Subject: Additional Information Required from Port Metro Vancouver for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 PORT METRO vancouver Debra Myles Panel Manager, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, Place Bell 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A OH3 October 26, 2015 Dear Ms. Myles, Subject: Additional Information Required from Port Metro Vancouver for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Assessment Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) is pleased to submit to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency responses to requests for additional Information related to the Project environmental assessment. The attached package, Project Environmental Assessment Additional Information Requirements (July 31, 2015): Responses, addresses the requirements for additional information as specified in your letter dated July 31, PMV looks forward to working with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to further advance the project through the next phase of the assessment process. Please direct any questions regarding these responses to Kyle Robertson, our Manager, Environmental Assessment and Permitting of Infrastructure Sustainability, at container.improvement@portmetrovancouver.com or by phone at Sincerely, Gilles Assier Director, Infrastructure Sustainability Port Metro Vancouver Cc: Chris Hamilton, Executive Project Director, BC Environmental Assessment Office Attachments: 1) Project Environmental Assessment Additional Information Requirements (July 31, 2015): Responses ~00 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6C 3T4 jloo The Pointe, 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, C.-B. Canada V6C 3T4 portmetrovancouver.com

2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Additional Information Requirements (July 31, 2015) List of Responses #1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 #2 Aboriginal Traditional Territories #3 Invasive species #4 References #5 Editorial #6 Ecosystem Modelling #7 Significance Criteria #8 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge #9 Species in the Local and Regional Assessment Areas #10 Mapping #11 Species at Risk #12 Mitigation Measures #13 Cumulative Effects Assessment #14 Transboundary Effects #15 Intermodal Yard Locations #16 Short Sea Shipping #17 Cleanup and On-site Grounds Reclamation #18 Groundwater #19 British Columbia and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Objectives #20 Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Quality Objectives #21 Sulphur Oxides #22 Wetlands Identification and Characterization #23 Implications of Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation #24 Orange Sea Pens #25 Project Lighting Effects #26 Social and Economic Setting #27 Recreational Uses of the Project Area by Aboriginal Peoples #28 Aboriginal Health #29 Physical and Cultural Heritage #30 Rationale for Conclusions #31 Country Foods Additional Information Requirements (July 31, 2015): Responses

3 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Rationale The EIS Guidelines (10.1.3) require the effects of changes to the environment on Aboriginal peoples and effects of changes that are directly linked or necessarily incidental to federal decisions to be described from the perspective of the proponent. Appendices 29-F and 29-G of the EIS is presented as a summary of all effects of changes to the environment as defined in section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, It is not clear, however, how all of these effects are related to a change to the environment. For example, the table does not identify the change to the environment that may cause a change in employment during construction and operation to the Labour Market valued component (Appendix 29-F). Information Requested Explain how each entry identified as an effect in Appendices 29-F and 29-G of the EIS, results from a change to the environment. Response The Project is reviewable under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act. The information presented in the EIS is intended to satisfy both federal and provincial environmental assessment requirements. As such, the tables in EIS Appendices 29-F and 29-G include effects of changes to the environment, as well as effects of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, In the tables provided below, the effects in EIS Appendices 29-F and 29-G are listed, and a column has been added to indicate either a) what change in the environment (before mitigation) is related to the potential effect, or b) that the effect is not directly linked to a change in the environment as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, New information is indicated by italics. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 1

4 12 29-F Effects of Changes to the Environment on Aboriginal Peoples Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in employment during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in labour income during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in training opportunities during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in unemployment and participation rates during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Economic Development (Section 20.0) Change in materials, goods and services contracting revenues during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Economic Development (Section 20.0) Increase in induced output (revenue) during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Economic Development (Section 20.0) Consistency with economic development plans during operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Marine Commercial Use (Section 21.0) Displacement of commercial crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels and associated revenue during construction and operation Change in biophysical environment Productivity loss for Dungeness crabs during construction and operation phases. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 2

5 Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Health and socio-economic conditions Services and Infrastructure (Section 23.0) Constraint on healthcare services capacity and supply during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Services and Infrastructure (Section 23.0) Constraint on emergency services capacity and supply during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Services and Infrastructure (Section 23.0) Constraint on municipal infrastructure capacity and supply during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Outdoor Recreation (Section 24.0) Displacement of recreational crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels during construction and operation Change in biophysical environment Productivity loss for Dungeness crabs during construction and operation phases. Health and socio-economic conditions Visual Resources (Section 25.0) Change in daytime visual resources during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Visual Resources (Section 25.0) Change in nighttime visual resources during construction and operation Change in physical environment Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels. Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Consistency with land use planning designations during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Disturbance to marinerelated industrial uses during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Disturbance to protected area (Roberts Bank WMA) during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 3

6 Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Changes in access to TFN community lease lands during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health effects related to air emissions during construction Change in physical environment During peak construction activity, air quality criteria may be exceeded for 1-h and 24-h average NO 2 concentrations in the immediate vicinity, and for PM, PM 10, and PM 2.5 concentrations over water near the Roberts Bank terminals. Change in physical environment During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health effects related to noise during construction and operation Change in physical environment Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and low-frequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 4

7 Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Change in physical environment During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health effects due to stress and annoyance during construction and operation Change in physical environment Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and low-frequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Change in physical environment Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels. Change in physical environment Deposition of fine sediments from construction activities, including ITP use, dredging at the terminal dredge basin and tug basin, vibro-densification, and disposal-at-sea discharges, are predicted to be a maximum of 1.7 mm, less than the lowest natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank (range is 2 to 30 mm/year).* *Note that these potential changes in the physical environment could result in the perception of contamination of shellfish, which could result in stress or annoyance. An actual change in contaminant levels in shellfish, resulting in a human health effect, is not anticipated. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 5

8 Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Change in physical environment During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health outcomes due to changes in health inequity during construction and operation Change in physical environment Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and low-frequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Change in physical environment Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels. Change in physical environment Deposition of fine sediments from construction activities, including ITP use, dredging at the terminal dredge basin and tug basin, vibro-densification, and disposal-at-sea discharges, are predicted to be a maximum of 1.7 mm, less than the lowest natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank (range is 2 to 30 mm/year).* *Note that these potential changes in the physical environment could result in the perception of contamination of shellfish, which could result in stress or annoyance. An actual change in contaminant levels in shellfish, resulting in a human health effect, is not anticipated. Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Current Use (Section 32.2) Changes in access to preferred Current Use locations Change in physical environment due to physical barrier of terminal footprint and associated navigational closure. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 6

9 Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Changes in bio-physical environment: Marine Vegetation: Productivity loss for macroalgae during construction and operation phases; changes in biofilm assemblage composition during freshet during construction and operation phases. Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Current Use (Section 32.2) Changes in availability of preferred Current Use resources Marine Invertebrates: Productivity loss for bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crabs, and orange sea pens during construction and operation phases. Marine Fish: Loss of productivity for marine fish sub-components during construction and operation phases. Coastal Birds: Productivity loss for coastal bird sub-components during construction and operation phases. Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Current Use (Section 32.2) Changes in quality of preferred Current Use resources Change in physical environment Deposition of fine sediments from construction activities, including ITP use, dredging at the terminal dredge basin and tug basin, vibro-densification, and disposal-at-sea discharges, are predicted to be a maximum of 1.7 mm, less than the lowest natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank (range is 2 to 30 mm/year).* *Note that these potential changes in the physical environment could result in the perception of contamination of shellfish. An actual change in contaminant levels in shellfish, resulting in a human health effect, is not anticipated. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 7

10 Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Change in physical environment During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Change in physical environment Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and low-frequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Current Use (Section 32.2) Changes in quality of preferred Current Use experience Change in physical environment Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels. Change in physical environment Deposition of fine sediments from construction activities, including ITP use, dredging at the terminal dredge basin and tug basin, vibro-densification, and disposal-at-sea discharges, are predicted to be a maximum of 1.7 mm, less than the lowest natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank (range is 2 to 30 mm/year).* *Note that these potential changes in the physical environment could result in the perception of contamination of shellfish, which could affect the quality of experience of current use activities. An actual change in contaminant levels in shellfish, resulting in a human health effect, is not anticipated. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 8

11 Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Effect Related Change to the Environment, as defined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Physical and cultural heritage; - and - Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. Archaeological and Heritage Resources (Section 28.0) Crushing or biological degradation of potential fish trap stakes during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Physical and cultural heritage; - and Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. Archaeological and Heritage Resources (Section 28.0) Reduced access for future archaeological study or preservation of potential fish trap stakes during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Physical and cultural heritage; - and Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. Archaeological and Heritage Resources (Section 28.0) Exposure of potential fish trap stakes during construction Change in physical environment Project terminal footprint-related changes in coastal processes include increased flow exchange in relict tidal channel west of the terminal from flow acceleration. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 9

12 G Effects of the Project and Changes to the Environment Directly Linked or Necessarily Incidental to Federal Decisions Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in employment during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in labour income during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in training opportunities during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Labour Market (Section 19.0) Change in unemployment and participation rates during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Economic Development (Section 20.0) Change in materials, goods and services contracting revenues during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Economic Development (Section 20.0) Increase in induced output (revenue) during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 10

13 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Economic Development (Section 20.0) Consistency with economic development plans during operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Marine Commercial Use (Section 21.0) Displacement of commercial crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels and associated revenue during construction and operation Change in biophysical environment Productivity loss for Dungeness crabs during construction and operation phases. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Local Government Finances (Section 23.0) Change in local government property tax and PILT revenue and expenditures during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Services and Infrastructure (Section 23.0) Constraint on healthcare services capacity and supply during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Services and Infrastructure (Section 23.0) Constraint on emergency services capacity and supply during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Services and Infrastructure (Section 23.0) Constraint on municipal infrastructure capacity and supply during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 11

14 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Outdoor Recreation (Section 24.0) Displacement of recreational crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels during construction and operation Change in biophysical environment Productivity loss for Dungeness crabs during construction and operation phases. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Visual Resources (Section 25.0) Change in daytime visual resources during construction and operation Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Visual Resources (Section 25.0) Change in nighttime visual resources during construction and operation Change in physical environment Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Consistency with land use planning designations during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Disturbance to marinerelated industrial uses during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 12

15 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Disturbance to protected area (Roberts Bank WMA) during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Land and Water Use (Section 26.0) Changes in access to TFN community lease lands during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health effects related to air emissions during construction Change in physical environment During peak construction activity, air quality criteria may be exceeded for 1-h and 24-h average NO 2 concentrations in the immediate vicinity, and for PM, PM 10, and PM 2.5 concentrations over water near the Roberts Bank terminals. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 13

16 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Change in physical environment During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health effects related to noise during construction and operation Change in physical environment Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and lowfrequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 14

17 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Change in physical environment During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health effects due to stress and annoyance during construction and operation Change in physical environment Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and lowfrequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Change in physical environment Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels. Change in physical environment Deposition of fine sediments from Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 15

18 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment construction activities, including ITP use, dredging at the terminal dredge basin and tug basin, vibrodensification, and disposal-at-sea discharges, are predicted to be a maximum of 1.7 mm, less than the lowest natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank (range is 2 to 30 mm/year).* *Note that these potential changes in the physical environment could result in the perception of contamination of shellfish, which could result in stress or annoyance. An actual change in contaminant levels in shellfish, resulting in a human health effect, is not anticipated. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 16

19 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Change in physical environment During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Health and socio-economic conditions Human Health (Section 27.0) Adverse health outcomes due to changes in health inequity during construction and operation Change in physical environment Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and lowfrequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Change in physical environment Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels. Change in physical environment Deposition of fine sediments from Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 17

20 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment construction activities, including ITP use, dredging at the terminal dredge basin and tug basin, vibrodensification, and disposal-at-sea discharges, are predicted to be a maximum of 1.7 mm, less than the lowest natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank (range is 2 to 30 mm/year).* *Note that these potential changes in the physical environment could result in the perception of contamination of shellfish, which could result in stress or annoyance. An actual change in contaminant levels in shellfish, resulting in a human health effect, is not anticipated. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Physical and cultural heritage; - and - Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. Archaeological and Heritage Resources (Section 28.0) Crushing or biological degradation of potential fish trap stakes during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 18

21 Legislation Responsible Authority Federal Decision Aspect Potentially Affected Related VC Potential Change or Effect Related Change to the Environment Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Physical and cultural heritage; - and - Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. Archaeological and Heritage Resources (Section 28.0) Reduced access for future archaeological study or preservation of potential fish trap stakes during construction Effect of the Project not directly linked to a change in the environment. Canada Marine Act, Port Authorities Operations Regulations Port Metro Vancouver Project Permit Physical and cultural heritage; - and - Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance. Archaeological and Heritage Resources (Section 28.0) Exposure of potential fish trap stakes during construction Change in physical environment Project terminal footprint-related changes in coastal processes include increased flow exchange in relict tidal channel west of the terminal from flow acceleration. Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 19

22 References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #1 (IR ) Page 20

23 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #2 Aboriginal Traditional Territories Rationale The EIS Guidelines (9.1.8, 9.2) require the identification of Aboriginal traditional territories, including maps where they are available. Port Metro Vancouver states that its definition of spatial boundaries for the traditional territories was based on asserted or established traditional territories, or otherwise defined areas. The Penelakut Tribe, however, commented that its traditional territory is misrepresented in the EIS. Information Requested Confirm whether the Aboriginal traditional territories currently presented in the EIS remain appropriate for the purpose of the environmental assessment. Provide any additional information that describes how Port Metro Vancouver has updated the presentation of Aboriginal traditional territories in the EIS based on consultations with Aboriginal groups. Response Port Metro Vancouver confirms that the Aboriginal traditional territories currently presented in the EIS remain appropriate for the purpose of the environmental assessment. The outer boundaries of these traditional territories (or otherwise defined areas of use), as described in EIS Section Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes, Existing Conditions and presented in EIS Figures 32-1 through 32-7, functioned as the spatial boundaries of the assessment Port Metro Vancouver provided, in July 2014, maps of each traditional territory, where asserted or established, to the applicable Aboriginal group, along with a community profile, for review and comment. In November and December 2014, PMV provided each Aboriginal group with the summary of existing conditions for that Aboriginal group presented in EIS Section Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes, Existing Conditions, and requested that each Aboriginal group review and comment on that summary. Again, maps of traditional territories used as the basis for the spatial Response to Information Request #2 (IR ) Page 1

24 14 15 boundaries and the assessment were provided to each Aboriginal group with their applicable summary Based on those reviews, four Aboriginal groups asked that their boundaries be revised (i.e., Musqueam First Nation, Semiahmoo First Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, and Hwlitsum First Nation). In all four cases, the assessment in EIS Section 32.2 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes and Section 32.3 Potential Adverse Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests was based on the boundaries requested by the Aboriginal group. In the case of Musqueam First Nation and Semiahmoo First Nation, the boundaries were updated on EIS Figure 32-2 and EIS Figure 32-3, respectively. In the case of Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the Statement of Intent map, which Tsleil-Waututh Nation had asked be removed from EIS Figure 32-4, was retained, as was the Consultation Area, which was used as the basis of assessment for Tsleil-Waututh Nation. In the case of the Hwlitsum First Nation, EIS Figure 32-6 was not updated; however, PMV was aware of the broader area that Hwlitsum First Nation wished to be considered as its territory, and this broader area was considered in the assessment for Hwlitsum First Nation The steps outlined above were followed for the Penelakut Tribe. PMV consulted the Penelakut Tribe directly and through the Cowichan Nation Alliance. Opportunities to comment on the territory map were provided to Penelakut Tribe both directly and through the Cowichan Nation Alliance, as part of the July 2014 and November to December 2014 requests for review and comment. The territorial boundary used in the assessment for the Penelakut Tribe, and for the Cowichan Nation Alliance, was the Statement of Intent boundary submitted to the British Columbia Treaty Commission by the Hul qumi num Treaty Group, of which the Penelakut Tribe and other members of the Cowichan Nation Alliance are or have been a member. During the process outlined above, PMV received comments from the Penelakut Tribe and the Cowichan Nation Alliance and these comments were incorporated; however, PMV did not receive any comments from Penelakut Tribe or the Cowichan Nation Alliance indicating that a different traditional territory other than the one asserted by the Hul qumi num Treaty Group should be used as the basis of the assessment. This territory is depicted in EIS Figure 32-5 and is described in EIS Section Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes, Existing Conditions, Cowichan Nation Alliance (Cowichan Tribes, Halalt First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, Stz uminus First Nation). Response to Information Request #2 (IR ) Page 2

25 While the source of the apparent misrepresentation within the EIS is not described in the information request, PMV is aware that the Penelakut Tribe informed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that the basis of their concern relates to the written description of the Penelakut Tribe s territory provided in EIS Section Component Overview and Regulatory Setting, Aboriginal Groups, Penelakut Tribe. PMV wishes to clarify that, irrespective of the written description of the Penelakut Tribe s territory that appears in that section, the basis of the assessment for the Penelakut Tribe in EIS Section 32.2 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes and Section 32.3 Potential Adverse Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests was the boundary described in the preceding paragraph (i.e., the Hul qumi num Treaty Group s Statement of Intent), in combination with relevant information relating to Penelakut Tribe s past, current, and future use of lands and resources for traditional purposes that was available to PMV at the time the EIS was prepared. References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #2 (IR ) Page 3

26 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #3 Invasive Species Rationale The EIS Guidelines (10.1) require the proponent to substantiate all conclusions and to provide predictions based on clearly stated assumptions. Section of the EIS states that, as a result of eradication efforts occurring presently at Roberts Bank, English cordgrass (Spartina anglica) may not occur at Roberts Bank when Project operation begins. As such, Project effects on English cordgrass are not addressed in the EIS. Information Requested Explain the confidence that Port Metro Vancouver has in its prediction that English cordgrass may not occur at Roberts Bank when Project operation begins. If this assumption is not strongly defensible, describe the consequences for the predictions of environmental effects in the EIS. Response English cordgrass management in British Columbia is led by the Province of British Columbia. The threat of English cordgrass (Spartina anglica) on marine ecosystems has been recognised by the Pacific Coast Collaborative and the West Coast Governors Agreement on Ocean Health which has committed to eradicate non-native Spartina species from the Pacific coast of the United States and British Columbia by 2018 (Boe et al., 2010 and Pacific Coast Collaborative 2010). In addition, PMV has a strong history of working with, and funding, interested parties (i.e., BC Spartina Working Group) to help manage English cordgrass at Roberts Bank Via support of the BC Spartina Working Group and other interested parties, the Province has made progress in English cordgrass management at Roberts Bank. In particular, there is evidence that herbicide treatment at Roberts Bank in 2013 has decreased English cordgrass in 2014 (D. Buffett, Ducks Unlimited Canada, personal communication). Port Metro Vancouver also understands that funding and management effort will continue for the foreseeable future. Response to Information Request #3 (IR ) Page 1

27 15 16 Based on the above, PMV is confident that English cordgrass will be effectively managed at Roberts Bank and be at, or below, current levels, by the time the Project is constructed In terms of predicting environmental effects, English cordgrass is a marsh plant and hence has been indirectly assessed in the EIS as a sub-component of the marine vegetation valued component. Changes in water quality from short-term and reversible salinity levels from RBT2 are not anticipated to affect English cordgrass given their high tolerance for large environmental variability (Partridge and Wilson 1987) Additionally, fine sediment deposition on the north side of the terminal near the western end of the causeway is predicted to slightly increase bed elevation over time (see EIS Section Coastal Geomorphology, Future Conditions with the Project and EIS Section Marine Water Quality, Future Conditions with the Project); this may provide similar habitat to the existing causeway shoreline, which currently provides habitat for fringing intertidal marsh. The future areal extent of this area is difficult to estimate because it is not possible to accurately predict rates of deposition of the fine sediment fraction that is carried in suspension. Over the long term, there is potential for English cordgrass recruitment in this area As outlined in EIS Section 17.0 Mitigation for Marine Biophysical Components, PMV is planning several onsite habitat concepts in this area behind the terminal. These onsite offsetting measures will be designed specifically to promote intertidal (salt) marsh, rockweed, and biofilm species, to ensure the onsite offsetting habitat is functioning as intended, English cordgrass settlement in this area will be monitored and controlled. As such, potential long-term establishment of English cordgrass in this area is unlikely In summary, PMV s confidence in English cordgrass management is strong and effects to this species from RBT2 are considered unlikely. Therefore, EIS conclusions of no significant adverse environmental effect to the marine vegetation valued component (including English cordgrass) are strongly defensible. Response to Information Request #3 (IR ) Page 2

28 References Boe, J., A. B. Vierra, W. Brown, T. Butler, J. Gerwein, M. Herborg, and M. Toohey West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health Spartina Eradication Action. Pacific Coast Collaborative Spartina Progress Report for Pacific Coast Collaborative Leaders Forum. November 16 th, 2010 Davis, California. Partridge, T. R., and J. B. Wilson Salt Tolerance of Salt Marsh Plants of Otago, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 25: Appendices None Response to Information Request #3 (IR ) Page 3

29 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #4 References Rationale The EIS Guidelines (4.2) require assumptions to be clearly identified and justified, and all data, models and studies to be documented such that the analyses are transparent and reproducible. Appendix 10-B contains a reference to Fishbase (Froese and Pauly 2011) which is used as a source for Q/B and P/B parameters for a number of marine species within the ecosystem model. Appendix 10-C contains a similar reference to Froese and Pauly, These are references to a generic database, which contains no specific reports associated with the referenced authors and years. In order to understand the validity of these sources, the original references for the values obtained and used via Fishbase are required. Information Requested Provide the original reference sources for the values used and obtained via Fishbase including for P/B and Q/B habitat preference parameters used in the ecosystem model. Response Model parameter inputs for production (P/B) and consumption (Q/B) were taken from both primary literature sources and a global fisheries database FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2011). Values for P/B and Q/B within FishBase were taken from the life history tool with species specific default values. P/B values found in FishBase are equal to estimates of natural mortality (M), while Q/B values are estimates of food consumption. The generic reference to this tool is Froese and Pauly (2011); however, other primary references may be associated with these values and vary with species or functional group. Table IR4-1 below identifies each reference to FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2011) in EIS Appendix 10-B Roberts Bank Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace Model Parameter Estimates and EIS Appendix 10-C Roberts Bank Ecosystem Model Development and Key Run, and confirms whether Froese and Pauly (2011) is the appropriote reference, or if additional primary references from within FishBase were used. Response to Information Request #4 (IR ) Page 1

30 13 14 Table IR4-1 Reference Sources for Values Used in the Roberts Bank Ecosystem Model Functional Group Section in EIS New citation Appendix 10-B Chinook salmon (adult and juvenile) Chum salmon (adult and juvenile) Salmon (adult and juvenile) Page (p.) 53, Section (S.) 4.3.2, paragraph ( ) 2, line (L.) 1 p. 53 S L. 3 p. 53 S L. 3 p. 56 S L. 8 p. 56 S L. 3 p. 58 S L. 5 p. 58 S L. 2 (Page and Burr 1991; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Page and Burr 1991; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Page and Burr 1991; Froese and Pauly 2011) Dogfish p. 61 S L. 3 (Ebert et al. 2010; Froese and Pauly 2011) Flatfish Forage fish Herring Large demersal fish Lingcod Rockfish p. 63 S L. 3 p. 63 S L. 2 p. 63 S L. 11 p. 65 S L. 8 p. 65 S L. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 p. 68 S L. p. 68 S L. 2 p. 70 S L. 4 p. 70 S L. 3 p. 72 S L. 3 p. 72 S L. 2 p. 72 S L. 4, 5 p. 74 S L. 4 p. 74 S L. 6 (Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Cooper and Chapleau 1998; Orr and Matarese 2000; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Hart 1973; Morrow 1980; Kucas 1986; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Whitehead 1985; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Froese and Pauly 2011) Sandlance p. 76 S L. 3 (Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Froese and Pauly 2011) Shiner perch Skate p. 78 S L. 3 p. 78 S L. 4 p. 80 S L. 4 p. 80 S L. 2 (Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Clemens and Wilby 1961; McEachran and Dunn 1998; Froese and Pauly 2011) Response to Information Request #4 (IR ) Page 2

