper (2004) in a recent report to the International Whaling Commission modeled collisions between whales and ships and looked at the potential for vessels to take avoiding action. In optimum conditions and a continuous lookout, a 200 m long 30,000 ton container vessel might be able to avoid 30-50% more whales if vessel speed were cut from around 20 to 10 knots. The proportion actually avoided was around 30% at ~10 knots and suggested the proportion avoided might be closer to zero in more typical sub-optimum conditions. Slowing down to speeds between ~ 6-8 knots actually made very little difference to the proportion avoided, compared with the value at ~10 knots. Pinnipeds are not thought to be at risk to boat strikes. In 2003, the world cellular fleet was around 3,000 vessels. Deltaport received 365 vessel calls in 2003 and the Westshore Terminals 190 calls. Bachelor Marine Consulting Services Inc. assessed that ship traffic due to the Deltaport expansion would increase by less than 10% to 2011 and would unlikely increase any further by 2020 due to projected increases in TEU capacity of ships. Thus, approximately 70 more boat movements will pass through the Strait Juan de Fuca and the offshore areas of B.C. where larger whales occur. Bachelor Marine Consulting Services Inc. also reports that B.C. Coast Pilots recommend a ship waiting area be positioned at N; W. This may lead to a zone of acoustic masking or hearing loss. There is no data available on the number of ship strikes per vessel movement, therefore it is uncertain how many extra whale mortalities might occur. The main mitigative measures thus are: Restrict ships using the Deltaport container terminal to slower vessel speeds of 10 knots or less when approaching port area; Encourage proper maintenance of ship propellers; and An evaluation of the ambient noise levels in the southern Strait of Georgia and Haro Strait should be conducted and levels regularly monitored to determine if they increase above a set threshold level. 4.5 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS The residual effects of the project were assessed using the methodology outlined in Section 4.1. The details of the assessment of the expected significance of the footprint, construction and operation of the project, recognizing the mitigative activities recommended here and included in

28 Marine Environment Study November 2004 the Environmental Management Plan and the proposed construction of compensatory habitats within the project, are included in Appendix A In summary, with the proposed environmental management plan and mitigative features included in the project design, no significant environmental impacts to the marine environment were identified. 4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN A fully enforceable environmental monitoring plan supervised by qualified environmental monitors will be developed as part of the Fisheries Act Authorization process. It will incorporate all mitigative measures for the various project aspects and take into account all Valued Ecosystem Components in addition to the marine environment.

29 Marine Environment Study November MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN The proposed design of the project is the result of an iterative planning effort undertaken by the Container Development Group and their consulting team between July 2003 and October The footprint of the terminal was reduced substantially from earlier designs in response to environmental concerns. This has resulted in a decrease in the area of marine habitats affected by the proposed works. Furthermore, habitat compensation components were added to the project design in response to effects identified during the environmental assessment. These are summarized below. A number of mitigative strategies were identified during the environmental assessment. Note that final decisions on commitments for the implementation of these strategies will be made by the Port of Vancouver and the Terminal Operator. The various recommended strategies are discussed under the same headings used in the environmental assessment: project footprint; construction; and, operations. 5.1 PROJECT FOOTPRINT Two major potential environmental effects were identified for proposed Deltaport Expansion: o loss of a net 3.55 hectares of eelgrass habitat; and, o loss of 300 m 2 of saltmarsh habitat. The figure of 3.55 ha is partly based on an eelgrass survey of the conducted in 2004 (compare with Table b, which contains substrate cover data from 2003) and on the effective percent cover of these plants. The rationale for calculating the eelgrass area is detailed below. Because of the ecological importance of these habitats and the fact that their loss cannot be avoided by a re-design of the proposed terminal layout, a compensatory habitat feature has been proposed for inclusion in the project design. Eelgrass Habitat A review of eelgrass areas between the two causeways was undertaken to place this feature in context. The review was based on data from the present study, from historical air photos and from a review by Harrison and Tarbotton (1995). The data clearly show that there was a loss of eelgrass habitat in the intercauseway area following constuction of the causeway and the initial Roberts Bank port (Table 5.1-1). However, the eelgrass bed had returned to its approximate