31 Functional Group Section in EIS New citation Small demersal fish Starry flounder Appendix 10-C p. 82 S L. 3 p. 82 S L. 1 p. 82 S L. 3 p. 84 S L. 3 p. 84 S L. 3 p. 84 S L. 4 (Nakamura 1971; Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Armstrong et al. 1995; Froese and Pauly 2011) (Cooper and Chapleau 1998; Froese and Pauly 2011) Production/Biomass and Consumption/Biomass Ratios p. 18 S L. 3-4 (Froese and Pauly 2011) Fish p. 31 S L. 2-3 (Froese and Pauly 2011) References Armstrong, J. L., D. A. Armstrong, and S. B. Mathews Food Habits of Estuarine Staghorn Sculpin, Leptocottus armatus, with Focus on Consumption of Juvenile Dungeness Crab, Cancer magister. Fishery Bulletin 93: Clemens, W. A., and G. V. Wilby Fishes of the Pacific Coast of Canada. 2nd ed. Fisheries Resources Board Bulletin (68):443 p. Cooper, J. A., and F. Chapleau, Monophyly and Intrarelationships of the Family Pleuronectidae (Pleuronectiformes), with a Revised Classification. Fishery Bulletin 96(4): Ebert, D. A., W. T. White, K. J. Goldman, L. J. V. Compagno, T. S. Daly-Engel, and R. D. Ward Resurrection and Redescription of Squalus suckleyi (Girard, 1854) from the North Pacific, with Comments on the Squalus acanthias Subgroup (Squaliformes: Squalidae). Zootaxa 2612: Eschmeyer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Hammann A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, U.S.A. 336 p. Froese, R., and D. Pauly. Editors FishBase. World Wide Web Electronic Publication. Available at Accessed July Hart, J. L., Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Resources Board Bulletin 180:740 p. Response to Information Request #4 (IR ) Page 3

32 Kucas, S. T., Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) - Northern Anchovy. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.50). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL p. McEachran, J. D., and K. A. Dunn, Phylogenetic Analysis of Skates, a Morphologically Conservative Clade of Elasmobranchs (Chondrichthyes: Rajidae). Copeia 1998(2): Morrow, J. E., The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. University of B.C. Animal Resources Ecology Library 248p. Nakamura, R., Food of Two Cohabiting Tide Pool Cottidae. J. Fisheries Resources Board Bulletin 28: Orr, J. W., and A. C. Matarese, Revision of the Genus Lepidopsetta Gill, 1862 (Teleostei: Pleuronectidae) Based on Larval and Adult Morphology, with a Description of a New Species from the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. Fishery Bulletin 98: Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr, A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 432 p. Whitehead, P. J. P., FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 7. Clupeoid Fishes of the World (Suborder Clupeioidei). An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of the Herrings, Sardines, Pilchards, Sprats, Shads, Anchovies and Wolf-herrings. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(7/1): Rome: FAO. Appendices None Response to Information Request #4 (IR ) Page 4

33 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #5 Editorial Rationale It is unclear whether a footnote is missing from Appendix 7.2-B on page 53. Information Requested Confirm what footnote 1 in comment 146 of Table 27 is referencing (EIS Appendix 7.2-B). Response 1 2 The superscript 1 in the response to comment 146 of Table 27 is a typographical error. No footnote was intended to be provided. References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #5 (IR ) Page 1

34 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #6 Ecosystem Modelling Rationale The EIS Guidelines (4.2, ) require that all data models and studies be well documented such that the analyses are transparent and reproducible. Further, with respect to quantitative models and predictions, the proponent is required to detail the model assumptions, the quality of the data and the degree of certainty of the predictions obtained. In reviewing the EIS for completeness, participants indicated further information is required prior to undertaking a technical review of the ecosystem model assumptions, the quality of the data used, and the modelling conclusions. Information Requested Provide the following additional information with respect to the ecosystem model used in the effects assessment: a) confidence limits based on the empirical data for parameter estimates obtained through field studies; b) documentation of the assumptions made during balancing of the Ecopath model, including initial and final input parameters and a rationale for the modifications made; c) information about the spatial temporal model component of the EwE framework; d) information about the habitat capacity model component of the EwE framework; e) a description as to how the data sets defining environmental preference functions presented in Appendix 10B (preferences are lumped into categories) relate to Appendix 10C (preferences are defined as continuous data points); f) a quantitative measure of the accuracy (fit) of the model predictions of biomass distribution based on field data; g) a rationale for the range of vulnerability factors used in the sensitivity analysis; h) a description of the rationale for, and application of, the Monte Carlo approach to Ecospace; and i) a more detailed description of predator-prey interactions for fish populations in the area, particularly during spawning or juvenile rearing stages. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 1

35 Response 1 2 The following material is provided to address information requested in relation to ecosystem modelling assumptions, quality of the data used, and modelling conclusions. 3 Information is presented as follows: Overview of ecosystem model application (in response to the rationale provided for this information request); and Nine subsections below (to address specific information requests a) to i) as outlined in the Information Requested section above) Overview of Ecosystem Model Application 1.1 Context Port Metro Vancouver s ecosystem-based approach to evaluating potential effects of the Project is considered to be best practice for major projects with the potential to result in ecosystem change (Randall et al. 2013, Bradford et al. 2014). Further, the federal Fisheries Protection Policy Statement advises that detailed estimates of effects on productivity will be more meaningful than habitat measures when impacts to aquatic environments are evaluated, which may involve quantitative fish population models (Randall et al. 2013). In accordance with this guidance, and recognising the complexity of the Roberts Bank environment, PMV adopted an ecosystem-based approach using productivity as the metric to evaluate change as a result of the Project As described in EIS Section 7.4 Technical Advisory Group Process (2012 to 2013), given the importance of understanding the Roberts Bank ecosystem, and in order to select an appropriate approach to assessing productivity at Roberts Bank, PMV obtained input from experts and thought leaders through the Productive Capacity Technical Advisory Group (TAG) process (see EIS Section 7.4). A key outcome from the TAG process was the unanimous selection of the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) model as the preferred modelling method and endorsement of the model as a conceptually sound approach to evaluating productivity change Developed at the University of British Columbia s Fisheries Centre, the EwE model methodology is well documented in the scientific literature and the model has been widely used globally to quantitatively describe marine ecosystem change. Over 400 ecosystem models applying the software have been published and thirteen of these publications describe marine areas in B.C., six of which are for the Strait of Georgia. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 2

36 The model framework has three main components that work together to describe how productivity changes in space and time with the placement of the Project: 1. Ecopath the main part of the model that provides a mass-balance snapshot of the ecosystem; 2. Ecosim a module of the model that incorporates temporal information (i.e., tracks how productivity changes in time steps); and 3. Ecospace a module of the model that incorporates space and time (i.e., spatialtemporal) information (i.e., tracks how productivity changes over a defined landscape with time) It is also important to highlight that ecosystem modelling was one of several tools used to inform the marine valued component effects assessments. In addition, information from literature, previous environmental assessments,empirical studies, other models, professional judgement, and expert opinion were considered within a multiple lines of evidence approach in order to draw assessment conclusions. Results from the ecosystem model provided a quantitative starting point to frame discussion of potential effects but, ultimately, conclusions were made based on weight of evidence. 1.2 Documentation, Transparency, and Reproducibility To ensure result predictions from the Roberts Bank ecosystem model are of highest confidence, transparent, and reproducible, and to address potential uncertainty, considerable effort was placed on documentation, testing the model, and third party review. Documentation of input data, assumptions, results, and sensitivity analyses were included in the EIS, within EIS Appendix 10-B Roberts Bank Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace Model Parameter Estimates, EIS Appendix 10-C Roberts Bank Ecosystem Model Development and Key Run, and EIS Appendix 10-D Roberts Bank Spatial Ecosystem Model Sensitivity Analysis. To ensure transparency and reproducibility, the model went through a rigorous internal and external peer review process. Reviewers included internationally recognised fisheries modelling experts, such as Dr. Carl Walters (Professor Emeritus, UBC) and Dr. Dave Preikshot (Madrone Environmental). To fully address potential uncertainty in the model (data, assumptions, results), comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. These tested the model s sensitivity to abiotic and biotic factors, as well as input parameters by incrementally modifying inputs and settings; the results of these tests demonstrated that the model is robust to sources of uncertainty. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 3

37 Response to IR 6a: Confidence Limits for Empirical Data This section provides additional information about confidence limits based on the empirical data for parameter estimates obtained through field studies that were used in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model. Specifically, the information is provided in the following manner: Determining confidence limits for parameter estimates informed by empirical field study data used in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model; A description of information used to develop parameter estimates and the process for determining parameter confidence intervals; and An example of how parameter estimate confidence limits were determined Determining confidence limits for parameter estimates used in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model Confidence limits of input parameter estimates used in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model are obtainable from information provided in the EIS (as described in the Sections below). The upper and lower confidence limits can be calculated based on the confidence intervals (CI) relative to the mean at a 95% level of confidence. Not all information necessary to calculate input parameter estimates, or their confidence limits, for use in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model were available from empirical field study data alone (a description of the rationale for the data sources are described in EIS Appendix 10-B: Section 1.4). Of the model input parameters (biomass, production (P/B), consumption (Q/B) and diet), only biomass was informed wholly or partially through field based empirical data. Empirical data obtained through field studies were used to inform parameter estimates (i.e., biomass) in the ecosystem model wherever possible (see EIS Appendix 10-B). Other sources of information were required to estimate the ecosystem model input parameters, including published literature, spatial distribution information (i.e., maps), and professional knowledge. In many cases, confidence limits associated with these other sources of information were not available. For ease of reference, confidence limits (lower and upper) based on empirical data for the biomass input parameter estimates obtained through field studies are presented in Table IR6-1 along with estimates obtained through other means as previously discussed (e.g., published literature, professional knowledge etc.). Grey shading for pedigree (see below for explanation of pedigree) indicates where empirical data was used to inform the input parameter. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 4

38 Table IR6-1 Biomass Input Parameter Estimates with Confidence Limits for the Roberts Bank Ecosystem Model at 95% Level of Confidence. Functional Group Pedigree 1 CI Biomass (± %) 2 (t/km 2 ) Lower Limit Upper Limit Baleen whales Dolphins and porpoises Pinnipeds Southern resident killer whales Transient killer whales American wigeon Bald eagle Brant goose Diving waterbirds Dunlin Great blue heron Gulls and terns Raptors Shorebirds Waterfowl Western sandpiper Chinook adult Chinook juvenile Chum adult Chum juvenile Dogfish Flatfish Forage fish Herring Large demersal fish Lingcod Rockfish Salmon adult 1 n.a n.a. n.a. Salmon juvenile Sand lance Grey shading indicates empirical data was used to inform the input parameter. Confidence interval (CI) plus/minus percent relative to parameter estimate. n.a. = not available. Parameter estimate generated by Ecopath. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 5

39 Functional Group Pedigree 1 CI Biomass (± %) 2 (t/km 2 ) Lower Limit Upper Limit Shiner perch Skate Small demersal fish Starry flounder Carnivorous plankton Dungeness crab Epifaunal grazers Epifaunal omnivore Epifauna sessile 1 n.a n.a. n.a. Infaunal bivalves Jellyfish Macrofauna Meiofauna Omnivorous and herbivorous zooplankton Polychaetes Orange sea pen Shrimp Biofilm fresh Biofilm marine Brown algae Native eelgrass Green algae Japanese eelgrass Red algae Phytoplankton Tidal marsh Biomat Grey shading indicates empirical data was used to inform the input parameter. Confidence interval (CI) plus/minus percent relative to parameter estimate. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 6

40 Description of information used to develop parameter estimates and process for determining parameter confidence intervals Since not all the information required to calculate confidence intervals for the ecosystem model parameters were available (i.e., sample size, standard error), predetermined confidence intervals were used (see EIS Appendix 10-C: Tables 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4). The predetermined confidence intervals accounted for uncertainty by ranking the quality of the data inputs through a pedigree. The pedigree described the origin of data in the basic Ecopath model, with assumed uncertainty parameters associated with the input quality (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1990; see below for range of pedigrees used and their associated confidence intervals) Use of a pedigree approach is an accepted and commonly used method to estimate uncertainty around input parameter estimates associated with EwE models (Christensen and Walters, 2000). A further explanation of the rationale for the use of the confidence limits are described in EIS Appendix 10-C: Sections 2.5 and 3.1. EIS Appendix 10-C: Tables 3.1 presents the pedigree of all input parameters of functional groups included in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model The general process to determine confidence limits, for each functional group, was as follows. Firstly, the nature of the input parameter data was evaluated to determine its pedigree (as described above; e.g., was the input parameter from empirical field data, other models, literature, etc.?). Secondly, the prescribed confidence limits by pedigree were determined (e.g., if the biomass pedigree was determined to be 4 then a confidence interval of 50% was applied). Lastly, the prescribed confidence limits could be calculated from the confidence intervals, presented earlier in Table IR6-1) An example of how parameter estimate confidence limits were determined The following example demonstrates how biomass confidence limits were determined for shorebirds. The input parameter used for shorebird biomass was t/km 2 (as described in EIS Appendix 10-B: Appendix B Biomass, Production Rates and Consumption Rates for Functional Groups at Roberts Bank: Basic Input) Detailed field studies were conducted on bird abundance studies (see EIS Section Coastal Birds, Desktop and Field Studies). The model pedigree definitions for biomass were considered (see Table EIS Appendix 10-C: Table 2.2): Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 7

41 No Parameter CI (%) 1 Missing parameter n.a. 2 From other models 80 3 Based on professional judgement 80 4 Approximate or indirect method 50 5 Sampling based, low precision 30 6 Sampling based, high precision Based on the pedigree definitions, the input parameter for the shorebird biomass was considered sampling based, high precision, and therefore a pedigree of 6 was assigned. This pedigree of 6 equates to a confidence interval of ±10%. The confidence limits can then be determined by calculating the 10% confidence interval of the input parameter; in the shorebird example, a biomass of ± tonnes per square kilometre (t/km 2 ) was used, which represents lower and upper confidence limits of to t/km Response to IR 6b: Ecopath Model Assumptions and Rationale for Modifications This section provides documentation of the assumptions made during balancing of the Ecopath model, including initial and final input parameters and a rationale for the modifications made. Documentation of assumptions made during balancing of the Ecopath model, including initial and final input parameters and a rationale for the modifications, are included in EIS Appendix 10-B and presented together for ease of reference in Table IR6-2 below. For example, the initial biomass parameter for baleen whales (third row in Table IR6-2), entered into the model prior to balancing the model was t/km 2. The final baleen whale biomass parameter after balancing the model was t/km 2 (as described in EIS Appendix 10-B: Section 2.3.2). The rationale for this modification is that initial information on baleen whale biomass was based on presence in the Strait of Georgia. To reflect the more shallow water environment of the study area (as compared to the deeper Strait of Georgia) the initial estimate was t/km 2 ; however, based on other baleen whale model estimates (Preikshot 2007) the initial biomass was increased to t/km 2 to balance the model (Christensen pers. comm.). 6 The 10% confidence interval for (i.e., ) was rounded to ; four decimals was used as the cut-off for input values (see EIS Appendix 10-B: Appendix B). Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 8

42 156 Table IR6-2 Summary of Parameter Input Changes Made during Model Balancing Group Name Parameter Initial Final Rationale Pinnipeds Diet No import 7 Added import (50% of diet) Initial estimates of pinniped consumption of several fish functional groups was high and mainly based on harbour seal behaviour; however it did not account for import of food from outside the study area. Pinnipeds likely only periodically use the Roberts Bank study area for foraging; therefore, it was assumed that they derive a significant portion (0.5) of their diet outside of the study area. See EIS Appendix 10-C: Section Transient killer whales Diet 0.53 pinnipeds Increased pinnipeds to 0.98; reduced baleen whales from to , dolphins and porpoises from to to account for increase. Initial estimates of transient killer whale consumption rates of baleen whales, and dolphins and porpoises were high. It was assumed that killer whale diets at Roberts Bank were site-specific and proportional to prey availability within the study area. Therefore, the diet preference for pinnipeds was raised and the diet preference for baleen whales, and dolphins and porpoises lowered. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Appendix B and EIS Appendix 10-C: Section Baleen whales Biomass t/km t/km 2 Initial baleen whale biomass was based on presence in the Strait of Georgia. To reflect the more shallow water environment of the study area (as compared to the deeper Strait of Georgia), the initial estimate was t/km 2 ; however, based on other baleen whale model estimates (Preikshot 2007), the initial biomass was increased to t/km 2 to balance the model (Christensen pers. comm.). See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section Import refers to food consumption from outside the study area. 0.5 is a proportion of the total diet, or 50% of the group s diet. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 9

43 Group Name Parameter Initial Final Rationale Dolphins and porpoises Biomass t/km t/km 2 Dolphin and porpoise biomass was initially derived from an EwE model estimate (0.007 t/km 2 ) for the Strait of Georgia (Preikshot 2012). This estimate was initially adjusted much lower ( t/km 2 ) based on an assumption this group did not utilise areas shallower than 1 m chart datum. Re-evaluation of this assumption to allow a greater area available to this group resulted in an upwards revision (0.005 t/km 2 ) closer to the original estimate used. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section Bald eagle Diet 0.01 gulls and terns 0.10 adult salmon 0.10 gulls and terns 0.07 adult salmon Increased the diet of Gulls and Terns from 0.01 to 0.10; and reduced all groups of adult salmon (including Chinook and chum) from 0.10 to 0.07 based on field observations. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Appendix B and Section , and EIS Appendix 10-C: Section Diving waterbirds Gulls and terns P/B ratio 0.22 year year -1 P/B ratio 0.10 year year -1 An initial P/B value of 0.22 was the average of the different P/B values for species in the diving bird group. To balance the model, a small increase of 0.02 was made, in the direction of, but less than, the upper limit of the P/B values for the group. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section The initial P/B value of 0.10 was derived from general estimates for birds from early EwE models. It was determined that 0.10 was unrealistically low and was adjusted to be more similar to diving waterbird values, which have similar life history characteristics relevant to P/B. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 10

44 Group Name Parameter Initial Final Rationale Raptors P/B ratio 0.41 year year -1 The initial P/B value of 0.41 was based on the average mortality rates for two species that are part of this group. Productivity was determined to be high, creating a large impact on its prey items. Assumptions that the two species used to generate the average may have overestimated P/B, and a small reduction in P/B to meet modelling requirements was reasonable. Lowering P/B by a small amount helped to balance the Ecopath model. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section Chinook adult P/B ratio 0.19 year year -1 The initial P/B value of 0.19 was used (Froese and Pauly 2011), but was adjusted upwards based on known return rates of this species. Return rates reflect overall mortality rates, which are higher than the initial P/B reflected for this species. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section Forage fish Biomass 15 t/km t/km 2 The initial biomass, taken from a Strait of Georgia EwE model estimate, was deemed to be too high for conditions at Roberts Bank based on field studies and professional opinion. Specifically, the availability of habitat at Roberts Bank was too high, which required this estimate to be lowered. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section Dungeness crab Biomass t/km t/km 2 The initial biomass estimate was derived from mean legal crab biomass from a prior post commercial fishing model. These numbers represent harvested legal sized male crabs only. To provide an estimate for the total Roberts Bank population, we assumed a 50% sex ratio and a 95% catch rate. With these assumptions, a new biomass was calculated using the original input value. See EIS Appendix 10-B: Section Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 11

45 Response to IR 6c: Spatial Temporal Model Component of the EwE Framework This section provides additional information about the spatial temporal model component of the EwE framework. The EwE framework consists of three main components: Ecopath a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the ecosystem; Ecosim a time dynamic simulation module; and Ecospace a space and time (spatial temporal) dynamic module The spatial temporal model elements of the EwE framework therefore pertain only to the Ecospace component. Ecospace evaluates how changes in the environmental conditions and predator-prey relationships occur spatially within the study area and is described within EIS Appendix 10-B: Section and EIS Appendix 10-C: Sections 1.2 and 2.9. The information provided below on the spatial temporal component (i.e, Ecospace) of the EwE framework includes the following: The Ecospace equation; The Ecospace model assumptions; The quality of the data used in Ecospace; and The degree of certainty of the modelling predictions and conclusions Ecospace Equation In Ecospace, the biomass (B) dynamics over a set of spatial cells (k) are represented by the equation (1) (Walters et al., 2010): where db ik /dt = e i Q ik - Z ik B ik - (Σ k m ikk )B ik + Σ k m ik k B ik (1), B ik is the biomass of functional group i in spatial cell k; e i is conversion efficiency of food intake by group i into net production; Q ik is total food consumption rate by group i in spatial cell k; Z ik is total mortality rate of group i biomass due to predation, fishing, or other forms of mortality in spatial cell k ; m ikk is instantaneous movement rate of group i biomass from cell k to cell k ; m ik k is movement rate of group i biomass from cell k to cell k. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 12

46 All of the terms on the right side of equation (1) are treated as dynamically variable over time (except e i, which only can be dynamic for multistanza 9 groups; multistanza groups were not used in the ecosystem model) to reflect changes in food consumption (Qik), fishing effort and predation risk (Zik), and seasonal changes in movement patterns (mikk ). For greater detail on equation (1) and its parameters, see Walters et al. (2010) and Christensen et al. (2008) An Ecospace base map is created and arranged as a rectangular grid with rows and columns so that each grid cell exchanges biomass directly only with those grid cells that are in adjacent rows and columns (except the map perimeter, where exchange between grid cells is not allowed and set to zero) An important feature of Ecospace is that trophic interactions are treated as occurring nonrandomly over space within each grid cell. To develop the non-random occurrences, the Ecosim foraging arena formulation (Ahrens et al., 2012; Christensen and Walters, 2004; Walters et al., 1999) is used. This predicts the food consumption rate of a functional group, and assumes that animals can exhibit highly organised patterns of space use at much finer spatial scales than the size of typical model cells used for Ecospace simulations The concept behind the foraging arena formulation is that behaviour (e.g., safe microhabitats) leads to the exchange of individuals between safe and vulnerable behavioural states, either continuously over time or in temporally-restricted feeding bouts (Walters and Christensen, 2007) Ecospace Model Assumptions The Ecospace model relies on a number of assumptions: Food conversion efficiency is constant (i.e., the production/consumption ratio for a functional group does not change over time); Organisms can exhibit highly organised patterns of space use at much finer spatial scales than the size of typical model cells used for spatial simulations; Behaviour (e.g., seeking of safe microhabitats) leads to the exchange of individuals between safe and vulnerable behavioural states; and 9 Multistanza groups refer to dividing a functional group into separate life-history stages (e.g., adult and juvenile Chinook) due to inherent differences in mortality rates, feeding rates, etc. Within multistanza groups, separate diet and mortality rates are entered for each life history stage, while biomass, consumption rates, and production rates are entered for only one group. In the case of the ecosystem model, it was determined that it was appropriate to create separate functional groups rather than multistanza groups, where applicable (e.g., Chum and Chinook). Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 13

47 Ecospace uses a Eulerian approach, which treats movement as flows of organisms among cells without retaining information about the history (origin and past features) of the organisms present at any point at any moment. The organisms therefore do not have any homing sense (i.e., if they leave a cell, they will not be more inclined to return to that cell than they are to any other cell with similar characteristics) Quality of Data Used in Ecospace Data used in Ecospace are the parameters of the Ecopath model, which are described in detail in EIS Appendix 10-B, the environmental preferences that are described throughout EIS Appendix 10-B and EIS Appendix 10-C, and the environmental data layers used to drive the Ecospace model that were generated from the Coastal Geomorphology Model, also described in EIS Appendix 10-C. The quality of the data used in Ecospace is therefore identified in the EIS Degree of Certainty of the Modelling Predictions and Conclusions The degree of certainty of the predictions and conclusions of the Ecospace model have been described in the comprehensive sensitivity analysis presented in EIS Appendix 10-D. In addition, a quantitative measure of the accuracy (fit) of the model predictions (of biomass distribution) is addressed in Section 7.0 (response to IR6f) below Response to IR 6d: Habitat Capacity Model Component of the EwE Framework This section provides additional information about the habitat capacity model component of the EwE framework. 238 As previously described, the EwE framework consists of three main components: Ecopath a static, mass-balanced snapshot of the system; Ecosim a time dynamic simulation module; and Ecospace a space and time (spatial temporal) dynamic module The habitat capacity model is integral to the Ecospace component of the EwE framework and is described in EIS Appendix 10-C: Sections 2.11 and The environmental preference functions that are used to parameterise the habitat capacity model are described in EIS Appendix 10-C: Section 4.2.3, and the specific parameterisation of the habitat capacity model is described for each functional group Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 14

48 throughout EIS Appendix 10-B in the sections called Environmental preferences (e.g., Section for baleen whales, and further elaborated in EIS Appendix 10-C: Section 2.12 on pages and Section 2.13 on pages 44-45) Habitat Capacity Model Overview The habitat capacity model used for the Roberts Bank ecosystem is based upon recent peerreviewed science (see EIS Appendix 10-C: Section 4.2.4; Christensen et al., 2014). It provides a continuous habitat suitability factor, where the area that a species can feed in each cell is determined by its responses to multiple environmental factors (e.g., salinity, wave height, current velocity, depth, and substrate). This habitat capacity model also does the following: Recognises that animal populations have lower local impacts as the size of their forage area increases; and Offers the ability to drive foraging capacity from multiple physical, oceanographic, and environmental factors which have cumulative impacts on the ability of functional groups to forage Habitat capacity in the model is calculated for every functional group, at each time step, and within each grid cell on the Ecospace map. Hence, this habitat capacity model is fully dynamic temporally and spatially Assumptions Used in the Habitat Capacity Model The key assumptions of the habitat capacity model as implemented for the Roberts Bank model include the following: Where environmental preference functions for a species are obtained from sampling in the Roberts Bank area, it is assumed that the realised spatial distribution for a species represents the preferred distribution with regard to the environmental parameter in question; Where environmental preference functions for a species are obtained from literature review, it is assumed that such general preference functions can be used in the specific case of the Roberts Bank ecosystem model; The impact of multiple environmental preference functions is factorial, not additive (i.e., a species will not occur in a cell if the environmental conditions for any one parameter are unsuitable); and The five environmental preference functions that are used for a given species all carry the same weight. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 15

49 Quality of Data Used in Habitat Capacity Model Data used in the habitat capacity model, and Ecospace, are the parameters of the Ecopath model, which are described in detail in EIS Appendix 10-B, and the environmental preferences that are described throughout EIS Appendix 10-B and EIS Appendix 10-C. The quality of the data used in the habitat capacity model, and Ecospace, is therefore identified in the EIS Degree of Certainty of the Modelling Predictions and Conclusions The degree of certainty of the predictions and conclusions of the habitat capacity model have been described in the comprehensive sensitivity analysis presented in EIS Appendix 10-D. In addition, a quantitative measure of the accuracy (fit) of the model predictions (of biomass distribution) is addressed in Section 7.0 below Response to IR 6e: Environmental Preference Functions This section provides a description as to how the data sets defining environmental preference functions presented in EIS Appendix 10-B (preferences are lumped into categories) relate to EIS Appendix 10-C (preferences are defined as continuous data points) The environmental preference categories presented in EIS Appendix 10-B relate to the continuous data points in EIS Appendix 10-C in that the environmental preference categories are a summary of occurrence or species range information based on field or literature data; whereas the continuous data points are modifications of the categories using statistical analyses and/or professional opinion. For clarity purposes, the environmental preference categories (EIS Appendix 10-B) is referred to here as environmental preference data and continuous data points (EIS Appendix 10-C) are referred to here as response curve data. These are discussed further in the following sections Environmental Preference Data As described in EIS Appendix 10-B: Section 1.5.2, each functional group in the ecosystem model requires a distribution in relation to the physical parameters at Roberts Bank. Five physical parameters were chosen for the ecosystem model and include the following: depth, salinity, bottom current, wave height, and substrate (e.g., hard or soft). Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 16

50 Specific environmental preferences of a functional group for each physical variable were determined through a comprehensive review of the literature and field data. A hierarchy of preferred sources was used to determine optimal environmental preferences: 1) field data at Roberts Bank; 2) local peer-reviewed literature and non-peer reviewed reports (e.g., Fraser River estuary and Roberts Bank); 3) Regional peer-reviewed literature and non-peer reviewed reports on the same species or functional group used in the ecosystem model (e.g., Strait of Georgia, Hecate Strait, Northeast Pacific); 4) peer-reviewed literature and non-peer reviewed reports on similar species or functional groups used in the ecosystem model (global databases, studies om similar species from other global regions), and 5) professional judgement Data for environmental preferences were varied in nature. To deal with this variability, a categorical classification system from 0 to 2 was adopted: = species does not prefer this environment, but may occur incidentally (for marine mammals, species does not occur); 1 = species occurs or prefers this environment; and 2 = species strongly prefers this environment If a physical parameter did not alter the preference for a functional group (e.g., bottom currents for dolphins and porpoises), or groups were assumed not to have an environmental preference, a value of 1 was applied. Use of such a categorical scale is common Ecospace modelling practice Response Curve Data In order to achieve optimal predictability from the Roberts Bank ecosystem model, the environmental preference data required modification and adjustment based upon literature of occurrences of the species in other environments. These changes were made by modifying the environmental preference data via the application of statistical smoothing analyses and/or professional opinion to generate response curves shown in EIS Appendix 10-C: Sections 2.11 and Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 17

51 Modification of the environmental preference data into the response curve data occurred for all functional groups, but the manner in which the modification was undertaken was different for the higher trophic levels than for habitat-forming groups, as discussed below For many of the higher trophic functional groups, the environmental preferences from EIS Appendix 10-B were broad and categorical in nature (e.g., 0, 1, or 2) with steps in preference between known preferred environmental conditions. As mentioned earlier, this is in part due to the lack of high precision data across the full environmental range for these higher trophic level functional groups These categorical data (e.g., 0, 1, or 2) were modified to continuous data via smoothing or interpolating the step between categories where gradual changes in preference were expected Environmental preference data with greater precision were generated for the habitatforming groups (i.e., marine vegetation and sea pens) and some invertebrates (macrofauna, meiofauna, and polychaetes) using their known mapped distribution at Roberts Bank relative to the environmental layers for each physical parameter. This allowed for the creation of continuous preference curves based upon the known distribution of each such functional group, relative to the modelled environmental parameters. However, due to the limited spatial scale of the habitat map, certain ranges of environmental parameters were not complete as these conditions did not occur at Roberts Bank (e.g., native eelgrass at 22 practical salinity units (psu)). In these instances, the literature review and professional judgement of the known environmental preference range were used to smooth the curves and remove unrealistic patterns in the preferences Response to IR 6f: Accuracy (Fit) of Model Predictions The following provides information on the accuracy (fit) of biomass distribution predicted by the ecosystem model versus actual biomass distribution as determined through field based sampling. It addresses specific information request to provide a quantitative measure of the accuracy (fit) of the model predictions of biomass distribution based on field data The accuracy analyses focused on the eight functional groups corresponding to the habitatforming groups described in EIS Appendix 10-B and include the following: biofilm (freshwater-influenced and marine-influenced combined), brown algae, native eelgrass, green algae, Japanese eelgrass, tidal marsh, biomat, and orange sea pens. It was not Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 18

52 possible to perform an accuracy analysis on the other non-habitat forming functional groups for the following reasons: 1) The distribution of biomass within the study area was considered to have little distinct spatial pattern; 2) The distribution covered the entire Project area as part of a larger distribution (e.g., raptors); and/or 3) Field-based biomass distribution data across the entire study area were not available The accuracy analyses used a standard measure of accuracy for spatial distribution models called the percent correct classification (PCC). PCC gives an overall accuracy of fit measure for a functional group within the ecosystem model by comparing the distribution of a functional group from a field data based map with the distribution predicted by the ecosystem model (i.e., Ecospace). PCC uses two measures to determine accuracy of fit: 1) the number of cells (i.e., 1 hectare areas used to map functional group presence in the study area) where a functional group is present in the field data and are correctly modelled by the ecosystem model (PC for present correct), and 2) the number of cells where a functional group is absent in the field data and are correctly modelled by the ecosystem model (AC for absent correct). These correct present and absent classifications are added together and then divided by the overall number of cells in the study area (n) to give the PCC. The full equation is presented below: 390 PCC = (PC + AC)/ n 391 Results from the analyses are presented in Table IR Table IR6-3 Accuracy of Ecopath Model Predictions of Biomass Distribution Based on Field Data Functional Group Percent Correct Classification Biomat 97% Brown algae 95% Orange sea pens 91% Tidal marsh 91% Native eelgrass 90% Biofilm 84% Japanese eelgrass 80% Green algae 59% Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 19

53 Response to IR 6g: Rationale for Range of Vulnerability Factors Used in the Sensitivity Analysis A description of, and rationale for, the vulnerability factors used in the sensitivity analysis of the ecosystem model are discussed in EIS Appendix 10-C: Section 2.8 and EIS Appendix 10-D: Sections 2.1 and The following further describes the vulnerability factor concept, the vulnerability factors used in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model and the rationale for selecting the vulnerability factors Vulnerability factor concept Use of the term vulnerability in the context of the Roberts Bank ecosystem model refers to the availability of prey to be eaten by a predator. 405 Vulnerabilities,v, are approximated from the equation: (Q/B)max (Q/B) o = v v where (Q/B) max is the max consumption/biomass rate (unit: year -1 ), and (Q/B) o is the baseline consumption/biomass rate (i.e. the without project ratio) for a given consumer group. Using a vulnerability of 3 thus implies that (Q/B) max = 3 2 (Q/B) o The scale of factors is quasi-logarithmic in nature (i.e., not linear) as shown in Figure IR6-1. In other words, the difference in prey availability between factors 1 and 2 are not equal to differences in prey availability between factors 3 and 4. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 20

54 412 Figure IR6-1 Vulnerability Plot In general, a lower vulnerability factor suggests predators are closer to carrying capacity (the maximum population size of a representative species or group can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment) and that there is less prey available for consumption. The lowest possible vulnerability factor is 1 and this represents a condition where a predator is at carrying capacity A higher vulnerability factor generally suggests there is more prey available for consumption. The overall range of potential vulnerability factors is 1 to infinity. Generally, given the quasilogarithmic nature of the vulnerability factor (as described above), most range in prey availability occurs between factors 1 and 10 and very little change in model behavior occurs beyond Vulnerability factors used The vulnerability factor used in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model was 2. As the vulnerability factor scale is quasi-logarithmic in nature (as determined by the equation provided below and explained above) the value of 2, generally, represents a condition where the predator is approximately at mid-range with regards to the maximum impact the predator population can have on its prey (Figure IR6-1). Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 21

55 To understand potential uncertainty in use of this value, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using the vulnerability factor range of 1.5 to 3.0, which is considered a dynamic and wide range The rationale for selecting the vulnerability factors The rationale for selecting the vulnerability factor of 2 for the ecosystem model included the nature of available Roberts Bank data, professional opinion on ecosystem modeling, and professional knowledge of Roberts Bank The factor of 2.0 is a default value commonly used in EwE models when information on time-series data is limited (Christensen et al. 2008) A vulnerability of 2 is consistent with an ecosystem neither fully driven by production (such as availability of light and nutrients which give rise to marine vegetation) and availability of prey, nor dominated by high predation. This is the estimated condition at Roberts Bank based on the structure of the Ecopath model (see EIS Appendix 10-C, Figure 2-6), expert knowledge of the area and similar local ecosystem models from the Strait of Georgia To evaluate potential uncertainty in the selection of 2 as the vulnerability factor the Roberts Bank ecosystem model was re-run with a moderate range of vulnerability factors that could be expected (based on expert opinion) at Roberts Bank a range of 1.5 to The lower limit of this range (1.5) was selected because a vulnerability of 1 is not realistic for Roberts Bank (as indicated earlier a factor of 1 indicates predators are at carrying capacity and professional experience of Roberts Bank indicates this is unlikely) The upper range of 3 was selected because it is a reasonable expectation of variability in predator control on prey availability across all groups and species at Roberts Bank (as determined by professional opinion) Given most functional groups were shown to be relatively insensitive to changes in vulnerability (i.e., biotic) factors (see EIS Appendix 10-D, Section 3.1) the selection of 2 as the vulnerability factor for the Roberts Bank ecosystem model is justified Response to IR 6h: Monte Carlo Approach to Ecospace This section provides a description of the rationale for, and application of, the Monte Carlo approach to Ecospace. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 22

56 The rationale for the Monte Carlo application and approach to Ecospace was to evaluate potential uncertainty in model results, as described in EIS Appendix 10-D: Sections 2.4, 3.4, and Monte Carlo simulations are a common and accepted method used in statistical analysis (McCune and Grace, 2002; Kavanagh et al., 2004) to test for sensitivity of outcomes (i.e., biomass from Ecospace) to input parameters (i.e., inputs from Ecopath). For this reason, the Monte Carlo approach was incorporated in the EwE framework as part of the sensitivity analysis In the case of the Roberts Bank ecosystem model, the Monte Carlo approach is used to account for uncertainty in the input values (i.e., biomass, consumption rate, and production rate) to generate a distribution of 4,000 potential outcomes to the changes to the biomass of each functional group from the presence of the Project. The range of uncertainty in each of the model s input parameters is informed by the pedigree (EIS Appendix 10-C: Sections 2.5 and 3.1) Response to IR 6i: Predator-prey Interactions for Fish Populations This section provides a more detailed description of predator-prey interactions for fish populations in the area, particularly during spawning or juvenile rearing stages A detailed description of predator-prey interactions for fish populations in the area, with particular consideration for spawning and/or rearing stages can be found within the Existing Conditions subsections within each respective valued component assessment (EIS Section 12.5 Marine Invertebrates, Existing Conditions; EIS Section 13.5 Marine Fish, Existing Conditions; and EIS Section 14.5 Marine Mammals, Existing Conditions) Additionally, with respect to the ecosystem model, a detailed description of predator-prey interactions for fish populations, with particular consideration for spawning and/or rearing stages can be found specifically within the following: 1) how the ecosystem model was structured and the choice of functional groups (e.g., adult and juvenile stages for Chinook, chum, and salmon); 2) the diet matrix (i.e., proportion of a species diet consumption); and 3) mixed trophic impacts (MTI) analyses (i.e., a measure of the direct and indirect impact of any group in an ecosystem on all other groups), described below and in EIS Appendices 10-B and 10-C. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 23

57 The ecosystem model incorporated life-history traits (i.e., production), biomass, and predator-prey interactions (i.e., consumption, and diet) associated with rearing (i.e., juvenile) and spawning (i.e., adult) stages of key fish species First, three functional groups including Chinook, chum, and salmon (salmonid species other than Chinook and chum) were divided into adult and juvenile life-history stages due to major differences in feeding habits, their predators, and biomass. Chinook and chum were identified as focal species within the study area by an expert panel, therefore, these groups were examined as a single species group. Second, by dividing these key fish groups into adult and juvenile stages, different diets could be entered into the ecosystem model and weighted by the estimated biomass of each life-stage. Also, traits of adult spawning salmon, such as reducing their food intake while staging at the mouth of the Fraser River prior to spawning, could be made. Thirdly, where fish presence within the study area was seasonal, adjustments to average annual biomass were made, if necessary The diet matrix of the ecosystem model is important in defining all trophic linkages by expressing the fraction that each functional group in the model is represented in the diet of its consumers; in other words, it reflects the weighted relative diet preference of prey items to their predators. It is possible to look at the diet matrix and see how each functional group is preyed upon by other functional groups and which prey groups make up the largest portion of a particular predator s diet. The diet matrix is provided in EIS Appendix 10-B: Appendix A As outlined in EIS Appendix 10-C: Section 2.7, the MTI analysis uses the Ecopath diet composition to evaluate how direct or indirect food web interactions impact a particular functional group; a predator, for example, has a direct negative impact on its prey and an indirect positive impact on the prey of the prey. Also, where two consumers compete for the same resource, the MTI analysis will estimate the negative impacts of such competition on each group, even if the impact is indirect or separated by several steps between trophic levels within the food web. Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 24

58 References Ahrens, R. N. M., C. J. Walters, and V. Christensen Foraging Arena Theory. Fish Fish. 13, doi: /j x. Ainsworth, C Estimating the Effects of Predator-prey Vulnerability Settings on Ecosim s Dynamic Function. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 12:45. Bradford, M. J., R. G. Randall, K. S. Smokorowski, B. E. Keatley, and K. D. Clarke A Framework for Assessing Fisheries Productivity for the Fisheries Protection Program. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/067. v + 25 pgs. Christensen, V., M. Coll, J. Steenbeek, J. Buszowski, D. Chagaris, and C. J. Walters Representing Variable Habitat Quality in a Spatial Food Web Model. Ecosystems 17, Christensen, V., and C. Walters Ecopath with Ecosim: Methods, Capabilities and Limitations. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 8: Christensen, V., and C. J. Walters Ecopath with Ecosim: Methods, Capabilities and Limitations. Ecological Modelling 172, Christensen, V., C. J. Walters, D. Pauly, and R. Forrest Ecopath with Ecosim Version 6 User Guide. Lensfest Oceans Futures Project 234 p. Christensen, V., C. J. Walters, D. Pauly, and R. Forrest Ecopath with Ecosim Version 6 User Guide. Lenfest Ocean Futures Project 235 p. Colléter, M., A. Valls, J. Guitton, D. Gascuel, D. Pauly, and V. Christensen Global Overview of the Applications of the Ecopath with Ecosim Modeling Approach using the EcoBase Models Repository. Ecological Modelling 302, doi: /j.ecolmodel Froese, R., and D. Pauly Fishbase. World Wide Web electronic publication. < Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy: Dortrecht, Kluwer. Kavanagh, P., N. Newlands, V. Christensen, and D. Pauly Automated Parameter Optimization for Ecopath Ecosystem Models. Ecological Modelling, 172: Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 25

59 McCune, B., and J. B. Grace Analysis of Ecological Communities. MJM Software Design, Glenden Beach, Oregon. 300 p. Plagányi, É., Models for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, Rome. Preikshot, D.B The Influence of Geographic Scale, Climate and Trophic Dynamics upon North Pacific Oceanic Ecosystem Models. Ph. D. Dissertation, Resource Management and Environmental Studies and the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 208 p. Preikshot, D., C. M. Neville, and R. J. Beamish Data and Parameters Used in a Strait of Georgia Ecosystem Model. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 3005, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Nanaimo, B.C. Randall, R. G., M. J. Bradford, K. D. Clarke, and J. C. Rice A Science-based Interpretation of Ongoing Productivity of Commercial, Recreational or Aboriginal Fisheries. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document 2012/112 iv + 26 p. Available at Accessed May Walters, C., and V. Christensen Adding Realism to Foraging Arena Predictions of Trophic Flow Rates in Ecosim Ecosystem Models: Shared Foraging Arenas and Bout Feeding. Ecological Modelling 209, Walters, C., V. Christensen, W. Walters, and K. Rose Representation of Multi-stanza Life Histories in Ecospace Models for Spatial Organization of Ecosystem Trophic Interaction Patterns. Bulletin of Marine Science 86, Walters, C., D. Pauly, and V. Christensen Ecospace: Prediction of Mesoscale Spatial Patterns in Trophic Relationships of Exploited Ecosystems, with Emphasis on the Impacts of Marine Protected Areas. Ecosystems 2, doi: /s Response to Information Request #6 (IR ) Page 26

60 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #7 Significance Criteria Rationale The EIS Guidelines (13.1.1) require clear and sufficient information be provided in the EIS to enable the Review Panel, the Agency, technical and regulatory agencies, Aboriginal groups and the public to review the proponent s analysis of the significance of effects. In the EIS, Port Metro Vancouver adopted common classifications across valued components or sub-components to describe productivity results from the Roberts Bank ecosystem model. Negligible is defined as a 0% to 5% increase or decrease which is considered to be within the margin of error of the ecosystem model and is therefore not considered to be detectable or measurable. Minor is defined as an increase or decrease of 6% to 30% which is considered to be within the range of natural ecosystem variability. Moderate is defined as an increase or decrease of 31% to 60% or 65% which is presumably considered to be beyond the range of natural ecosystem variability. Magnitude (of effects) ratings, such as in EIS Table (where low is a measurable change within the range of natural variability that will not affect population integrity or function; moderate is a measurable change outside of natural variability that may affect population integrity OR function, but not both; and high is a measurable change that exceeds the limits of natural variability and may affect long-term population integrity and function) are presented throughout the EIS. The EIS does not contain a description of the relationship between the productivity results classifications and the magnitude ratings. Information Requested Provide a rationale for the application of the common classification system of negligible, minor or moderate to describe productivity results from the Roberts Bank ecosystem models for all valued components or sub-components. Response to Information Request #7 (IR ) Page 1

61 Explain how a 6% to 30% increase or decrease in productivity represents the range of natural ecosystem variability for all valued components and subcomponents and how the threshold of 60% or 65% increase or decrease in productivity is determined to be the threshold for moderate changes for all components. Explain how the definition of magnitude (of effects) ratings, such as in EIS Table 12-13, relates to the definition of changes in productivity, such as in EIS section Response 1 2 This response is structured into three parts in order to answer each of the questions posed within the information request, and will explain the following: Rationale for the application of the common classification system (of negligible, minor, moderate, or high) to describe productivity results from the Roberts Bank ecosystem model (Question 1) and other lines of evidence; How productivity ranges relate to natural ecosystem variability and how ranges were determined (Question 2); and How the definition of magnitude (of effects) ratings relates to the definition of changes in productivity (Question 3) Question 1 Response: A Common Classification System Information pertaining to productivity changes for marine biophysical valued components and sub-components was derived from multiple lines of evidence, including literature, empirical field studies, and predictive models including the Roberts Bank ecosystem model (EIS Appendices 10-B through 10-D), the habitat suitability model (EIS Appendix 12-A), and the shorebird foraging opportunity model (EIS Appendix 15-B) To integrate the information from all of these lines of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative information under one defined framework, a common classification system (of negligible, minor, moderate, or high), was used. This common classification system could be used to effectively categorise productivity changes at the individual species level while also enabling broad conclusions about changes at the valued component level. Such common classification systems are standard tools in environmental assessment and are typically determined arbitrarily and/or semi-quantitatively. Response to Information Request #7 (IR ) Page 2