30 Marine Environment Study November 2004 original extent by the mid-1970s, remained at that extent until the late 1990s when it started to expand and is now 33% greater in area (+123 hectares). Table Evolution of eelgrass area in the Roberts Bank intercauseway area Year Area (ha) Change (ha) Percent change Event 1960 B.C. Ferries terminal constructed % % Roberts Bank causeway constructed 1974 Z. japonica first discovered in the area % % Deltaport expansion ( ) 1991 B.C. Ferries terminal expansion completed % % These results are qualitative due to differences in aerial photo scale, water clarity and interpretive techniques. They do however show the direction and magnitude of the changes that have occurred since development of the original causeway and port. The reasons for eelgrass expansion are not well understood but contributing factors could include natural and anthropogenic factors: Natural Factors Invasion of Z. japonica in the 1970s, which has increased the ponding of tidal waters, thus increasing the suitability of the existing habitat for Z. marina; Increased seedling establishment; Generally warmer weather over the past decade; Fraser River freshets that have been lower than average and resulting decrease in turbidity and increase in salinity during the spring and, therefore, improved growing conditions for the eelgrass; and, Lower tides and lows closer to noon (and thus increased light penetration). Anthropogenic Factors Construction of the causeway and port, which altered both local geomorphology and currents; Draining of the area at low tide is impeded by the two causeways; Coastal transport of sediments has been altered by the causeway(s); The Roberts Bank causeway and Deltaport have deflected the sediment-laden Fraser River plume; The B.C. Ferries causeway shelters the eelgrass beds from winter storms from the SE; and,

31 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Sediment escape during the coal port development raised the local elevation of the surrounding seabed to elevations suitable for eelgrass establishment. The area of eelgrass to be lost as a result of project construction (from both the placement of terminal fill and the dredging of the tugboat basin) isconsidered within the following context: A total of 3.55 hectares of eelgrass, consisting of both continuous and patchy areas of Z. marina and a linear bed of Z. japonica will be lost (2.9% of the gain since 1995). These 3.55 hectares incorporate allowances for < 100% cover in some polygons and for differences between the biology of the two eelgrass species, namely: Z. japonica is an introduced species (~ 1974); Z. marina is a perennial species providing habitat year round while Z. japonica is an annual species that typically senesces in winter, providing less habitat and little or no productivity at this time; Z. japonica occurs generally at higher elevations than Z. marina, thus providing habitat during a smaller portion of the tide cycle than Z. marina; and, The productivity of Z. japonica is greatest during July and August. Data collected from Roberts Bank (shoot density and size) in July and August were used to estimate the productivity of each species, and the analyses demonstrated that during the time of peak Z. japonica biomass, the productivity of this species was approximately 20% that of Z. marina. This ratio was used to calculate the equivalent area of Z. marina that would have to be included in the compensation area to account for the loss the Z. japonica habitat (Table 5.1-2). The recent expansion of eelgrass in the intercauseway area indicates that environmental conditions are optimal for the growth of eelgrass; There are many recent examples of successful eelgrass transplanting in B.C. and in particular near Roberts Bank; and, An area adjacent to the present eelgrass beds in the intercauseway area could be modified to provide optimum elevation for eelgrass establishment. The replacement eelgrass area has been calculated as presented in Table and assumes that only Z. marina would be transplanted to the compensation site.

32 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Table Total eelgrass area in proposed Expansion project footprint and dredge basin. Marina Polygon ID Species Cover value Area (ha) Equivalent Units ( 1 ) Percent Coverage Net Area Terminal 343 Z. japonica moderate Z. japonica dense Z. marina patchy % Z. marina continuous % Z. marina continuous % Dredge basin 593 Z. marina continuous % Z. marina continuous % Z. marina continuous % Total net area of Z. marina (ha) One hectare of Z. japonica taken to be equivalent to 0.2 hectare of Z. marina Given this context, a habitat replacement ratio of 1:1 is proposed. It is further proposed that the development of the compensatory area (Figures and 5.1-2) be completed in the summer of 2006 immediately following completion of the dredging for the proposed terminal. Initial transplanting would then be completed in the the summer and fall of Monitoring of the success of the transplants will be conducted 6, 12, 36, and 60 months after transplanting. It is expected that the productivity of the area will match that of natural areas within 36 months. If at any time the success of the transplants is less than expected, additional transplanting or other compensatory works will be completed following consultations with the government agencies.

33 Marine Environment Study November 2004 Figure Intercauseway compensatory eelgrass habitat Figure Intercauseway habitat area-section (Source: AMEC E & C Services Ltd, 2004)