62 The common classification system used in the effects assessments described the following categories: Negligible: changes between 0% and 5%; Minor: changes between 6% and 30%; 28 Moderate: changes between 31% and 60% 1 ; and 29 High: changes between 61% and 100% Designating a category for a sub-component involved a weight of evidence approach. The results of the Roberts Bank ecosystem model were provided in terms of percent change (within the range of 0% to 100%) and difference in biomass (tonnes, or t) between future scenarios with and without the Project. These results were categorised into the common classification system (in EIS Tables 11-17, 12-8, 13-10, and 15-10), but were not used alone to determine productivity changes to sub-components and representative species/groups. All available lines of evidence (including results from the Roberts Bank ecosystem model, literature, other models, and professional opinion) were synthesised and integrated into the common classification system (described in detail in each of the valued component sections and summarised for all sub-components and representative species/groups in EIS Table 17-3) Once all available lines of evidence were considered, the conclusions of productivity change for each sub-component and representative species may have differed from the results based on the Roberts Bank ecosystem model alone EIS Tables 11-21, 12-11, 13-12, and outline the various lines of evidence and common classification category conclusions for all valued components and sub-components Question 2 Response: Ranges of Productivity Change As outlined above, the common classification system (negligible, minor, moderate, or high) is considered to be a standard environmental assessment tool where categories were determined arbitrarily in a semi-quantitative fashion; these categories are not intended to be considered as thresholds, but merely ranges of productivity change. 1 2 Note that EIS Section 12.0 Marine Invertebrates page incorrectly stated the upper end of the range as 65% not 60% for a moderate rating, as stated elsewhere in EIS Section 12.0 and the other biophysical sections. Note that no high ratings were predicted in the assessment. Response to Information Request #7 (IR ) Page 3

63 Hence, a 6% to 30% increase or decrease in productivity does not explicitly represent the range of natural ecosystem variability for all valued components and sub-components; the 6% to 30% range is simply the common classification category of a minor change. Similarly, the range of productivity change in the moderate category was 31% to 60%, and 60% was the upper limit of this category, not attributed to a biological threshold for all subcomponent or representative species/groups The use of percentages, rather than absolute biomass numbers, to create the ranges ensure results are comparable across all valued components and sub-components. Percentages provide better comparisons because they are proportional, or relative, to each species or group s initial productivity values; for example, a 3% change in native eelgrass productivity equates to 9.1 t biomass while a 3% change in adult Chinook salmon equates to 5.6 t biomass Natural variability was considered when assessing the predicted productivity changes to sub-components or representative species/groups and assigning a category of the common classification system based on all available lines of evidence Roberts Bank is a dynamic environment where constantly changing abiotic conditions can result in population indicators for a particular species to be variable in space and time (i.e., Dungeness crab productivity varies widely; EIS Section ). Because of this dynamic environment, many species at Roberts Bank have large ranges in natural variability (e.g., Dungeness crabs, salmonids, infaunal invertebrates). As such, a minor change would, generally speaking, reflect Project-induced changes in productivity that are measurable, but likely too small to be perceived against natural variation; the moderate category would reflect Project-induced changes in productivity that are likely large enough to be perceived against natural variation; and, the high category would reflect Project-induced productivity changes that are very large Question 3 Response: Magnitude and Productivity The magnitude of effects rating definitions relate to the change in productivity definition in that the magnitude of effect can be informed by the change in productivity. This is explained in greater detail below. Response to Information Request #7 (IR ) Page 4

64 Magnitude ratings considered the expected size or severity of the residual effect (anticipated effects remaining after the implementation of mitigation measures), and were categorised as low, moderate, and high. Ratings definitions were unique to each valued component and were generally measured in terms of the proportion of the valued component affected within the assessment area relative to the range in natural variation (based on best available information) Not all residual effects assigned a magnitude rating were related to changes in productivity. For those marine valued components with residual effects that were productivity related (i.e. marine invertebrates, marine fish, and coastal birds), the definition of magnitude (of residual effects) ratings and the definition of changes in productivity are related, but not synonymous Definitions of changes in productivity were common to biophysical valued components and, as described above, used a common classification system based on direction (increase or decrease) and amount of change (negligible, minor, moderate, or high) as determined from multiple lines of evidence When rating magnitude for the characterisation of the residual effect of productivity loss, effects were considered in terms of the direction and amount of change (as for the productivity classification schemes defined above), but also in the context of functional ecology, which is the ecological role that a particular species or community assemblage plays in the broader ecosystem. Therefore, a moderate productivity change does not necessarily imply a moderate magnitude of effect for a particular valued component. References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #7 (IR ) Page 5

65 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #8 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Rationale The EIS Guidelines (4.4.2) require that the proponent incorporate Aboriginal traditional knowledge into the EIS where it is available or acquired through public consultation or Aboriginal engagement activities. Port Metro Vancouver referenced Aboriginal traditional knowledge in some sections of the EIS; however, this has not been clearly described in terms of its use to support the analysis of potential environmental effects of the Project and determination of the significance of adverse effects. For some valued components, Aboriginal traditional knowledge is not identified or is based solely on traditional use information. Aboriginal traditional knowledge can be used to provide relevant biophysical information and to help inform the EA process and should not be limited to traditional use information. For example, section 12.4 of the EIS indicates that Aboriginal traditional knowledge pertaining to marine invertebrates was utilized in the selection of sub-components and is also taken into account in the assessment of potential effects of the Project on marine invertebrates. The EIS, however, does not contain a description of how input obtained from Aboriginal groups was used to support the analysis and conclusions. Information Requested Provide a description of where and how Aboriginal traditional knowledge has been used to support the selection of valued components, baseline descriptions, the assessment of effects including the identification of mitigation measures, and in the determination of significance of adverse environmental effects. If Aboriginal traditional knowledge was not used, provide a rationale for why that information was not considered. Response The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency interim principles on considering Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) in environmental assessments (CEA Agency 2015) were considered in the development of the RBT2 EIS, and in the development of this Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 1

66 response. As stated in the interim principles, there is no one universally accepted definition of ATK. The interim guidelines refer to ATK generally as knowledge that is held by, and unique to, Aboriginal peoples. ATK is also described as a body of knowledge, built up by a group of people through generations of living in close contact with nature. ATK is cumulative and dynamic. It builds upon the historic experiences of a people and adapts to social, economic, environmental, spiritual, and political change. The term traditional ecological knowledge refers to a subset of ATK that is primarily concerned with the environment (CEA Agency 2015) In the absence of an official definition of ATK, the RBT2 EIS was developed based on the CEA Agency s interim principles. For the purposes of the RBT2 EIS, ATK refers to knowledge about the natural environment and is synonymous with TEK. ATK in the EIS refers to information provided by Aboriginal groups specifically about an intermediate component (IC) or valued component (VC). This is distinguished from other types of information provided by Aboriginal groups, such as information about the use of a resource or component by Aboriginal groups (considered to be Current Use ) and concerns about effects to a resource or component, expressed by Aboriginal groups in consultation or other documentation (considered to be interests and issues ) The overall approach taken for collection and integration of ATK is described in EIS Section Collection of Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge. All relevant ATK that was available was incorporated into the EIS. When ATK is used in the assessment of an IC or VC, (most often informing existing conditions), the source of ATK is cited directly. When Current Use information is included in an assessment of an IC or VC for context purposes, a cross reference to the Current Use assessment (EIS Section 32.0 Asserted or Established Aboriginal or Treaty Rights and Related Interests, Including Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes) is provided. When information is included in an assessment of an IC or VC about the importance of a resource to Aboriginal groups, or about concerns raised by Aboriginal groups about effects to the IC or VC (often as rationale for selection of the IC, VC, or sub-components) a cross reference to the consultation and engagement section (EIS Section 7.2 Aboriginal Groups Engagement and Consultation) is provided Table IR8-1 below lists each IC and VC assessment section (left column) and indicates where and how ATK was used in the assessment (centre column). If ATK was not used for a particular step in the IC or VC assessment, a rationale is provided (right column). Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 2

67 37 Table IR8-1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in the Environmental Impact Statement IC/VC Section Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not Air Quality Section 9.2 ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. Relevant ATK on this topic was not available. Noise and Vibration Section 9.3 Light Section 9.4 ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. The assessment was informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK on this topic was not available. Coastal Geomorphology Section 9.5 Surficial Geology and Marine Sediment Section 9.6 Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of surficial sediments in the Fraser River estuary and local study area (Section ), including changes observed in grain size since recent developments. Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, it also informed the assessment of effects. IC Selection relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection not applicable; assessment does not include sub-components. Identification of Mitigation relevant ATK was not available. Determination of Significance not applicable; IC assessment does not include determination of significance. Marine Water Quality Section 9.7 Underwater Noise Section 9.8 ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. Relevant ATK on this topic was not available. ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. The assessment was informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK on this topic was not available. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 3

68 IC/VC Section Marine Vegetation Section 11.0 Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of the location and characteristics of eelgrass (Section ), as well as its spatial and temporal variation (Section ). ATK informed the description of the abundance and availability of harvestable plants (Section ), abiotic factors (Section ), and spatial and temporal variation (Section ) of intertidal marsh. This section was also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects on these conditions of the VC. Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Identification of Mitigation informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Determination of Significance relevant ATK was not available. A significance determination was not required for marine vegetation species for which ATK was available. Cumulative Effects Assessment not applicable; no cumulative interactions anticipated. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 4

69 IC/VC Section Marine Invertebrates Section 12.0 Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of bivalve shellfish in terms of location and traditional names of various harvested species (Section ). ATK informed the description of population characteristics of Dungeness crabs, in terms of historical abundance and observed declines (Sections and ). ATK informed the description of key habitat features of Dungeness crabs, in terms of location, abundance, and seasonality (Section ). This section was also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects on these conditions of the VC. This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Identification of Mitigation - informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Determination of Significance - relevant ATK was not available. Cumulative Effects Assessment not applicable; no cumulative interactions anticipated. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 5

70 IC/VC Section Marine Fish Section 13.0 Marine Mammals Section 14.0 Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Establishment of Spatial Boundaries: ATK informed the establishment of the local assessment area in terms of the location of various marine fish species (Section ). Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of the location of Pacific salmon (Section ), chum salmon (Section ), Chinook salmon (Section ), Pacific herring (Section ), and starry flounder (Section ). This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects, and cumulative effects, on these conditions of the VC. This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of Steller sea lions, in terms of historical abundance. This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information. Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects, and cumulative effects, on these conditions of the VC. This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Identification of Mitigation - informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Determination of Significance - relevant ATK was not available. VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Identification of Mitigation - informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Determination of Significance - relevant ATK was not available. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 6

71 IC/VC Section Coastal Birds Section 15.0 Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of the location (current and historical) of waterfowl (Section ), piscivorous species (Section ), and sea duck species (Section ). ATK informed the description of historical abundance and location of dabbling ducks (Section ) and geese (Section ). ATK informed the description of abundance (present and historical) of peregrine falcon (Section ). ATK informed the description of presence and location of bald eagle (Section ), passerines (Section ), and barn swallow (Section ). This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information. Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects, and cumulative effects, on these conditions of the VC. This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Identification of Mitigation - informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Determination of Significance - relevant ATK was not available. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 7

72 IC/VC Section Ongoing Productivity of Commercial, Recreational, and Aboriginal (CRA) Fisheries Section 16.0 Population Section 18.4 Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of Aboriginal fishing of Dungeness crab in terms of current and historical access to resources, as well as quality of resources (Section ). This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information. Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects on these conditions of the VC. This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Identification of Mitigation not applicable; measurable effects not anticipated and mitigation not required. Determination of Significance not applicable; measurable residual effects not anticipated and a determination of significance not required. Cumulative Effects Assessment not applicable; residual effects are not anticipated. Labour Market Section 19.0 Economic Development Section 20.0 ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. The assessment was informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK on this topic was not available. Marine Commercial Use Section 21.0 Local Government Finances Section 22.0 Services and Infrastructure Section 23.0 Outdoor Recreation Section 24.0 ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. Relevant ATK on this topic was not available. ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. The assessment was informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK on this topic was not available. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 8

73 IC/VC Section Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not Visual Resources Section 25.0 Land and Water Use Section 26.0 ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. The assessment was informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK on this topic was not available. ATK was not used for any of the steps of the assessment. Relevant ATK on this topic was not available. Human Health Section 27.0 Archaeological and Heritage Resources Section 28.0 Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of food security in terms of the concept of health for Aboriginal people, and the importance of traditional food sources to the health of Aboriginal people (Section ). Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects, and cumulative effects, on these conditions of the VC. This section is also informed by other types of Aboriginal information, including Current Use information and issues and interests raised. Establishment of Spatial Boundaries: ATK informed the establishment of the local study area boundary in terms of the location of potential archaeological resources (Section ). Description of Existing Conditions: ATK informed the description of ethnography and past uses of the area (Section ) and archaeological potential (Section ). Assessment of Potential Effects: ATK informed the assessment of potential effects, and context of residual effects, in terms of the location of potential fish trap stakes (Sections 28.6 and ). Determination of Significance: ATK informed the definition of significance, in terms of scientific significance (informing the scientific record) and ethnic significance (past use of the area) (Section ). VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Identification of Mitigation - informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Determination of Significance - relevant ATK was not available. VC Selection informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Sub-component Selection not applicable; sub-components are not included in this assessment. Identification of Mitigation - informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Cumulative Effects Assessment not applicable; no cumulative interactions anticipated. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 9

74 IC/VC Section Potential or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests, including Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes Section 32.0 Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Used, and How it Informed the Assessment Description of Existing Conditions: ATK and information about past traditional use provided context for the description of existing conditions (Sections through ). This section was also informed by other Aboriginal information, including knowledge related to historical use techniques and practices, current use locations, language, and other cultural considerations (Sections through ). Assessment of Potential Effects: To the extent that ATK informed existing conditions, as indicated above, ATK also informed the assessment of potential Project-related effects on Current Use. To the extent that ATK informed the assessments of the resources considered in this assessment, ATK also informed the assessment of effects on Current Use of these resources. Assessment Steps Where ATK Was Not Used, and Rationale for Why Not Component Selection - selection of Current Use as a component for assessment was informed primarily by other types of Aboriginal information. Sub-component Selection not applicable; sub-components are not included in this assessment. Identification of Mitigation informed by other types of Aboriginal information, but relevant ATK was not available. Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 10

75 References Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) Considering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Interim Principles. Available at Accessed August Appendices None Response to Information Request #8 (IR ) Page 11

76 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #9 Species in the Local and Regional Assessment Areas Rationale As a minimum, the EIS Guidelines (9.1.5) require the EIS to include a characterization, including the results of baseline surveys, of fish populations (e.g. marine invertebrates such as crabs and bivalves, fish, marine mammals and other marine animals) found in, or migrating through, the local and regional study areas. This is to include species abundance, distribution and life stage (e.g. zooplankton and benthic stages for marine invertebrates, juvenile and returning adult stages for salmonids, juvenile and adult stages for forage fish), and also include seasonal and annual variations. Sections 12 to 14 of the EIS present baseline information on species selected as valued components and subcomponents for the purposes of the environmental assessment within the local assessment area. However, no baseline information is provided for species that were not selected as valued components or represented by subcomponents. Additionally, with the exception of marine mammals, there is no baseline information presented for marine species within the respective regional assessment areas. The EIS Guidelines (9.1.6) also require that, as a minimum, the EIS will include a description of the abundance, distribution, and life stages of migratory and non-migratory birds in the area (including waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, marsh birds and other land birds), including species values (with error bars) and species composition for each season, and a characterization of year-round migratory bird use of the area (e.g. overwintering, spring migration, breeding season, fall migration), including results of baseline surveys. Section 15 of the EIS presents baseline information on species selected as valued components and subcomponents for the purposes of the environmental assessment, but does not provide baseline information for species that were not selected as valued components or represented by subcomponents. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 1

77 Information Requested Provide a characterization, including the results of baseline surveys, of fish populations (e.g. marine invertebrates, fish, marine mammals and other marine animals) found in, or migrating through, the local and regional assessment areas. Clearly indicate whether species are considered within various subcomponents for marine invertebrates, fish and marine mammals as presented in sections 12 to 14 of the EIS. Provide a description of the abundance, distribution, and life stages of migratory and nonmigratory birds in the area, species composition for each season, and a characterization of year-round migratory bird use of the area, including results of baseline surveys. Clearly indicate whether species are considered within various subcomponents for coastal birds as presented in section 15 of the EIS. Response This response is provided in three sections. The first section clarifies the guidance-based approach taken in the RBT2 EIS to assess potential Project-related effects on subcomponents and representative species for each valued component (VC). This is relevant to this response to illustrate that all species likely to be affected by Project-related activities have been considered within the effects assessment. The second and third sections of the response provide summaries of information that characterise baseline conditions (referred to as existing conditions in the EIS) in local and regional assessment areas (LAAs and RAAs) for fish and birds, respectively Species Considered Within Sub-components The methodological approach used in the EIS allowed for information requirements in the EIS Guidelines to be addressed. This was achieved by structuring the assessment around VCs, and incorporating all necessary aspects pertaining to the scope of assessment and scope of factors outlined in Updated EIS Guidelines sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively EIS Section 8.0 Effects Assessment Methods describes how VCs were selected and the effects assessment methods used to predict and assess environmental effects resulting from the Project on these components. The process of selecting VCs, sub-components, and representative species for the EIS allowed assessments to focus on those aspects of the natural and human environment that are of greatest importance to society, and on pertinent information related to those components in order to develop a comprehensive report to effectively inform decision makers. VCs, sub-components, and representative species were Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 2

78 selected, as it would be impractical to provide characterisations for and assess effects on every bird and fish species. However, it is important to note that all species with the potential to occur at Roberts Bank were considered in the assessment either as sub-components or representative species themselves, or represented by another species (i.e., a proxy) with similar ecological niches, life history traits, or habitat preferences. The information provided for representative species, therefore, is representative of the conditions of (and effects on) the other species that are represented This approach in selecting VCs, sub-components, and representative species for biophysical entities is consistent with the approach used in environmental assessment practice for more than 30 years. For example, Beanlands and Duinker (1983) stated that It is impossible for an impact assessment to address all potential environmental effects of a project. Therefore, it is necessary that the environmental attributes considered to be important in project decisions be identified at the beginning of an assessment, and Experience indicates that without the early identification of valued ecosystem components, an environmental impact assessment will have little obvious direction, and the resulting diffusion of effort will lead to equivocal evaluation of important factors." In addition, the approach taken in selecting VCs was done in accordance with Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) guidance (CEA Agency 2014). The CEA Agency technical guidance document states that a practitioner has flexibility in how to characterize a VC by defining it either broadly or narrowly. As indicated above, the approach taken in the EIS was to broadly characterise each biophysical VC and integrate particular species at the sub-component level and representative species level to focus the assessment on species of highest ecological, social, or cultural importance or those with greatest vulnerability to the environmental effects of the Project. The guidance condones use of surrogate species to predict environmental effects on other species or another ecologically justifiable grouping, and states that this environmental assessment approach is reasonable and often used, while noting that species may have different degrees of sensitivity to disturbances. This environmental assessment approach is also considered to be acceptable by the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office, which states that it may be useful and appropriate to lump components into a broadly defined VC and use subcomponents and indicators [referred to as representative species in the RBT2 EIS] as necessary to frame the analysis, thereby promoting a well-organised and meaningful assessment with minimal redundancy. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 3

79 Tables IR9-1 to IR9-4 present a list of species known to occur at Roberts Bank and that have the potential to be affected by the Project for marine invertebrates, marine fish, marine mammals, and coastal birds, respectively. The tables also provide the associated sub-component and representative species for each species, along with the rationale for why the selected representative species are considered to be a proxy. For coastal bird species, Table IR9-4 includes avian species that occur in the local assessment area on at least an annual basis, species at risk with potential to occur in the Project area (refer to the response to Information Request #11 and supporting Appendix IR11-A for detailed information on the presence of species at risk in the area), and other bird species that were observed on multiple occasions during weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly surveys of the area conducted between 2003 and Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 4

80 65 66 Table IR9-1 List of Marine Invertebrate Species Known to Occur at Roberts Bank and Associated Sub-components and Representative Species Marine Invertebrate Subcomponent Infaunal and Epifaunal Invertebrates Taxa/Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names as applicable) Oligochaeta Foraminifera Ostracoda Bivalvia Nematoda Harpacticoida Polychaeta Cumacea Tanaidacea Amphipoda Anthozoa Ascidacea Caprellidae Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae Cirripedia Cladocera Collembola Cyclopoida Decapoda Diptera Echinodea Gastropoda Gnathostomulida Hirudinea Hydroida Isopoda Kinorhyncha Megaloptera Mysidacea Nemertea Platyhelminthes Plecoptera Pycnogonida Sipunicula Tardigrada Rotifera Represented By Oligochaeta Foraminifera Ostracoda Bivalvia Nematoda Harpacticoida Polychaeta Cumacea Represent small benthic invertebrates (i.e., meioand macrofauna) and reflect the diversity of ecological niches (e.g., grazers, important prey items, burrowers) and habitat preferences (e.g., sand or mud substrates) of these taxa. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 5

81 Marine Invertebrate Subcomponent Bivalve Shellfish Taxa/Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names as applicable) Common (Macoma) Clams Heart Cockles Pacific Littleneck Clams Pacific Oyster Bay Mussel Butter Clams Horse Clams Manila Clams Swimming Scallop Venus Clam Macoma spp. Clinocardium nuttallii Leukoma staminea Crassostrea gigas Mytilus trossulus Saxidomus gigantean Tresus spp Venerupis philippinarum Chlamys hastata Venus affinis Represented By Common (Macoma) Clams Heart Cockles Pacific Littleneck Clams Pacific Oyster Bay Mussel Represent intertidal and subtidal filter feeding bivalve species that occupy either soft- or hard-bottom substrates and are important prey items to higher trophic levels. Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila Dungeness Crab Metacarcinus magister Barnacle Nudibranch Onchidoris bilamellata Blood Star Henricia leviuscula Brown Horned Dorid Acanthodoris burnnea Channeled Dogwinkle Nucella canaliculata Frilled Dogwinkle Nucella lamellosa Frosted Nudibranch Dirona albolineata Furrowed Rock Crab Romaleon branneri Dungeness Crab Giant Pacific Octopus Giant Pink Starfish Golden Dirona Graceful Crab Graceful Decorator Crab Green shore Crab Enteroctopus dofleini Pisaster brevispinus Dirona pellucida Cancer gracilis Oregonia gracilis Hemigrapsus oregonensis Dungeness Crab Represents larger invertebrate species that are mobile, omnivorous (i.e., feed on plants, other animals, or detritus), and benthic (i.e., bottomdwelling). Helmet Crab Telmessus cheiragonus Hermit Crab Paguroidea Kelp Crab Pugettia producta Leather Star Dermasterias imbricata Mottled Star Evasterias troschelii Mud Star Ctenodiscus crispatus Ochre Star Pisaster ochraceus Opalescent Nudibranch Hermissenda crassicornis Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 6

82 Marine Invertebrate Subcomponent Taxa/Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names as applicable) Pacific Lyre Crab Hyas lyratus Represented By Purple Shore Crab Red Gilled Nudibranch Red Rock Crab Setose Hermit Crab Shaggy Dovesnail Stubby Squid Sun Star Sunflower Sea Star Hemigrapsus nudus Flabellina verrucosa Cancer productus Pagurus setosus Astyris gausapata Rossia pacifica Crossaster papposus Pycnopodia helianthoides Orange Sea Pen Umbrella Crab Whelk Cryptolithodes sitchensis Neptunea amianta Yellow Tip Dorid Caloria sp. 2 Acorn Barnacle Breadcrumb Sponge Broad-base Tunicate Bryozoan Calcareous Tubeworm Small Acorn Barnacle Hairy Tunicate Hydroids Painted Anemone Giant Plumose Anemone Short Plumose Anemone Balanus glandula Halichondria panicea Cnemidocarpa finmarkiensis Bryozoa Serpula Chthamalus fissus Boltenia villosa Hydrozoa Urticina grebelnyi Metridium farcimen Metridium senile Orange Sea Pen Represents sessile and filter feeding invertebrates that provide habitat for other marine invertebrates and fish. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 7

83 67 68 Table IR9-2 Marine Fish Subcomponent Pacific Salmon Reef Fish Forage fish Flatfish List of Marine Fish Species Known to Occur at Roberts Bank and Associated Sub-components and Representative Species Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Pink Salmon Coho Salmon Sockeye Salmon Steelhead Cutthroat Trout Green Sturgeon White Sturgeon (Lower Fraser) Bluntnose Sixgill Shark Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Oncorhynchus keta Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Oncorhynchus kisutch Oncorhynchus nerka Oncorhynchus mykiss Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii Acipenser medirostris Acipenser transmontanus pop. 4 Hexanchus griseus Represented By Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Represent anadromous species that migrate through the LAA. Juvenile Chinook and chum are the most estuarine dependent of these species and are therefore most likely to interact with the Project. Lingcod Ophiodon elongatus Lingcod Rougheye Rockfish Type I Sebastes sp. type I & II Copper Rockfish Quillback Rockfish Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Represent carnivorous Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger species that have similar habitat preferences (e.g., Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus kelp beds, hard substrates, deep water), show high site China Rockfish Sebastes nebulosus fidelity (and limited movements), and are Black Rockfish Sebastes melanops specifically associated with Tiger Rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus the artificial rocky reefs at Roberts Bank. Pacific Herring Pacific Sand Lance Surf Smelt Shiner Perch Northern Anchovy Long Fin Smelt Eulachon Pacific Sardine Starry Flounder English Sole Sand Sole Rock Sole Pacific Sanddab Flathead Sole Dover Sole Butter Sole Halibut Clupea pallasi Ammodytes hexapterus Hypomesus pretiosus Cymatogaster aggregata Engraulis mordax Spirinchus thaleichthys Thaleichthys pacificus Sardinops sagax Platichthys stellatus Parophrys vetulus Psettichthys melanostictus Lepidopsetta bilineata Citharichthys sordidus Hippoglossoides elassodon Microstomus pacificus Isopsetta isolepis Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific Herring Pacific Sand Lance Surf Smelt Shiner Perch Represent schooling, pelagic species that occupy a central position in the marine food chain. Starry Flounder English Sole Represent carnivorous groundfish (i.e., bottomdwelling) species that prefer soft substrates (i.e., sand, mud). Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 8

84 Marine Fish Subcomponent Demersal Fish Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Threespine Stickleback Pacific Staghorn Sculpin White Spotted Greenling Walleye Pollock Sturgeon Poacher Striped Perch Plainfin Midshipman Kelp Greenling Great Sculpin Bay Pipefish Tubesnout Tidepool Sculpin Tadpole Sculpin Snake Prickleback Smooth Alligatorfish Sailfin Sculpin Saddleback Gunnel Ribbed Sculpin Pygmy Poacher Padded Sculpin Northern Spearnose poacher Northern Sculpin Manacled Sculpin Grunt Sculpin Crescent Gunnel Buffalo Sculpin Blackeye Goby Arrow Goby Longspine Thornyhead Gasterosteus aculeatus Leptocottus armatus Hexagrammos stelleri Theragra chalcogramma Podothecus accipenserinus Embiotoca lateralis Porichthys notatus Hexagrammos decagrammus Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus Syngnathus leptorhynchus Aulorhynchus flavidus Oligocottus maculosus Psychrolutes paradoxus Lumpenus sagitta Anoplagonus inermis Nautichthys oculofasciatus Pholis ornata Triglops pingeli Odontopyxis trispinosa Artedius fenestralis Agonopsis vulsa Icelinus borealis Synchirus gilli Rhamphocottus richardsonii Pholis laeta Enophrys bison Rhinogobiops nicholsi Clevelandia ios Sebastolobus altivelis Represented By Threespine Stickleback Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Represent small fish that live and feed on invertebrates or small fishes on or near the bottom. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9

85 69 70 Table IR9-3 List of Marine Mammal Species Known to Occur at Roberts Bank and Associated Sub-components and Representative Species Marine Mammal Subcomponent Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Represented By Toothed Whales Killer Whale northeast Pacific southern resident population Killer whale northeast Pacific transient population Harbour porpoise Pacific white-sided dolphin Dall's porpoise Orcinus orca Orcinus orca Phocoena phocoena Lagenorhynchus obliquidens Phocoenoides dalli Southern Resident Killer Whale Represents toothed whales, which are primarily sensitive to mid frequency sounds, and possess a highfrequency echolocation system. False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Baleen Whales North Pacific Humpback Whale Eastern Pacific Grey Whale Minke Whale Fin Whale Basking Shark Megaptera novaeangliae Eschrichtius robustus Balaenoptera acutorostrata Balaenoptera physalus Cetorhinus maximus North Pacific Humpback Whale Represents baleen whales, which are primarily sensitive to low and midfrequency sounds, and lack a high-frequency echolocation system. Seals and Sea Lions Steller (northern) Sea Lion Harbour Seal California Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Phoca vitulina Zalophus californianus Steller Sea Lion Represents pinnipeds that typically feed on both fish and invertebrates and are known to use both marine and terrestrial habitats for foraging and resting, respectively. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 10

86 71 72 Table IR9-4 List of Coastal Bird Species Known to Occur at Roberts Bank and Associated Sub-components and Representative Species Coastal Bird Subcomponent Shorebirds Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Western Sandpiper Semipalmated Sandpiper Least Sandpiper Pacific Dunlin Pectoral Sandpiper Black-bellied Plover American Golden-Plover Semipalmated Plover Red-necked Phalarope Killdeer Black Oystercatcher Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Spotted Sandpiper Whimbrel Marbled Godwit Black Turnstone Red Knot Sanderling Wilson s Snipe Short-billed Dowitcher Long-billed Dowitcher Calidris mauri Calidris pusilla Calidris minutilla Calidris alpina Calidris melanotos Pluvialis squatarola Pluvialis dominica Charadrius semipalmatus Phalaropus lobatus Charadrius vociferus Haematopus bachmani Tringa melanoleuca Tringa flavipes Actitis macularia Numenius phaeopus Limosa fedoa Arenaria melanocephala Calidris canutus Calidris alba Gallinago delicata Limnodromus griseus Limnodromus scolopaceus Represented By Western Sandpiper and Pacific Dunlin Represents shorebird species that forage on benthic invertebrates and epifauna, primarily in intertidal habitat (e.g., mudflats, sandflats, and marsh edge). These species represent both migrating and overwintering species. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 11

87 Coastal Bird Subcomponent Waterfowl Herons Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) American Wigeon American Coot Greater White-fronted Goose Snow Goose Canada Goose Trumpeter Swan Tundra Swan Gadwall Northern Shoveler Eurasian Wigeon Mallard Northern Pintail Ruddy Duck Cinnamon Teal Blue-winged Teal Green-winged Teal Anas americana Fulica americana Anser albifrons Chen caerulescens Branta canadensis Cygnus buccinator Cygnus columbianus Anas strepera Anas clypeata Anas penelope Anas platyrhynchos Anas acuta Oxyura jamaicensis Anas cyanoptera Anas discors Anas crecca Represented By American Wigeon Represents waterfowl species that use near shore habitats and forage primarily on aquatic vegetation in marine environments. Brant Branta bernicla Brant Great Blue Heron, fannini sub-species American Bittern Ardea herodias fannini Botaurus lentiginosus Great Blue Heron Represents herons that use marsh and intertidal habitat and forage on fish and large insects in shallow water. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 12

88 Coastal Bird Subcomponent Diving Birds Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Surf Scoter Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Harlequin Duck White-winged Scoter Black Scoter Long-tailed Duck Bufflehead Common Goldeneye Barrow s Goldeneye Red-necked Phalarope Western Grebe Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Red-throated Loon Arctic Loon Pacific Loon Common Loon Yellow-billed Loon Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Pied-billed Grebe Red-necked Grebe Brandt s Cormorant Double-crested Cormorant Pelagic Cormorant Rhinoceros Auklet Common Murre Pigeon Guillemot Marbled Murrelet Melanitta perspicillata Aythya marila Aythya affinis Histrionicus histrionicus Melanitta fusca Melanitta nigra Clangula hyemalis Bucephala albeola Bucephala clangula Bucephala islandica Phalaropus lobatus Aechmophorus occidentalis Lophodytes cucullatus Mergus merganser Mergus serrator Gavia stellata Gavia arctica Gavia pacifica Gavia immer Gavia adamsii Podiceps auritus Podiceps nigricollis Podilymbus podiceps Podiceps grisegena Phalacrocorax penicillatus Phalacrocorax auritus Phalacrocorax pelagicus Cerorhinca monocerata Uria aalge Cepphus columba Brachyramphus marmoratus Represented By Surf Scoter Represents species that feed primarily on benthic invertebrates (e.g., molluscs) in sub-tidal, intertidal marine and estuarine environments. Western Grebe Represents diving species that forage on fish in marine and estuarine environments. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 13

89 Coastal Bird Subcomponent Raptors Gulls and Terns Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Represented By Bald Eagle Osprey Haliaeetus leucocephalus Pandion haliaetus Bald Eagle Represents scavenging, fish- and waterfowlconsuming birds that utilise Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura intertidal, terrestrial, and freshwater habitat. Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies American Kestrel Merlin Parasitic Jaeger Gyrfalcon Falco peregrinus anatum Falco sparverius Falco columbarius Stercorarius parasiticus Falco rusticolus Peregrine Falcon Represents avian species that are predatory on other birds, hunting in both marine and intertidal habitats. Barn Owl Tyto alba Barn Owl Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor Represents avian species Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca that feed primarily on small mammals in estuarine Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus marsh and terrestrial Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus habitat. Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Bald Eagle Peregrine Falcon Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Barn Owl Cooper s Hawk Accipiter cooperi Barn Owl Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Peregrine Falcon Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Common Tern Sterna hirundo Represents birds that forage from the air on fish in Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon shallow waters. Glaucous-winged Gull Herring Gull Bonaparte s Gull Mew Gull Ring-billed Gull California Gull Thayer s Gull Northwestern Crow Common Raven Larus glaucescens Larus argentatus Chroicocephalus philadelphia Larus canus Larus delawarensis Larus californicus Larus glaucoides Corvus caurinus Corvus corax Glaucous-winged Gull Represents birds with an omnivorous diet that forage in intertidal as well as terrestrial areas. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 14

90 Coastal Bird Subcomponent Passerines Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Barn Swallow Purple Martin Rock Pigeon Eurasian Collared Dove Band-tailed Pigeon Mourning Dove Black Swift Common Nighthawk Rufous Hummingbird Downy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Western Meadowlark Western Wood-peewee Willow Flycatcher Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Cliff Swallow Black-capped Chickadee Bushtit Bewick s Wren Marsh Wren Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet American Robin European Starling Cedar Waxwing Yellow Warbler Orange-crowned Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Common Yellowthroat Wilson s Warbler Spotted Towhee House Sparrow Chipping Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Fox Sparrow Song Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Hirundo rustica Progne subis Columba livia Streptopelia decaocto Columba fasciata Zenaida macroura Cypseloides niger Chordeiles minor Selasphorus rufus Picoides pubescens Colaptes auratus Sturnella neglecta Contopus sordidulus Empidonax traillii Tachycineta bicolor Tachycineta thalassina Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Poecile atricapillus Psaltriparus minimus Thryomanes bewickii Cistothorus palustris Regulus satrapa Regulus calendula Turdus migratorius Sturnus vulgaris Bombycilla cedrorum Dendroica petechia Vermivora celata Dendroica coronata Geothlypis trichas Cardellina pusilla Pipilo maculatus Passer domesticus Spizella passerina Passerculus sandwichensis Passerella iliaca Melospiza melodia Zonotrichia leucophrys Represented By Barn Swallow Represents perching species that forage primarily within terrestrial habitats (e.g., marsh), including passerine and near passerine species. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 15

91 Coastal Bird Subcomponent Species Considered Within Sub-component (Common and Scientific Names) Golden-crowned Sparrow White-throated Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco Red-winged Blackbird Brewer s Blackbird Brown-headed Cowbird Purple Finch House Finch Pine Siskin American Pipit American Goldfinch Zonotrichia atricapilla Zonotrichia albicollis Junco hyemalis Agelaius phoeniceus Euphagus cyanocephalus Molothrus ater Carpodacus purpureus Carpodacus mexicanus Spinus pinus Anthus rubescens Spinus tristis Represented By Characterisation of Fish Populations in Local and Regional Assessment Areas As described above, the use of sub-components or representative species is considered an acceptable and commonly used approach to environmental assessment and, therefore, characterisations provided for selected species are considered representative of the species for which they are a proxy. Characterisations of fish populations found in or migrating through the local and regional assessment areas that have been provided in the EIS are summarised in Appendix IR9-A: Tables IR9-5 and IR9-6 for marine invertebrates and marine fish, respectively. Where extensive information on existing conditions is provided in the EIS, the tables reflect corresponding page number ranges and sub-section headings The tables also indicate the source material from which the statements were derived, including technical reports appended to the EIS, and technical data reports (TDRs) and other sources referenced in the EIS. For TDR references listed in the tables in the Information Source column, a standardised list is provided at the end of Appendix IR9-A for all valued components Note that the information request indicates that baseline information for marine mammals is presented; therefore, a summary of content is not repeated in this response. For reference, information on existing conditions for marine mammals is provided in EIS Section 14.5 Marine Mammals, Existing Conditions. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 16

92 Migratory and Non-migratory Birds in the Area Information on existing conditions has been presented in the EIS for migratory and nonmigratory birds, and is considered to be sufficient to inform the assessment of Projectrelated effects. Statements provided in the EIS pertaining to the abundance, distribution, life stages, seasonal species composition, and year-round migratory bird use are summarised in Appendix IR9-A: Table IR9-7. The table also indicates source material from which the statements were derived, including technical reports appended to the EIS as well as TDRs, which are publicly available on the PMV website. As stated previously, for TDR references listed in the tables in the Information Source column, a standardised list is provided at the end of Appendix IR9-A for all valued components. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 17

93 References Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Available at Accessed September Appendices Appendix IR9-A Tables IR9-5 to IR9-7 Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 18

94 APPENDIX IR9-A Summary of Existing Conditions Tables IR9-5 to IR9-7

95 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

96 Appendix IR9-A APPENDIX IR9-A Summary of Existing Conditions - Tables IR9-5 to IR9-7 Table IR9-5 Summary of Existing Condition Characterisations for Marine Invertebrate Populations Found In or Migrating Through the Local and Regional Assessment Areas EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions in EIS More than 200 species of invertebrates, animals that lack a spinal column, have been documented living in and around Roberts Bank (Triton 2004a). The focus in this assessment is on eight estuarine meio- and macrofaunal taxa that are abundant within the LAA or serve important ecological functions: oligochaeta, ostracoda, foraminifera, bivalvia, nematoda, harpacticoida, polychaeta, and cumacea (Pearce and McBride 1977, Bravender et al. 1993, Sutherland et al. 2000, Mathot and Elner 2004). Infaunal and epifaunal communities across the RAA have been studied for several decades (Levings and Coustalin 1975, Chapman and Brinkhurst 1981, McEwan and Gordon 1985, Sewell 1996, Sutherland et al. 2000, 2013); however, many of these studies are now dated or have low sample sizes. Infaunal and epifaunal communities have been closely tracked at Roberts Bank as part of the Deltaport Third Berth Adaptive Management Strategy (AMS), an eight-year study monitoring for negative trends in the ecosystem linked to DP3 construction and operation. Overall, results indicate that infaunal and epifaunal populations in both the inter-causeway area and reference area (i.e., north side of the causeway) are diverse, healthy, and well established, and that data did not provide evidence of statistically significant spatial or temporal trends that might be associated with the construction and operation of DP3 (Hemmera et al. 2013). Recent research on the capacity of infaunal and epifaunal invertebrate communities to support migrating shorebirds indicates that, from a food perspective, there is a surplus of both macrofauna and meiofauna within the LAA. High intertidal areas within the LAA are primarily composed of meiofaunal nematodes and harpacticoid copepods (Figure 12-4) and macrofaunal polychaetes and oligochaetes. Description Location LAA LAA RAA LAA Information Source 1 See EIS Section 12 Reference List See EIS Section 12 Reference List See EIS Section 12 Reference List See EIS Section 12 Reference List LAA EIS Appendix 15-B LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014b Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-1

97 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions in EIS Description Location Information Source Maximum infaunal and epifaunal invertebrate biomass and densities have been reported adjacent to emergent vegetation in the high intertidal zone in the Fraser River estuary (Levings and Coustalin 1975, McEwan and Gordon 1985), and results from RBT2 studies confirm a statistically significant trend of lower meiofaunal biomass, abundance, and diversity further out from shore (Hemmera 2014c). RAA TDR: Hemmera 2014b During northward and southward shorebird migrations, mean meiofaunal biomass was highest in the inter-causeway area (54.9 g/m 2 ) followed by Boundary Bay (31.2 g/m 2 ) and Brunswick Point (i.e., north of the Roberts Bank causeway; 30.9 g/m 2 ) (Figure 12-7). Community assemblages were also shown to differ on either side of the causeway, with polychaete, cumacean, and oligochaete abundance highest at Brunswick Point to the north, nematode, foraminifera, and harpacticoid copepod abundance highest within the inter-causeway area, and ostracod abundance highest off Westham Island (Hemmera 2014c). Among all strata across the RAA, meiofaunal community composition was consistently most diverse at Brunswick Point (Figure 12-8). RAA TDR: Hemmera 2014b Chapman and Brinkhurst (1981) documented seasonal shifts in benthic invertebrate distributions in relation to the spring freshet, and Mathot and Elner (2004) found that benthic invertebrate densities at Roberts Bank appeared to peak during the western sandpiper migration, suggesting that migratory timing may be related to the productivity schedule at key stopover sites. Spatially, benthic invertebrate distribution is often described as patchy (Barry and Dayton 1991, McIntosh 1991) with high abundance in some areas and total absence in others (Morrisey et al. 1992). Fine-scale spatial variation is likely influenced by physical environmental factors and associated behavioural responses (Morrisey et al. 1992, Underwood and Chapman 1996). LAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-2

98 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions in EIS Over the same timeframe, mean macrofaunal biomass was highest at Boundary Bay (86.6 g/m 2 ), followed by the inter-causeway area (60.4 g/m 2 ) and Brunswick Point (37.7 g/m 2 ), and lowest at Westham Island (24.4 g/m 2 ; Figure 12-9). Similar to meiofauna, community composition differed by strata, with polychaete, nematode, harpacticoid, and ostracod abundance highest at Boundary Bay and the inter-causeway areas, oligochaete abundance highest at Brunswick Point, and bivalve abundance highest at Sturgeon Bank. As shown in Figure 12-9, macrofauna biomass in the intercauseway area did not change based on migration period, but biomass was higher north of the causeway during northward migration. Macrofaunal diversity was consistently highest in the inter-causeway area (Figure 12-10). Subtidal macrofaunal diversity (nine taxa) is considerably lower than intertidal diversity (33 taxa) (Hemmera 2014c). However, no statistical relationships between infaunal and epifaunal invertebrate population parameters and sulfide concentration were observed within the LAA. A recent study at Roberts Bank by Sutherland et al. (2013) found direct correlations between eelgrass attributes (i.e., root biomass, leaf area index) and infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates, including bivalves, amphipods, and harpacticoid copepods. Results from RBT2 studies corroborate these results, and no taxa were negatively correlated with eelgrass presence within the LAA. While there are no studies at Roberts Bank of direct effects from industrial activities on bivalves, Harrison et al. (1998) studied the impact caused by discharges of nutrients and metals from the Iona Island wastewater treatment plant on sediments and bivalves (i.e., Macoma balthica) on Sturgeon Bank. Within the LAA, cockles are common, but not found in high abundance, with densities averaging 0.15 cockles/m 2 in the sandy substrates of the low intertidal. Pacific littleneck clams (Protothaca staminea),- Within the LAA, distribution is clumped and patchy, with densities averaging 14.6 clams/m 2. Macoma clams are widely distributed across the northern Pacific Ocean (Coan et al. 2000). Macoma clams are the most ubiquitous and abundant bivalve species in the mid to low intertidal zone at Roberts Bank, with densities ranging from 16 to 336 clams/m2, although densities were observed to be lower within and around eelgrass beds (Hemmera 2014d). Description Location RAA LAA LAA RAA Information Source 1 TDR: Hemmera 2014b EIS Appendix 15-B TDR: Hemmera 2014b See EIS Section 12 Reference List Hemmera 2014b See EIS Section 12 Reference List LAA EIS Appendix 27-C LAA EIS Appendix 27-C LAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List EIS Appendix 27-C Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-3

99 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions in EIS Description Location Information Source In the LAA, Pacific oyster were recorded in the low intertidal zone attached to the rip-rap on the northwest edge of Westshore Terminals at average densities of 1.2 oysters/m 2. LAA EIS Appendix 27-C Hemmera 2014a In the LAA, mussels are abundant (i.e., average densities of 34 mussels/m 2 ) on intertidal rip-rap on the north side of the Roberts Bank causeway, and intermixed with Pacific oysters. LAA EIS Appendix 27-C TDR: Hemmera 2014a In many estuaries and shallow water coastal ecosystems including the Strait of Georgia, bivalves are dominant invertebrate species in highly oxygenated, shallow mud or sand-silt habitats (Levings et al. 1983, Burd et al. 2008a). RAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List Habitat preferences at Roberts Bank corroborate the literature, with highest abundance recorded in mid to low intertidal areas and associated with fine, and slightly muddy, sand. Within the LAA and RAA (i.e., at Boundary Bay), cockles are predominantly encountered in sandy substrates in the low intertidal zone, either associated with native eelgrass beds or flowing tidal channels. LAA EIS Appendix 27-C RAA EIS Appendix 27-C Commercial landings in the PFMA sub-areas relevant to Roberts Bank (29-6 and 29-7; Figure 12-3), averaged 157 tonnes (t) and 34 t, respectively, over a 21-year time series from 1990 to LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014e The major source of adult Dungeness mortality in the Strait of Georgia are CRA fisheries; each year, over 90% of legal sized males are harvested in fisheries within the Fraser River estuary (Zhang et al. 2002, Zhang and Dunham 2013). RAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List Site-specific studies on the value of the LAA as settlement and nursery habitat by Dungeness crabs have been intermittently conducted since 1982 (Waddell 1984, Triton 2004b, Martel 2009). LAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List Results of recent sampling (2012 and 2013) indicate that while juvenile Dungeness crabs settle and rear within the LAA, densities fluctuate extensively across survey years, which aligns with findings reported from other northeast Pacific sites. LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014d Within the LAA, densities of recently settled crabs were higher in areas of Ulva than in eelgrass beds (Hemmera 2014e), likely because Ulva offers more three-dimensional complexity in which to hide from predators (Heck and Orth 1980). LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014d Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-4

100 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions in EIS Description Location Information Source In the LAA, larger juveniles, including sub-adults, are abundant in native eelgrass beds and unvegetated tidal channels in the low intertidal zone, suggesting that crabs require less cover as they increase in size (Hemmera 2014e). LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014d Adult Dungeness crabs are among the most abundant organisms at Roberts Bank in shallow (i.e., intertidal to 30 m CD), sandy habitat along the delta foreslope. LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014c Aboriginal crabbers have emphasised the historical abundance of crab within the LAA, and its importance to fishing (Tsawwassen First Nation Elders 2012, Tsawwassen First Nation Fishers 2012, Wilson et al. 2013, Chuuchkamalthnii 2014, Woolman 2014), and have expressed concern at the declines noted in recent years (Tsawwassen First Nation Fishers 2012). LAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List It is known that gravid females use the ship turning basin in the intercauseway area, as concentrations were recorded in September 2003 (Triton 2004); however, less is known about the area within the proposed Project footprint. LAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List Self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) surveys conducted in late January 2013 to document use of sandy subtidal habitat in the Project footprint found four solitary gravid female crabs and no aggregations (Hemmera 2014f). Results are instead consistent with densities at locations peripheral to brooding aggregations (O Clair et al. 1996, Stone and O Clair 2002); this implies that the brooding area may be somewhere nearby, though the exact location remains unknown. LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014c Long-term DFO fishery datasets (i.e., covering the period 1990 to 2011) were collated and used to develop a model of crab population dynamics that estimates adult recruitment, biomass, and production in PFMA 29 and subareas 29-6 and 29-7 where possible. The model confirms that the Fraser River estuary (i.e., PFMA 29) is a productive area for Dungeness crabs, with annual production of harvestable crabs averaging 629 t over the 21-year time series (Hemmera 2014b); however, productivity fluctuates widely, and this variability is consistent with studies of Dungeness crab in other areas (e.g., the Columbia River estuary (McCabe and McConnell 1989)). Production patterns predicted by the model suggest that there were three years of exceptional crab production in Area 29 and sub-area 29-6 that subsequently influenced biomass and fishery catch for the four-year period 2006 to 2009 (Hemmera 2014b); however, production (and associated fisheries landings) have since declined, returning to levels similar to those experienced prior to 2006 (Hemmera 2014b). RAA TDR: Hemmera 2014e See EIS Section 12 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-5

101 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions in EIS Description Location Information Source Although female densities within brooding aggregations can be highly variable (Stone and O Clair 2002), densities found in the LAA ( gravid crabs/m 2 ) are considerably lower than what has been reported for other northern estuarine ecosystems (i.e., Alaska) with reports ranging from 0.75 to 0.86 crabs/m 2 (Scheding et al. 2001), to crabs/m 2 (O Clair et al. 1996) to more than 20 crabs/m 2 (Stone and O Clair 2002). LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014c See EIS Section 12 Reference List Recent studies found that macrophyte cover was positively correlated with juvenile crab densities, and that no juvenile crabs were observed on bare sand or mud substrate; in particular, juvenile crabs were associated with Ulva and both native and non-native eelgrass habitats within the LAA (Hemmera 2014e). LAA TDR: Hemmera 2014d Aboriginal crabbers from Tsawwassen First Nation and Musqueam First Nation report catching gravid females all year round in the shallows all along the estuary, including around the proposed terminal and ITP footprints, but have observed higher numbers in the winter (Tsawwassen First Nation Fishers 2012, Musqueam First Nation 2013). RAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List Underwater video and SCUBA surveys in 2003, 2008, and 2011 in the LAA frequently observed clams, sea stars, marine worms, Dungeness crabs, and several fish species including lingcod, kelp greenling, Pacific sanddab, starry flounder, and spiny dogfish in sea pen beds (Triton 2004b, Archipelago 2009, Hemmera and Archipelago 2014). LAA TDR: Hemmera and Archipelago 2014 See EIS Section 12 Reference List Orange sea pens are characteristic of shallow (0 m CD to 30 m CD) sandsilt habitats in the Strait of Georgia (Burd et al. 2008a). RAA See EIS Section 12 Reference List Earlier (i.e., pre-2012) studies suggested the sea pen aggregations within the LAA were reproductively inactive because of the absence of smaller individuals (Archipelago 2009); however, juvenile sea pens (less than 15 cm height) were documented in 2011 during underwater video and SCUBA surveys (Hemmera and Archipelago 2014). These observations are consistent with literature that reports larval settlement can be patchy in space and highly episodic in time, giving rise to discontinuous populations differing in age and size (Birkeland 1969, 1974). LAA TDR: Hemmera and Archipelago 2014 See EIS Section 12 Reference List In 2011, SCUBA surveys found sea pen densities ranged from 2 to 13 sea pens/m 2 in the dense portion of the aggregation and from 0 to 2 sea pens/m 2 in the patchy portion (Hemmera and Archipelago 2014). These numbers align with earlier surveys, which reported density ranges from 1 to 8 sea pens/m 2 (Gartner Lee 1992, Triton 2004b, Archipelago 2009). LAA TDR: Hemmera and Archipelago 2014 See EIS Section 12 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-6

102 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions in EIS Relatively nearby aggregations were reported from the Gulf Islands, Puget Sound, and the San Juan Islands, as well as Howe Sound, but no other aggregations were reported from elsewhere in the Fraser River estuary; as such, the orange sea pen beds within the LAA are assumed to be a unique feature (Hemmera and Archipelago 2014). Underwater video and dive surveys in the LAA in 2008 and 2011 documented a general lack of natural sea pen predators and a near absence of sea penspecialist predatory nudibranchs, and it was suggested that predation may not play a major role in influencing sea pen abundance in the area (Hemmera and Archipelago 2014). The striped nudibranch (Armina californica) was observed directly feeding on orange sea pens during SCUBA monitoring of the aggregation in the LAA during the transplant pilot program in September 2014 (Hemmera 2015), indicating that local populations are indeed subject to predation pressure. Landings increased steadily from 1982 to 2006, gaining an average of 11.6 t per year. In 2006, landings increased to 1,264 t (more than doubling the previous year s catch), remained elevated from 2006 to 2009, and then returned to levels similar to those experienced prior to 2006 (Figure 16-12). The long-term (1990 to 2011) mean for landings in Area 29 is 605 t (DFO 2013h). Onboard logbook data show that crab harvesting in the LAA and RAA is concentrated in Sub-area 29-6 (offshore Roberts Bank), which has accounted for approximately 37.0% of the harvest within Area 29 between 2003 and 2013; Sub-area 29-3 (offshore Sturgeon Bank to the entrance of Howe Sound) has also contributed a large proportion of the total landings (Figure 16-13). Since 1990, however, the largest landings within Area 29 have consistently come from Sub-area 29-8 (Boundary Bay) (Figure 16-13). Description Location RAA LAA LAA RAA RAA LAA Information Source 1 TDR: Hemmera and Archipelago 2014 TDR: Hemmera and Archipelago 2014 See EIS Section 12 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014e TDR: Hemmera 2014e TDR: Hemmera 2014e Note: 1. For TDR references listed in the Information Source column, a standardised list is provided at the end of this Appendix for all valued components. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-7

103 Appendix IR9-A Table IR9-6 Summary of Existing Condition Characterisations for Marine Fish Populations Found In or Migrating Through the Local and Regional Assessment Areas EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Description Location Information Source Roberts Bank supports multiple life stages of marine fish, several of which are important to commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries either directly or indirectly through food web interactions. LAA TDRs: Hemmera 2014c, Archipelago Marine Research 2014a, b, c, d and e 13-5 A large number of marine fish species are known to occur at Roberts Bank (i.e., approximately 76 to 94 species) (Naito 2004, Archipelago 2014a, b, c, d, e, f). LAA TDRs: Hemmera 2014c, Archipelago Marine Research 2014a, b, c, d and e See EIS Section 13 Reference List More than 50% of all B.C. salmon production occurs in the Fraser River and its tributaries (Henderson and Graham 1998). RAA See EIS Section 13 Reference List Salmon rearing habitats in the Fraser River estuary include marshes, tidal channels, and sloughs of the inner estuary (Dunford 1975, Levy et al. 1979, Anderson et al. 1981a, b, c, Levy and Northcote 1981, 1982), and tidal flats and salt marsh comprising Sturgeon and Roberts banks (Levings 1982, 1985, Levings et al. 1983, MacDonald 1984). RAA See EIS Section 13 Reference List Chinook use Roberts Bank from March to August, chum are present from March to early July, and other salmon species occur for relatively shorter time periods (Levings et al. 1983, Levings 1985). LAA See EIS Section 13 Reference List During the 2012 and 2013 field sampling program conducted at Roberts Bank, juvenile salmon used intertidal and subtidal habitats during outmigration in spring and summer, but were absent in fall and winter. LAA TDR: Archipelago Marine Research 2014a to EIS Section: Existing Conditions, Pacific Salmon, Roberts Bank Habitat Use. LAA TDR: Archipelago Marine Research 2014a See EIS Section 13 Reference List to EIS Section: Chum Salmon, Life History Requirements Roberts Bank Habitat Use, Status and Limiting Factors. LAA TDR: Archipelago Marine Research 2014a See EIS Section 13 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-8

104 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Description Location Information Source to EIS Section: Chinook Salmon, Life History Requirements, Roberts Bank Habitat Use, Status and Limiting Factors. LAA TDR: Archipelago Marine Research 2014a See EIS Section 13 Reference List to EIS Section: Reef Fish-Rockfish, Lingcod - Life History Requirements, Roberts Bank Habitat Use, Status and Limiting Factors. LAA TDR: Archipelago Marine Research 2014c See EIS Section 13 Reference List to EIS Section: Forage Fish, Pacific Sand Lance, Surf Smelt, Pacific Herring, Shiner Perch - Life History Requirements, Roberts Bank Habitat Use, Status and Limiting Factors. LAA TDR: Archipelago Marine Research 2014d EIS Appendix 12-A See EIS Section 13 Reference List to EIS Section: Flatfish, English Sole, Starry Flounder - Life History Requirements, Roberts Bank Habitat Use, Status and Limiting Factors. LAA TDRs: Hemmera 2014c and Archipelago Marine Research 2014b See EIS Section 13 Reference List to EIS Section: Demersal Fish, Threespine Stickleback, Pacific Staghorn Sculpin - Life History Requirements, Roberts Bank Habitat Use, Status and Limiting Factors. LAA Archipelago Marine Research 2014e See EIS Section 13 Reference List The long-term (1975 to 2013) mean escapement for Fraser Chinook is 231,716 fish (approximately 2,780 tonnes (t)) (Pacific Salmon Commission 2014), with many Chinook populations in southern B.C. showing decreases in spawning abundance, especially over the last 15 years (Riddell et al. 2013). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Fraser late Harrison River stocks are the only ones for which escapement targets (i.e., LRP) are set, with goals of 75,100 to 98,500 fish (approximately 901 t to 1,182 t); while this stock s long-term (1975 to 2013) mean escapement is above target, at 102,446 fish (approximately 1,229 t), 2013 escapements were below target, and estimated at 42,953 fish (Pacific Salmon Commission 2014). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-9

105 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Description Location Information Source As with Chinook, the Fraser River is home to the largest run of chum salmon in B.C. Fraser River chum are fall-run stocks that migrate from September to December (Grant and Pestal 2009). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List The escapement objective or LRP for Fraser River chum is 800,000 fish or 4,000 t (DFO 2014a); the fishery appears to be meeting this objective, with a long-term (1996 to 2012) mean escapement of 1.6 million fish (7,829 t) and a peak escapement of 3.4 million fish in 1998 (Grant and Pestal 2009). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Recent commercial catches of chum in Area 29 are presented in Figure 16-10, and range from a low of 6 t in 1996 to a peak of 558 t in 2006 (DFO 2013g). LAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Despite these strong management efforts, rockfish stocks in the Strait of Georgia are still considered to be depressed, and catch limits remain low; for example, for the 2014 fishing season, DFO has set a TAC of 7 t for yelloweye rockfish and 26 t for the inshore aggregate in Groundfish Management Area 4B (DFO 2014b). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Strait of Georgia herring, a major stock in B.C., migrate into the Strait in late fall and leave after spawning in March. Limited areas in the Strait, however, also contain what are thought to be resident herring throughout the summer (DFO 2005c). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Catches in the Strait of Georgia over the last seven years have fluctuated, but generally show an increasing trend (Figure 16-11). The 2013 catch in the winter seine fishery was 4,530 t, in the seine roe fishery was 6,099 t, and in the gillnet roe fishery was 5,937 t, where the TAC allocated for the year was 22,470 t (DFO 2014c). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Currently, only offshore lingcod stocks are commercially fished; inshore populations in the Strait of Georgia have been severely depressed for several decades and the commercial fishery has been closed since 1990 (DFO 2005b). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List (Surf smelt) The fishery is centralised in the Lower Mainland region, especially within and around Burrard Inlet, and is considered modest; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that surf smelt populations in Burrard Inlet are declining (DFO 2012a). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-10

106 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Description Location Information Source Although surf smelt fisheries are primarily centred in Burrard Inlet, some commercial and recreational harvesting occurs in PFMA 29 (i.e., Fraser River estuary, including Roberts Bank) where landings have declined steadily since the early 1980s (Therriault et al. 2002). LAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List No surf smelt catch has been reported from the Fraser River estuary since 1998 (Therriault et al. 2002). No formal stock assessments have been conducted and it is unclear how many stocks actually exist in B.C. (DFO 2012a). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List All portions of the Strait of Georgia are considered to be overfished (DFO 2005b), and modelling has indicated that at its lowest, biomass had been reduced by over 95% from historic levels (Martell and Wallace 1998); however, numbers are thought to be slowly trending upwards; results from the most recent (2005) stock assessment suggested that biomass had climbed to approximately 16% of historic levels (Logan et al. 2005). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List The southeast quadrant of the Strait, which includes the Fraser River estuary, is an exception to this positive trend and is still considered deeply depleted; as of 2005 it was estimated that biomass remained at less than 1% of historic levels (Logan et al. 2005). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List All five Pacific salmon species are targeted in recreational fisheries in the Strait of Georgia, which is evidenced by the fact that in 2010 salmon comprised 74.6% of the overall recreational catch (Zetterberg et al. 2012). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List In the Strait of Georgia recreational fishery, the five-year average (2005 to 2009) of Chinook retention was estimated at 27,619 pieces, fluctuating between a low of 17,936 pieces in 2008 to a high of 37,460 pieces in 2009 Figure (Zetterberg et al. 2012). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List In the Strait of Georgia recreational fishery, the five-year average (2005 to 2009) of chum retention was estimated at 1,642 pieces; retention in 2010 was well below this average, at 145 pieces (Figure 16-15) (Zetterberg et al. 2012). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List The Strait of Georgia recreational lingcod fishery was closed in 2002 (DFO 2013e), due to decades of severely depressed lingcod populations (DFO 2005b). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Similar to lingcod, PFMAs 28 and 29 are closed to recreational fishing for rockfish, including catch-and-release fishing (DFO 2013e). LAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-11

107 Appendix IR9-A EIS Page # Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Description Location Information Source (Surf smelt) Therriault et al. (2002) offered a working estimate of 13.2 t as the recreational harvest in Burrard Inlet (though this figure is subject to numerous assumptions and limitations). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Areas northeast of the LAA, specifically Canoe Passage and other areas within the South Arm of the Fraser River, have been identified as specifically important for harvesting salmon, groundfish, and forage fish. RAA See EIS Section Musqueam currently target rockfish in the RAA, but report that there are DFO restrictions in place, while halibut can no longer be found easily (Musqueam First Nation 2013). Musqueam have expressed a desire to resume the harvest of dogfish in the offshore portion of the Musqueam Study Area (i.e., to the west of the Marine Fish LAA) (Woolman 2014). Other Aboriginal groups do not report the harvest of groundfish from the LAA or RAA. RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List In the Strait of Georgia (including the Fraser River estuary and Roberts Bank) rockfish abundance has declined since the mid-1980s, which is primarily attributed to overfishing (Yamanaka and Lacko 2001, Yamanaka et al. 2012). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List While Tsawwassen First Nation has historically harvested groundfish species within the LAA, between 2009 and 2012 no licences were requested by Tsawwassen First Nation and no FSC harvest of these species occurred (LGL Limited and Tsawwassen Fisheries Department 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). LAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Herring is not currently harvested in the LAA or RAA by Tsawwassen First Nation; however, herring spawn has been observed locally on crab traps (Tsawwassen First Nation Fishers 2013). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Within the RAA, Members of Musqueam First Nation currently harvest herring in the Canoe Passage area and on the north side of the South Arm of the Fraser River (Woolman 2014); however, no FSC catch data were available to support this assessment. RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List As of 2011, DFO was not aware of any Aboriginal group surf smelt fishing activity in the Lower Mainland region or the coast-wide fishing area (DFO 2012a). RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Musqueam First Nation also harvests Dungeness crab by trap in Boundary Bay and from the U.S.A. border up through Steveston, including the area between the B.C. Ferries and Roberts Bank terminals (Woolman 2014); no catch data could be sourced to further support this assessment. RAA See EIS Section 16 Reference List Note: 1. For TDR references listed in the Information Source column, a standardised list is provided at the end of this Appendix for all valued components. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-12

108 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A 1 Table IR9-7 Summary of Existing Condition Descriptions for Migratory and Non-migratory Birds Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x 15-2 Both x x x Both x x Coastal birds play an important role in the ecology of the Fraser River estuary, of which Roberts Bank is a part. The Fraser River estuary is one of the most important ecosystems for overwintering and migrating birds in Canada, supporting large proportions of numerous species continental or global populations (BirdLife International et al. 2012). The Roberts Bank area is also recognised as an important location for coastal birds, supporting an abundance and diversity of species annually, including greater than one million western sandpipers (Calidris mauri), up to 20,000 Pacific dunlin (Calidris alpina ssp. pacifica), tens of thousands of waterfowl, and a high diversity and abundance of raptors (Butler and Vermeer 1994, Fernández et al. 2010, Environment Canada 2013, Drever et al. 2014, Hemmera 2014a, b). An estimated 1.4 million birds representing more than 250 species, including waterfowl, shorebirds, seabirds, great blue herons, songbirds, and raptors, use Roberts Bank and the Fraser River estuary annually (Butler and Campbell 1987, Toochin 1994, Mol 2002, B.C. Waterfowl Society 2013, Hemmera 2014b) (Figure 15-4). See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDRs: Ydenberg 2014, and Hemmera 2014g, h, i, j, k, and o See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-13

109 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x Both x x Migratory x The abundance of birds from each sub-component of this VC varies throughout the year. Many of the bird groups are most abundant either during northward (April to May) and southward (September to November) migratory periods or during winter (November to March). For most groups, summer (June to August) represents a time of lowest use of the area. Exceptions are herons, passerines, and gulls and terns, which are common in the summer. For example, bird use of the LAA prior to, during, and after the construction of DP3, from 2007 to 2009, did not appear to have an adverse effect on coastal bird abundance or habitat within the LAA (Hemmera et al to 2013), as diversity and abundance estimates documented from 2003 to 2013 were consistent with previous studies conducted in the Fraser River estuary (Butler 1992, Butler and Vermeer 1994, Badzinski et al. 2008). Shorebirds are the most abundant group of birds in the Fraser River estuary (Butler and Cannings 1989, Butler and Vermeer 1994, Vermeer et al. 1994, Hemmera 2014c), with over one million birds documented in the LAA in a single day (Drever et al 2014). TDR: Hemmera 2014i TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-14

110 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x x x The abundance of shorebirds has led the estuary to be designated a site of hemispheric importance (WHSRN 2005). Large portions of western sandpiper and Pacific dunlin (ssp. pacifica) populations stop in the Fraser River estuary during migrations to replenish energy and fat reserves. The Fraser River estuary is one of the five most heavily used stopover sites on the western sandpiper s migration route along the Pacific coast (Butler et al. 1987, Iverson et al. 1996, Fernández et al. 2010), and supports greater numbers of dunlin during winter and migration than most, if not all sites, in western North America (Fernández et al. 2010). Thousands of black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola ssp. squatarola), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), and regular numbers of many other shorebird species also inhabit the Fraser River estuary during migratory periods (Butler and Vermeer 1994). During winter, the high numbers of dunlin in the Fraser River estuary constitute the largest wintering population of shorebirds in Canada (Butler and Vermeer 1994, Shepherd and Lank 2004). Documented nesting by shorebirds within the LAA is limited to black oystercatchers (Haematopus bachmani) nesting along the B.C. Ferries Terminal jetty. See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-15

111 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x Migratory x Migratory x x x x x The importance of the Fraser River estuary can be gauged by comparing local shorebird abundance records to overall population sizes. Estimated population sizes of western sandpiper and Pacific dunlin are 3.5 million and 550,000, respectively (Fernández et al. 2010, Andres et al. 2012). Overwintering numbers of dunlin (November to March) in the Fraser River estuary range from 25,000 to 70,000 individuals. From 1975 to 2010, the Fraser estuary annually supported an average of 20% of the total population (Hemmera 2014n). Over 500,000 western sandpiper and 150,000 dunlin have been observed in the Fraser River estuary on single days during the northward migration (Butler and Vermeer 1994, Hemmera 2014c), which represents important proportions of their total populations (Hemmera 2014n). Over the last 24 years, the median number of western sandpipers using the Brunswick Point area, just north of the Roberts Bank causeway, during northward migration averaged 600,000 birds per year, but ranged between approximately 300,000 to 1,800,000 (Drever et al. 2014). Peak single-day abundances ranged from 77,163 to 1,050,561 birds, with a median value of 149,581 birds (Drever et al. 2014). Analysis of survey data found no meaningful trend in the western sandpiper population during this period (Drever et al. 2014). TDR: Ydenberg 2014 See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDRs: Ydenberg 2014 and Hemmera 2014j See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-16

112 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x Migratory x x x x x Migratory x x x x Migratory x x x x Trends in the overall Pacific dunlin population have recently been investigated using Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data from overwintering sites on the Pacific Coast of North America (National Audubon Society 2014). Records since 1975 indicate an overall stable population with rising and falling numbers occurring in approximately 10-year cycles (Xu et al. 2014). A similar fluctuation has been documented for the population using the LAA during northward migration (Drever et al. 2014). Summaries of recent CBC data and other surveys in the Fraser River estuary recorded high abundances relative to other years, indicating that the population may be approaching a peak in its cycle (Butler and Vermeer 1994). The annual dunlin population using the Brunswick Point area during northward migration from 1991 to 2013 averaged approximately 200,000 birds, but ranged between 58,000 to 374,000 (Drever et al. 2014). Southward migration of western sandpiper (July to September) from breeding sites in Alaska is relatively protracted and mostly trans-oceanic, while the northward spring migration (mid-april to early May) is more condensed and follows a coastal route (Butler and Campbell 1987, Warnock and Gill 1996). Consequently, higher densities of shorebirds occur in the Fraser River estuary during the northward migration. EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014j Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-17

113 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x Migratory x x x x x Migratory x x x x Migratory x Based on dropping density and shorebird surveys, the highest shorebird concentrations in the Fraser River estuary occur at Roberts Bank between Roberts Bank terminals and Brunswick Point (i.e., within the LAA) (Hemmera 2014c). After early May and until the onset of the southward migration, few shorebirds are present in the estuary. During southward migration, western sandpiper foraging use and daily abundances are a fraction of that occurring during northward migration. During this time, sandpiper usage is divided more evenly across Sturgeon Bank, Roberts Bank, and Boundary Bay, but with consistently highest concentrations around Brunswick Point and Canoe Passage (Hemmera 2014c). During winter (November to March), dunlin are most abundant at Boundary Bay, followed by Roberts Bank, and only a small proportion of shorebirds use Sturgeon Bank (Hemmera 2014g, o). During this time, sandpiper usage is divided more evenly across Sturgeon Bank, Roberts Bank, and Boundary Bay, but with consistently highest concentrations around Brunswick Point and Canoe Passage (Hemmera 2014c). TDR: Hemmera 2014j EIS Appendix 15-B TDR: Hemmera 2014j EIS Appendix 15-B TDRs: Hemmera 2014h and j TDR: Hemmera 2014j Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-18

114 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x Migratory x Migratory x Migratory x x Recent research on the capacity of biofilm to support northward-migrating shorebirds indicates there is an abundance of biofilm within the LAA. Model results indicate that biofilm within the LAA can support upwards of 1.3 million birds on a single day before becoming limiting (Appendix 15- B), which is approximately 7 times more shorebirds (i.e., western sandpiper and dunlin) than the single day peak abundance (i.e., 177,000 birds) typically documented over the last 24 years of annual surveys (Drever et al. 2014). Additionally, dunlin in the LAA and Fraser River estuary also obtain more than one-third of their diet (adults: 35%; juveniles 43%) from agricultural habitat adjacent to intertidal areas (Evans-Ogden et al. 2005). In intertidal habitat, dunlin tend to forage in relatively concentrated flocks close to the tide line, whereas western sandpipers tend to be more evenly dispersed across mid and upper intertidal mudflats (Senner et al. 1989, field observations) (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E2). Birds from western North America tended to migrate during the middle of the northward migration (April 24 to 30), while a large proportion of later migrants (May 1 to 6) was of birds from the Gulf of California in western Mexico and the Atlantic coast. Site use by birds of different winter origin did not differ greatly among Roberts Bank, Sturgeon Bank, and Boundary Bay. EIS Appendix15-B TDR: WorleyParsons 2015 See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E TDRs: Hemmera 2014i and j See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014p Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-19

115 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x Both x x x x Migratory x x x The Fraser River estuary supports globally or continentally important populations of six waterfowl species, five of which occur regularly on Roberts Bank: American wigeon, northern pintail (Anas acuta), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), brant, and snow goose (Chen caerulescens) (IBA Canada 2014). The area annually supports 80,000 to 100,000 ducks (Hirst and Easthope 1981). In fall and winter at Roberts Bank, large flocks (greater than 10,000) of wigeon, green-winged teal (Anas crecca), mallard, and northern pintail roost along channels in Brunswick Marsh and feed just beyond the tide line (Hemmera 2014b). During the 2012 to 2013 study in the LAA, these species comprised 70% of all waterfowl observations (Hemmera 2014b). Trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) also occur within the LAA, typically close to Brunswick Marsh, but at much lower numbers. Trumpeter swans were documented 4 times in the LAA during weekly surveys conducted from May 2012 to May 2013, and averaged 21 birds per detection (Hemmera 2014b). Tundra swans also occur in the Fraser River estuary and LAA, but are much less abundant than trumpeter swans (Butler and Vermeer 1994, Hemmera 2014b). See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-20

116 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x x Both x x x x Migratory x x x x Waterfowl are most abundant in the LAA during fall migration and winter (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b), with densities estimated as high as 990 birds per 25 ha north of the Roberts Bank causeway between September 2012 and April 2013 (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E3). Waterfowl density within the LAA throughout the year (May 2012 to May 2013) appears highest near the Brunswick dyke and directly north of the Roberts Bank causeway (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E4). Data from CBC surveys indicate that waterfowl numbers within the LAA and adjacent areas have not changed appreciably over the last 40 years (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E5) (National Audubon Society 2014). In the Fraser River estuary, many dabbling duck species spend the entire winter in agricultural fields and marshes, with large concentrations at Westham Island and Roberts Bank (Butler and Campbell 1987, Campbell et al. 1990a, Badzinski et al. 2008). EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-21

117 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x Both x x In the LAA, peak numbers during 2007 to 2008 and 2012 to 2013 ranged from 3,600 to 15,000 American wigeon, 4,700 to 6,100 green-winged teal, 1,000 to 2,400 mallards, and 1,200 to 1,300 northern pintail, representing a substantial proportion of the Fraser River estuary population (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b). During 2012 to 2013 surveys within the LAA, dabbling ducks were concentrated within 500 m of the shoreline, and primarily used intertidal marsh, Ulva, and biomat habitats along the Brunswick dyke and north of the Roberts Bank causeway. Deeper waters along Westshore Terminals received relatively little use by dabblers (Hemmera 2014b). American wigeon, mallard, and northern pintail are considered to have stable populations (i.e., no statistically significant trend) within the Strait of Georgia based on B.C. Coastal Waterbird Survey (BCCWS) data collected from 1999 to 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012), and CBC data for American wigeon do not indicate a change in abundance in the LAA and the vicinity of the Project over a 40-year period (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E6) (National Audubon Society 2014). A statistically significant declining trend (7.9% per year) was reported for greenwinged teal from 1999 to 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012). Mallard ducks are mentioned in various Aboriginal traditional knowledge studies as the most common waterfowl species found and harvested in the foreshore area of Roberts Bank (Chuuchkamalthnii 2014, Lyackson First Nation 2014, Tsawwassen First Nation Hunters 2014b). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-22

118 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x Migratory x x x x x At least one Elder commented that mallard populations appear to have decreased (Chuuchkamalthnii 2014), which differs from annual survey data collected over the last 40 years within the LAA and Boundary Bay that indicate stable populations (National Audubon Society 2014). Peak abundance of American wigeon in the LAA was observed from September to November primarily between the Brunswick dyke and the Roberts Bank causeway (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E7) (Hemmera 2014b). See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-23

119 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x x x Migratory x x Several hundred to several thousand brant typically winter in the eelgrass beds (generally beds with greater than 30% cover) of the intercauseway area, while smaller numbers occur north of the Roberts Bank causeway (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E8) (Butler and Cannings 1989, Hemmera et al. 2009, Hemmera 2014b). Peak numbers of brant in the Fraser River estuary occur in April during the northward migration (Moore et al. 2004, Hemmera 2009a, 2014b). Based on CBC data for the last 40 years, the brant population overwintering within the LAA and Boundary Bay has been steadily increasing since the mid-1980s when they were virtually absent (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E9) (National Audubon Society 2014). This is in contrast to at least one Aboriginal interviewee that felt brant numbers were decreasing (Woolman 2014). Also, brant seem to be relatively well adapted to the presence of the Deltaport and Westshore terminals as they did not appear to have been affected by recent activities associated with DP3 construction or operation (Hemmera et al. 2012). Snow geese arrive in the Fraser River estuary in mid-september or early October from their Wrangel Island breeding grounds (Campbell et al. 1990a). EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-24

120 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x Migratory x x x x Both x x x Both x x Both x x Numbers of wintering snow geese vary widely between years, but 60,000 to 100,000 generally occur. In the LAA, snow goose numbers peaked in mid-november with 7,500 to 8,800 birds observed (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b). Within the LAA, the highest densities of snow geese were along the Roberts Bank causeway in intertidal marsh, Ulva, and biofilm habitats (Hemmera 2014b). Unlike snow geese, Canada geese are present in the estuary year-round, with highest numbers during late summer (Butler and Vermeer 1994). Canada geese populations have been apparently increasing in the region over the last 25 years, with BCCWS reporting a statistically significant increasing trend of 3.8% per year from 1999 to 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012). The highest densities of Canada Geese have been reported along Sturgeon Bank and off Brunswick Point (Butler and Vermeer 1994), reflecting the species preference for eating bulrush rhizomes and sedges associated with brackish tidal marsh. Some of the highest densities [Canada goose] (50 birds per km) however were associated with intertidal marsh habitat within 500 m of the Brunswick dyke. TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-25

121 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x Both x The five heron species documented within the RAA are great blue heron, green heron (Butorides virescens), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), great egret (Ardea alba), and American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) (Mol 2002, ebird 2012). Generally, heron numbers reported in CBC data decreased across the Strait of Georgia between 1973 and 2012, although no trend was apparent at the Roberts Bank-Boundary Bay CBC location (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E10) (National Audubon Society 2014). See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List Nonmigratory x x Great blue heron is by far the most common heron species, occurring within the Fraser River estuary, and good historical data on distribution and abundance exist (Badzinski et al. 2008, Butler and Campbell 1987). See EIS Section 15 Reference List Both x x x Black-crowned night-herons are unlikely to occur at Roberts Bank as they occur in only one or two sites, and great egrets occur rarely. Green herons and American bitterns are considered to be uncommon; however, at least one pair of each species has been documented using Brunswick Marsh in recent years (ebird 2012, Hemmera unpublished data) and likely nest within Brunswick Marsh. See EIS Section 15 Reference List Unpublished data Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-26

122 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Nonmigratory x Great blue heron was commonly observed along the Brunswick dyke and north of the Roberts Bank causeway, with the highest numbers in ephemeral Ulva, native eelgrass (greater than 30% cover), and mud habitats greater than 250 m from the causeway (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E11). EIS Appendix 15-E Nonmigratory x x x x Several heron colonies are present within the RAA, but the largest, of approximately 300 pairs, is located at the base of the B.C. Ferries Terminal causeway in Tsawwassen, approximately 3 km southeast of Roberts Bank terminals. Surveys conducted at Roberts Bank show peak heron counts of 250 to 300 birds foraging at low tide during May and June (Hemmera 2009a). See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-27

123 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Nonmigratory x x x x From 1997 to 1999, the B.C. coastal great blue heron population was estimated to number between approximately 1,537 to 1,663 breeding pairs (Butler 1997, Gebauer and Moul 2001). According to Bower (2009), numbers declined by 9.4% between 1969 and 2000, and some populations have disappeared from the Sunshine Coast. Although not providing population estimates, based on annual winter survey data, Badzinski et al. (2008) found evidence for a population increase from 1999 to 2004, while Crewe et al. (2012) documented a significant declining trend (3% per year) from 1999 to 2011 within the Strait of Georgia. Data from CBC surveys between 1973 and 2012 for the Strait of Georgia also indicate a decrease, although no trend was apparent for the heron population using the LAA and Boundary Bay (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E12) (National Audubon Society 2014). EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List Nonmigratory x x Great blue heron use of the inter-causeway area within the LAA was monitored from 2008 to 2012 out of concern that construction and operation of DP3 would affect heron use of the area (Hemmera et al. 2013). Results indicated that overall abundance and habitat use within the intercauseway area by herons were similar to preconstruction surveys conducted from 2003 to 2004 indicating little effect. See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-28

124 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x Migratory x x x x Migratory x x x x Migratory x x x x Migratory x x x x During migration and winter, the Fraser River estuary is home to up to 15 diving duck species, five species of grebe, three species of cormorant, four species of loon, and several species of pelagic seabirds (Butler and Cannings 1989, The B.C. Waterfowl Society 2013). Diving waterbird abundance in the LAA is highest in spring and lowest in summer (Hemmera 2014b), with the subtidal waters within 1 km of the Roberts Bank terminals receiving the highest use (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E13) (Hemmera 2014b). According to CBC data, the abundance of diving waterbirds over the last 40 years in the Strait of Georgia and on the Roberts Bank/Boundary Bay count has declined (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15- E14) (National Audubon Society 2014). Three loon species (i.e., common (Gavia immer), Pacific (G. pacifica), and red-throated (G. stellata)), occur within the LAA. Common loon is the most abundant of the three, with peak numbers of 25 to 40 documented on surveys within 1 km north and west of Roberts Bank terminals (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b). The CBC data from the past 40 years suggest a steady decline in numbers of common loons wintering in B.C (National Audubon Society 2014), as does BCCWS data between 1999 and 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012). See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-29

125 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Nonmigratory x x x x Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), the most abundant cormorant species within the LAA, is strictly a coastal species and is present yearround (Ainley et al. 1981, Michalak 2004, Hemmera 2014b). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Both x x x In 2012 and 2013 surveys, pelagic cormorant accounted for 83% of cormorant observations year-round, and peak numbers of 25 to 40 birds were documented between April and September (Hemmera 2014b). The highest densities were near the active breeding colony on the coal loading jetty at the tip of the Westshore Terminals where 11 nests were observed in late June 2012 (Hemmera 2014b). TDR: Hemmera 2014i Nonmigratory x x x x In 2012 and 2013 surveys, pelagic cormorant accounted for 83% of cormorant observations year-round, and peak numbers of 25 to 40 birds were documented between April and September (Hemmera 2014b). The highest densities were near the active breeding colony on the coal loading jetty at the tip of the Westshore Terminals where 11 nests were observed in late June 2012 (Hemmera 2014b). The CBC data suggest a downward population trend in B.C. during the 1980s and early 1990s followed by stabilisation over the past 20 years, which is consistent with BCCWS data from 1999 to 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012, National Audubon Society 2014). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-30

126 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x Migratory x x Migratory x x x x x Grebes occur in the Fraser River estuary during migration and winter. Five species have been documented within the LAA; however, numbers are dominated by western grebe, horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), and eared grebes (P. nigricollis), with western grebe being the most numerous. In winter, grebes feed primarily on fish, but will also eat crustaceans, polychaetes, and other invertebrates (Stout and Nuechterlein 1999, Stedman 2000, Storer and Nuechterlein 2013). Five species have been documented within the LAA; however, numbers are dominated by western grebe, horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), and eared grebes (P. nigricollis), with western grebe being the most numerous. Western grebes are present from August to May with numbers peaking estuary-wide and at Roberts Bank during spring and fall migration (Butler and Vermeer 1994, Michalak 2004, Hemmera 2009a). Peak numbers of western grebes in the LAA were 610 birds in October 2007 and 140 in April 2013 (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-31

127 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x The centre of western grebe abundance in the LAA occurred between 500 to 1,000 m west of Westshore Terminals, where they were observed resting and foraging in a mix of sparse and dense sea pen, sand, and native eelgrass (greater than 30% cover) habitats (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15- E15) (Hemmera 2014b). Ephemeral Ulva, native eelgrass (greater than 30% cover), recurring Ulva, and native eelgrass (5% to 30% cover) habitats north of the Roberts Bank causeway were also used. EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-32

128 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x x Migratory x x Historically, western grebe was far more abundant in the Fraser River estuary and occurred in globally significant numbers. The CBC data indicate declines of 90 to 95% from 1970 to 2000 across B.C. (Badzinski et al. 2008). This decline is also evident for count locations closer to Project area within the Strait of Georgia over the last 40 years (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E16) (National Audubon Society 2014). The BCCWS survey results show a 16% mean annual decline in western grebes from 1999 to 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012). Recent research links declines in the grebe population to declines in forage fish such as sand lance (family Ammodytidae), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), and Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) in the Salish Sea (Wagner 2014). While the Salish Sea wintering population has decreased, smaller populations of western grebes in southern areas have increased by 300% during the same period and may be the result of a shift in grebe overwintering distribution. It has been theorised that declines such as those documented for western grebe are related to the specialisation of a species diet, with species with broader diets being less susceptible to changes in particular prey than species possessing narrower diets (Wagner 2014). PMV constructed eight subtidal reefs west of the Westshore Terminals as habitat compensation for the DP3 expansion Surveys conducted from 2012 to 2013 showed some of the highest diving bird densities vicinity of the reefs. EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-33

129 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x x x Migratory x x Seaducks primarily occur within the LAA from fall through spring and largely feed on marine invertebrates such as mollusks and crustaceans. Surf scoter occur throughout the Fraser River estuary from September to May, with highest densities during April on Sturgeon Bank (Butler and Vermeer 1994). Depending on the year, the Fraser River estuary provides fall and winter habitat for 1,000 to 28,000 surf scoters (IBA Canada 2012). The estuary is also a major moulting area for surf scoters from July to September, when up to 10,000 scoters are present in large flocks over shallow water (Tschaekofske 2010, Palm et al. 2012, J.R. Evenson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data). While in the estuary, surf scoters feed primarily on bivalves (Tschaekofske 2010). Within the LAA, surf scoter was the most abundant diving waterbird accounting for 37% of all diving waterbird observations (Hemmera 2014b). Highest densities [of surf scoter] were observed in deeper waters south and southwest of Westshore Terminals, particularly within 500 m, where sandy substrate, kelp, and sparse sea pen habitats are prevalent (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E17). Peak surf scoter abundance (i.e., 534 birds) in the LAA was documented in May 2013 north and west of Roberts Bank causeway (Hemmera 2014b). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Unpublished data EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-34

130 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x x Migratory x x Migratory x x x x Migratory x x x x Over the past 40 years, CBC data indicate a decline in surf scoter numbers at several locations within the Strait of Georgia, including the Roberts Bank-Boundary Bay count (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E18) (National Audubon Society 2014). White-winged scoter (Melanitta fusca) and black scoter (M. americana) also occur in the LAA, but in much lower numbers (Hemmera et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, Hemmera 2009a, 2014b). Greater scaup (Aythya marila) occur in the LAA from fall through spring. Highest densities occur in the inter-causeway area (n = 500 birds) (Hemmera et al. 2009). High counts of 120 to 150 individuals have been documented north and west of the Roberts Bank causeway between March and May (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b) Lesser scaup (A. affinis) also occurs in the LAA, but in much lower numbers. Wintering long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) occur within the LAA in much lower numbers than scoters (peak abundance 29 birds in December 2007). Long-tailed duck is the deepest diving coastal bird occurring in the LAA, reaching depths of 20 m to 60 m CD while foraging. EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-35

131 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x Migratory x Both x x x x Both x x Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) occurs in small flocks in the Fraser River estuary from fall through spring, feeding mostly on crustaceans and molluscs in relatively shallow (usually less than 3 m) protected marine waters and inland freshwater habitats (Gauthier 1993, Butler and Vermeer 1994, Hemmera 2009a). Alcids (family Alcidae) such as auks, auklets, and murres occur in very low numbers in the LAA. The Fraser River estuary is recognised as a regionally important ecosystem for resident, migratory, and overwintering raptor species (i.e., hawks and owls) (Butler and Campbell 1987). Twenty-six raptor species have been documented in the RAA, of which 14 species have been recorded in the LAA (Mol 2002, ebird 2012) raptors observed in the LAA were seen standing on the mudflat, perched in live trees or on poles, or hunting within intertidal and agricultural field habitats. Agricultural habitats along the Brunswick dyke had the highest recorded detection frequency (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E19). Data from the CBC for the area encompassing the LAA and Boundary Bay and the broader Strait of Georgia indicate an increase in overwintering raptor abundance (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E20) (National Audubon Society 2014). Twenty-six raptor species have been documented in the RAA, of which 14 species have been recorded in the LAA (Mol 2002, ebird 2012). See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i EIS Appendix 15-E TDRs: Hemmera 2014g and i See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-36

132 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x Both x Migratory x x x x Migratory x x x x Agricultural habitats along the Brunswick dyke had the highest recorded detection frequency (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E19). Data from the CBC for the area encompassing the LAA and Boundary Bay and the broader Strait of Georgia indicate an increase in overwintering raptor abundance (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E20) (National Audubon Society 2014). Other raptor species of conservation concern occur within the LAA but were not selected as subcomponents due to their low numbers (i.e., western-screech owl (Megascops kennicottii ssp. kennicottii), gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus), and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)). While peregrine falcons are present most of the year in the LAA, they have not been documented nesting within the assessment area since suitable nesting habitat is not available. Peregrine falcon are regularly observed hunting within the LAA during fall migration and winter, particularly north of the Roberts Bank causeway and along the Brunswick dyke. Highest numbers were observed over ephemeral Ulva, native eelgrass, ephemeral Ulva, non-native eelgrass, and intertidal marsh habitats within 250 m of shore, over biofilm and biomat habitats, and in agricultural fields behind Brunswick dyke (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E21). Peregrine falcon are regularly observed hunting within the LAA during fall migration and winter, particularly north of the Roberts Bank causeway and along the Brunswick dyke. EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDRs: Hemmera 2014g and i EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i and m TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-37

133 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x Migratory x x x Highest numbers [peregrine falcon] were observed over ephemeral Ulva, native eelgrass, ephemeral Ulva, non-native eelgrass, and intertidal marsh habitats within 250 m of shore, over biofilm and biomat habitats, and in agricultural fields behind Brunswick dyke (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E21). The BCCWS did not detect a change in peregrine falcon populations in the Strait of Georgia between 1999 and 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012), but CBC data detected a small decrease between 1959 and 1988 across the province (Sauer et al. 1996). Data from the Roberts Bank-Boundary Bay count and seven count locations within the Strait of Georgia indicate a significant increase between 1973 and 2012 (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E22). The number of peregrine falcons observed on the Ladner count (encompassing the LAA and Boundary Bay) have increased from an average of five between 1983 and 1987 to 21 between 2008 and 2012 (National Audubon Society 2014). Tsawwassen First Nation residents note an increased presence of peregrine falcons (Tsawwassen First Nation 2012). Surveys at Roberts Bank indicate that peregrine falcon is an uncommon but regular occurrence, accounting for 4 to 7% of raptors observed (Hemmera 2009a, 2014e; Hemmera et al. 2009). EIS Appendix 15-E EIS Appendix 15-E TDRs: Hemmera 2014g and i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-38

134 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Nonmigratory x x Barn owls are at their northernmost extent of their North American range in the Lower Mainland where they are limited to agricultural areas such as in southwest Delta, which has some of the highest barn owl densities in Canada (Campbell et al. 1990). See EIS Section 15 Reference List Migratory x (Peregrine) Falcons were observed perching on transmission line poles, where resting, hunting, feeding, and preening behaviours were documented (Hemmera 2014j). TDR: Hemmera 2014i Nonmigratory x Barn owls are at their northernmost extent of their North American range in the Lower Mainland where they are limited to agricultural areas such as in southwest Delta, which has some of the highest barn owl densities in Canada (Campbell et al. 1990). See EIS Section 15 Reference List Nonmigratory x They [barn owls] often hunt from perches such as fence posts, and fly low (less than 4 m) over suitable habitat adjacent to roads while hunting (Andrusiak 1994, Taylor 1994, Ramsden 2003, Preston and Powers 2006). See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-39

135 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Nonmigratory x x Barn owls have been documented in the LAA, but in low numbers. During roadside surveys conducted in the RAA in 2012 and 2013, approximately 4% (i.e., 4 of 101) of observations occurred within the LAA (Hemmera 2014k). Six barn owl carcasses were documented in the RAA during the same period, one of which was located in the LAA (Hemmera 2014k). An additional barn owl carcass was located on the Deltaport Way overpass located at the eastern end of the Roberts Bank causeway in November 2014, after the study had been completed. TDR: Hemmera 2014n Nonmigratory x Barn owls generally forage over open fields, grasslands, and agricultural areas where they prey almost exclusively on small mammals, particularly Townsend s vole (Microtus townsendii) (CDC 2014). Grassy verges adjacent to roads are also considered suitable. Approximately 818 ha has been rated as providing moderate to high-quality foraging habitat for barn owls in the RAA (Hemmera 2013b, 2014k), whereas approximately 4 ha has been rated moderate to high-quality near the east end of the Roberts Bank causeway associated with agricultural habitats adjacent to Deltaport Way (Hemmera 2013b, 2014k). TDR: Hemmera 2014n See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-40

136 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Nonmigratory x x x x The barn owl core breeding season typically occurs from April through August, but may extend longer depending on food availability and weather (S. Hindmarch, personal communication). Existing data from southwest Delta indicate that the barn owl population (based on breeding pairs) has been relatively stable from the 1990s to the present (Andrusiak 1994, Hindmarch 2010, Hemmera 2013b). Of the 69 barn owl nest or roost sites documented within the RAA, breeding has been documented at 22 of the sites (Hemmera 2013b, 2014k). TDR: Hemmera 2014iand n See EIS Section 15 Reference List Nonmigratory x x x x Existing data from southwest Delta indicate that the barn owl population (based on breeding pairs) has been relatively stable from the 1990s to the present (Andrusiak 1994, Hindmarch 2010, Hemmera 2013b). Of the 69 barn owl nest or roost sites documented within the RAA, breeding has been documented at 22 of the sites (Hemmera 2013b, 2014k). Barn owls are not known to nest or roost within the LAA; however, as of 2011, there were five active nests within 2.5 km of its border. Since that period three have been destroyed due to development. In 2014, one of the two remaining nest sites was inactive, with the closest active nest located approximately 2 km from the LAA border east of the Roberts Bank causeway (Hemmera 2015). TDR: Hemmera 2014n See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-41

137 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x Both x x x During the late 20 th century, bald eagle populations increased dramatically due to decreases in contamination and persecution (Buehler 2000, Elliott et al. 2011, Dekker et al. 2012). While the CBC noted a population increase of 4.5% in B.C. between 1959 and 1988 (Sauer et al. 1996), the BCCWS detected a declining trend (1.8% per year) in the Strait of Georgia between 1999 and 2011 (Crewe et al. 2012). Data for the Ladner CBC survey (encompassing the LAA and Boundary Bay) and seven other locations around the Strait of Georgia indicate an increase between 1973 and 2012 (Sauer et al. 1996, National Audubon Society 2014) (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E23). Five (bald eagle) nests have been identified within 1 km of the LAA by the Wildlife Tree Stewardship Program (WiTS), representing at least two eagle nesting territories (WiTS 2010). In 2014, one active bald eagle nest was documented approximately 2 km northwest of the Roberts Bank causeway near Brunswick Point marsh (WiTS 2014, Hemmera 2014m). Many eagles have been observed by TFN residents (Tsawwassen First Nation Hunters 2014b). EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-42

138 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x x Both x x Both x x x x Both x The resident south-coastal B.C. population is augmented in the late fall and early winter by the arrival of northern breeders (Blood and Anweiler 1994, Badzinski et al. 2008, Crewe et al. 2012), which together represent a substantial portion of the North American wintering population. In cold years, when more eagles migrate south from Alaska, the wintering population along the coast can reach approximately 56,000 (plus or minus 8,000) birds (Elliott et al. 2011). Within the Fraser estuary, wintering populations of approximately 2,500 eagles have been documented (Elliott et al. 2011). Bald eagle is the most common raptor at Roberts Bank, accounting for 45% to 69% of raptor observations (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b, Hemmera et al. 2009). Eagles were observed year-round within the LAA, with peak numbers occurring in May and June (Hemmera 2014b) (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15- E24). Eagles spent a considerable amount of time perched on transmission line poles and to a lesser extent light towers, where resting, hunting, feeding, and preening were observed (Hemmera 2014j). See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i TDR: Hemmera 2014o Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-43

139 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x x Both x x Both x x x Twenty-two gulls and tern species have been documented in the RAA (Mol 2002, ebird 2012), and 15 species have been recorded in the LAA (Hemmera 2009a, 2014b, Hemmera et al. 2009, 2010, ebird 2012). Gulls are present throughout the year, while terns are present between April and October (ebird 2012). The most common gull species in the LAA are glaucous-winged gull, mew gull (Larus canus), ring-billed gull (L. delawarensis), and California gull (L. californicus), while the most common tern species is Caspian tern (Hemmera 2009b, 2014b, ebird 2012). Within the LAA, gull and tern use of intertidal and subtidal habitats is most evident along Brunswick dyke (i.e., 250 to 1,000 m from shore), where swimming, feeding, and resting on the mudflat are the most common behaviours (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E25) (ECL Envirowest Consultants Limited 2004, Hemmera 2014b). Gulls and terns were also common north of the Roberts Bank causeway, but fewer observations are made in the inter-causeway area (ECL Envirowest Consultants Limited 2004, Hemmera 2014b). Gulls are present throughout the year, while terns are present between April and October (ebird 2012). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-44

140 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x Both x x x The CBC data from several counts around the Strait of Georgia indicate a decline in gull and tern abundance from 1973 to 2012 (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E26) (National Audubon Society 2014). A similar declining trend for the CBC survey encompassing the LAA and Boundary Bay was not documented (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E26). Gulls and terns cross the transmission line regularly, particularly at the terminal end, with lower crossing rates in November and December (Hemmera 2014j). EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014o Nonmigratory x x x x Within the LAA, gulls were opportunistic foragers throughout the year, following rising and lowering tide levels in search of prey along exposed mudflats (Hemmera 2009b). Counts of glaucouswinged gull in the Fraser River estuary from 2001 to 2011 ranged from 4,000 to 55,000 birds, which represent a globally important population (IBA Canada 2012). Densities are greatest during winter and spring migration, with peak densities occurring in February (Campbell et al. 1990, Butler and Vermeer 1994). See EIS Section 15 Reference List Both x x Both x x Counts of glaucous-winged gull in the Fraser River estuary from 2001 to 2011 ranged from 4,000 to 55,000 birds, which represent a globally important population (IBA Canada 2012). [Glaucous-winged gull] Densities are greatest during winter and spring migration, with peak densities occurring in February (Campbell et al. 1990, Butler and Vermeer 1994). See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-45

141 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x The BCCWS found that wintering populations of glaucous-winged gull have remained stable between 1999 and 2004 (Badzinski et al. 2008), but CBC data from seven areas around the Strait of Georgia indicate a statistically significant decline in abundance from 1973 to 2012 (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E27) (National Audubon Society 2014). No trend was detected for the CBC survey encompassing the LAA and Boundary Bay (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E27). EIS Appendix 15-E See EIS Section 15 Reference List Nonmigratory x (National Audubon Society 2014). No trend was detected for the CBC survey encompassing the LAA and Boundary Bay (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E27). EIS Appendix 15-E Both x x x Migratory x x x Glaucous-winged gulls occur throughout the LAA but are most abundant within 500 m of the shore, where swimming, perching, and nesting on manmade structures are the most common behaviours (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E28) (Hemmera 2014b). Glaucous-winged gulls cross the transmission line frequently. Between 1960 and 1980, the Pacific Coast population of Caspian terns increased from 3,500 to 6,000 breeding pairs during a northward expansion of breeding range (Gill and Mewaldt 1983). Since 1980, population size has more than doubled to nearly 13,000 pairs, and the range has continued to expand north and south (Suryan et al. 2004). EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-46

142 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x x x Migratory x x x x Migratory x x Caspian Tern was first confirmed nesting in B.C in June 1984, when a flightless young was observed at Roberts Bank (Campbell et al. 1990b); however, no nests or colony sites were located at that time. In 2012, the province s first breeding colony was documented on a warehouse roof in Richmond (Pynn 2012), which is located within the RAA and approximately 16 km from the LAA. The current breeding population in B.C. remains small but new sites are being established (Pearson and Healey 2012). Caspian tern is most commonly observed at Roberts Bank from May through September, when several hundred use the area for resting and foraging (ECL Envirowest Consultants Limited 2004, Hemmera 2009a, 2014b, Hemmera et al. 2009). Most observations are made from Brunswick dyke, where they are often observed resting in mixed flocks with gulls or hunting over open water (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E29) (ECL Envirowest Consultants Limited 2004, Hemmera 2014b). Caspian terns are frequently observed crossing the transmission line during the summer months (Hemmera 2014j). In 2012, the province s (Caspian tern) first breeding colony was documented on a warehouse roof in Richmond (Pynn 2012), which is located within the RAA and approximately 16 km from the LAA. The current breeding population in B.C. remains small but new sites are being established (Pearson and Healey 2012). See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-47

143 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x Both x x x x Both x Within the RAA, over 115 passerine species have been documented at the George C. Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary (The B.C. Waterfowl Society 2013). After a full year of monitoring coastal and marine habitats of the LAA, just 34 species of passerines were documented, most of which were strongly associated with Brunswick dyke and within 250 m of shore (Hemmera 2014b). Only four species (i.e., three swallows, and northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus)) were detected further from shore. Along the causeway, passerine numbers are dominated by two introduced species: European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and rock pigeon (Columba livia). After a full year of monitoring coastal and marine habitats of the LAA, just 34 species of passerines were documented, most of which were strongly associated with Brunswick dyke and within 250 m of shore (Hemmera 2014b). Only four species (i.e., three swallows, and northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus)) were detected further from shore. Along the causeway, passerine numbers are dominated by two introduced species: European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and rock pigeon (Columba livia). Tsawwassen First Nation residents specifically noted the presence of hummingbirds in the area (Tsawwassen First Nation Hunters 2014b). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List TDR: Hemmera 2014i TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-48

144 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Migratory x x Migratory x x x Migratory x x x x x Migratory x x x Passerine diversity was greatest during the breeding season and lowest during the post-breeding season. The barn swallow breeds in all Canadian provinces, but the population is estimated to have dropped 55% since the mid-90s (COSEWIC 2011). The cause of this population decline is believed to be a combination of habitat loss or degradation, pollution, climate change, altered or reduced flying insect populations, ecto-parasites, and competition with invasive species, especially house sparrows (Passer domesticus) (COSEWIC 2011). Barn swallows are only present in the Fraser River estuary during the breeding season. Barn swallows were the second most abundant passerine detected during surveys to document annual coastal bird distribution and abundance within the LAA (Hemmera 2014b) representing 28.4% of all passerine detections, and were detected at all but one survey station within 250 m from shore (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E30). Barn swallows were the second most abundant passerine detected during surveys to document annual coastal bird distribution and abundance within the LAA (Hemmera 2014b) representing 28.4% of all passerine detections, and were detected at all but one survey station within 250 m from shore (Appendix 15-E: Figure 15-E30). TDRs: Hemmera 2014i and m See EIS Section 15 Reference List EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i EIS Appendix 15-E TDR: Hemmera 2014i Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-49

145 Abundance Distribution Life Stages Seasonal Species Composition Year-round Migratory Bird Use Appendix IR9-A Description Category EIS Page # Migratory or Nonmigratory Bird Characterising Statement of Existing (Baseline) Conditions Information Source Both x x x x Most coastal bird species using the LAA do so during a portion of their annual cycle. Species abundance and diversity are greatest during migration and overwintering periods, and lowest during the summer months typically associated with the breeding season (R. W. Butler and Vermeer 1994, Hemmera et al. 2009, Hemmera 2014b). As a consequence, a limited number of species annually nest within the LAA (see Section 15.5). TDR: Hemmera 2014i See EIS Section 15 Reference List Note: 1. For TDR references listed in the Information Source column, a standardised list is provided at the end of this Appendix for all valued components. Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-50

146 Appendix IR9-A RBT2 Technical Data Reports Standardised Reference List to Support Tables IR9-5 to IR9-7 Archipelago Marine Research. 2014a. technical data report: Juvenile salmon surveys. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Archipelago Marine Research. 2014b. technical data report: Benthic fish trawl survey. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Archipelago Marine Research. 2014c. technical data report: Reef fish surveys. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Archipelago Marine Research. 2014d. technical data report: Forage fish beach spawn survey. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Archipelago Marine Research. 2014e. technical data report: Eelgrass fish community survey. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014a. technical data report: Marine vegetation: Intertidal marsh, foreshore habitat and invertebrate, eelgrass, Ulva, and biomat survey results. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014b. technical data report: Infaunal and epifaunal invertebrate communities. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014c. technical data report: Marine invertebrates, marine fish and fish habitat - Marine benthic subtidal study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014d. technical data report: Juvenile Dungeness crabs. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-51

147 Appendix IR9-A Hemmera. 2014e. technical data report: Dungeness crab productivity. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014g. technical data report: Wintering raptor study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014h. technical data report: Abundance and distribution of over-wintering shorebirds in the Fraser River estuary. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014i. technical data report: Coastal waterbird distribution and abundance study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014j. technical data report: Shorebird abundance and foraging use in the Fraser River estuary during migration. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014k. technical data report: Upland waterbirds study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014m. technical data report: Songbirds study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014n. technical data report: Barn owl habitat suitability, habitat use, site occupancy and collision study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014o. technical data report: Effects of overhead transmission lines and vehicular traffic on birds. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Hemmera. 2014p. technical data report: Migratory connectivity of western sandpipers using the Fraser River estuary. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-52

148 Appendix IR9-A Hemmera and Archipelago technical data report: Orange sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi). Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: WorleyParsons technical data report: Biofilm community at Roberts Bank - analyses to support hyperspectral mapping. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver. Available at: Ydenberg, R technical data report: Pacific dunlin regional distribution study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at: Response to Information Request #9 (IR ) Page 9-A-53

149 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #10 Mapping Rationale The EIS Guidelines (9.1.1) require habitat at regional and local scales to be defined in ecological mapping of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation types and species (e.g. ecological land classification mapping). Section also requires that, as a minimum, the EIS will include maps, at a suitable scale, indicating the surface area of potential or confirmed fish habitat for spawning, nursery, feeding, overwintering and migration routes. Where appropriate, this mapping is to include reference to Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping using the applicable Provincial Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC) standards. While the EIS does include maps for some valued component species within the local assessment area, these do not consistently present habitat features for all selected subcomponent species identified, or for species not represented by the various valued components. No maps are presented that identify fish migration routes through the local or regional assessment areas. Additionally, with the exception of some maps for marine mammals, maps of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation types and species are not presented to depict existing baseline at a regional scale. Information Requested Provide maps at a local and regional scale indicating surface area of potential or confirmed fish habitat for spawning, nursery, feeding, overwintering and migration routes for relevant species, including selected subcomponents of valued components (e.g. marine invertebrates such as crabs and bivalves, fish, marine mammals and other marine animals). Provide habitat mapping for marine vegetation and coastal birds at a regional scale. Provide a description of how reference to Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping was used in the preparation of relevant maps. Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 1

150 Response 1 This information request response is provided in three parts: Local and regional scale maps for potential or confirmed fish habitat; Regional scale habitat maps for marine vegetation and coastal birds; and Use of Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in the preparation of relevant maps Maps at Local and Regional Scales of Potential or Confirmed Fish Habitat The EIS and supporting documents contain maps at both local and regional scales that present habitat features for marine invertebrates, fish, and mammals. Table IR10-1 provides a summary list of these maps with figure source location, including the EIS or relevant technical data report, the latter of which are publicly available on the Port Metro Vancouver website. Table IR10-1 also lists supporting figures that have been developed to supplement previously available maps Figures IR10-1 to IR10-2 in Appendix IR10-A depict habitat features for relevant fish species at a regional scale (i.e., within the marine fish regional assessment area and part of the Strait of Georgia). Many functional activities like feeding and spawning of fish occur widely throughout the ocean; however, areas that provide for specific functions and structural properties, referred to as Important Areas, have been identified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO 2004), as shown for Pacific salmon and Pacific herring in Figures IR10-1 and IR10-2, respectively Maps at a Regional Scale for Marine Vegetation and Coastal Birds Habitat Table IR10-2 provides a summary list of habitat mapping for marine vegetation and coastal birds at a regional scale (i.e., within their respective regional assessment areas and part of the Strait of Georgia), along with figure source location, including the EIS, technical data report, or supporting figure. A regional marine vegetation habitat map is provided in Figure IR10-3, and regional habitat information and conservation areas for coastal birds are provided in Figures IR10-4 to IR10-7 (figures provided in Appendix IR10-A). Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 2

151 26 27 Table IR10-1 Summary List of Local and Regional Mapping for Marine Invertebrates, Marine Fish, and Marine Mammals VC a Sub-component or Representative Species Figure Topic Spatial Scale Document Source Location for Map EIS Technical Data Report b Supporting Map Marine Invertebrates Infaunal and epifaunal communities Infaunal and epifaunal communities Bivalve shellfish Dungeness crabs Dungeness crabs Orange sea pens Orange sea pens Orange sea pens Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat Potential habitat Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat Potential habitat Confirmed habitat Local Regional Local and Regional Local Local EIS Section 12.0: Figures 12-4, 12-6, 12-7, and 12-9 EIS Appendix 15-B, Appendix A, Figures 54 and 55 EIS Appendix 27-C, Figures 3-2 and 3-3 and associated Table 4-1 EIS Section 12.0: Figure EIS Appendix 12-A, Figure 5-1 EIS Appendix 27-C, Figures 3-4 and associated Table 4-8 Hemmera 2014b: Figure 4-14 Hemmera 2014b: Appendix B, Figures B2, B5, B8, and B11 Hemmera 2014b: Appendix D, Figures D2 and D5 Hemmera 2014b: Figures 4-1 and 4-2 Hemmera 2014b: Appendix B, Figures B1, B3, B4, B6, B7, B9, B10, and B12 Hemmera 2014b: Appendix D, Figures D1, D3, D4, and D6 Archipelago Marine Research 2014f: Figures 10 and 18 Hemmera 2014c: Appendix A, Figures A-4 and A-6 Hemmera 2014d: Figures 4-1 and 4-2 Hemmera 2014f: Figure 5 Hemmera 2014c: Figure 2 Local EIS Section 12.0: Figure Hemmera 2014f: Figure 6 Local Regional EIS Appendix 12-A, Figure 4-11 Hemmera and Archipelago 2014: Figures 4-1 and 4-2 Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 3

152 VC a Sub-component or Representative Species Figure Topic Spatial Scale Document Source Location for Map EIS Technical Data Report b Supporting Map Pacific salmon Confirmed habitat (nursery) Local Archipelago Marine Research 2014a: Figures 16 and 19 Pacific salmon Important habitat Regional Figure IR10-1 Forage fish (Pacific herring) Important habitat Regional Figure IR10-2 Forage fish (Pacific sand lance) Potential habitat (burying) Local EIS Appendix 12-A, Figure 6-1 EIS Section 13.0: Figure 13-3 Forage fish (surf smelt) Confirmed habitat (spawning ) Local Archipelago Marine Research 2014d: Figure 2 Marine Fish Forage fish (shiner perch) Reef fish Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat Local Local Archipelago Marine Research 2014f: Figures 8 and 16 Archipelago Marine Research 2014c: Figure 1 Archipelago Marine Research 2014f: Figures 8 and 16 Flatfish Confirmed habitat Local Archipelago Marine Research 2014f: Figures 7 and 17 Hemmera 2014f: Figure 8 Hemmera 2014c: Appendix A, Figures A-5 and A-7 Demersal fish Confirmed habitat Local Archipelago Marine Research 2014f: Figure 8 Marine fish (general) Confirmed habitat Local Archipelago Marine Research 2014f: Figure 6 Forage fish Confirmed habitat Regional Archipelago Marine Research 2014d: Appendix A, Figures A1 to A3 Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 4

153 28 29 VC a Marine Mammals Sub-component or Representative Species Southern resident killer whale Pinnipeds Southern resident killer whale Humpback whale Figure Topic Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat Spatial Scale Document Source Location for Map EIS Technical Data Report b Supporting Map Local Hemmera 2014r: Figure 3 Local Hemmera 2014r: Figures 3 and 4 Regional Regional EIS Section 14.0: Figure 14-5 EIS Appendix 14-B, Appendix A, Figures A-1 and A-2 Notes: a Valued component (VC). b See Reference section below for corresponding technical data report title. Hemmera 2014r: Appendix A, Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14a, 14b, 15a, 15b, 16a, 16b, 17a, 17b, 18a, 18b, 19a, 19b Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 5

154 30 Table IR10-2 Summary List of Regional Mapping for Marine Vegetation and Coastal Birds VC Sub-component or Representative Species Figure Topic Document Source Location for Map EIS Technical Data Report a Supporting Map Marine Vegetation Biofilm Habitat mapping EIS Section 11.0: Figure All Regional habitat mapping Figure IR10-3 Shorebirds (western sandpiper) Confirmed habitat (migration) EIS Appendix 15-B, Appendix A, Figure 56 Hemmera 2014j: Figures 4-1, 4-3, and 4-5 Coastal Birds Shorebirds (Pacific dunlin) Shorebirds, waterfowl Raptors Confirmed habitat (overwintering) Confirmed habitat Confirmed habitat (overwintering) Hemmera 2014h: Appendix A, Figure 12 Hemmera 2014q: Appendix A, Figure A-3 Hemmera 2014k: Appendix A, Figures A-3 and A-4 Hemmera 2014g: Appendix A, Figures A-2 and A-3 Raptors (barn owl) Confirmed habitat Hemmera 2014n: Appendix A, Figure 7-10 Passerines Confirmed habitat Hemmera 2014m: Appendix A, Figure A-2 31 All Regional confirmed habitat Note: a See Reference section below for corresponding technical data report title. Figures IR10-4 to IR10-7 Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 6

155 Reference to Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) standards were used in the preparation of habitat mapping and estuarine wetland community mapping in the EIS and technical data reports, where appropriate. The intent of TEM standards is to ensure a consistent approach to medium- and large-scale ecological mapping projects (RISC 1998). Map units are delineated using a combination of aerial photograph interpretation of ecosystem attributes and field sampling to verify ecosystem identification and boundaries. Since the TEM standard is intended for terrestrial ecoystems, TEM principles were applied in the preparation of marinebased maps generated for the EIS. Specifically, for the development of EIS Figure 11-2 Roberts Bank Marine Vegetation Map (2012), instead of using an aerial photograph for the initial interpretation of map units (polygons), an earlier (2010) version of a habitat map 1 was used to delineate polygons and randomly select field survey locations Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping methodology was also used to map and classify estuarine wetland communities, particularly provincially listed communities, as described in Appendix E of the Marine Vegetation RBT2 Technical Data Report (Hemmera 2014a). Potential wetland community polygons were identified using high-resolution orthophotography, and classified using TEM standards and then ground-truthed using TEM field standards. Each polygon was examined for dominant vegetation type, and wetland types were classified using the system defined in Wetlands of British Columbia, A Guide to Identification (MacKenzie and Moran 2004). References Archipelago Marine Research. 2014a. Technical Data Report: Juvenile Salmon Surveys. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Archipelago Marine Research. 2014b. Technical Data Report: Benthic Fish Trawl Survey. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Archipelago Marine Research. 2014c. Technical Data Report: Reef Fish Surveys. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September The earlier map prepared in 2010 was an amalgamation of previous inventories by Catherine Berris Associates Inc. (2010), Fraser River Estuary Management Plan, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. (2004), and Hemmera et al. (2009). Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 7

156 Archipelago Marine Research. 2014d. Technical Data Report: Forage Fish Beach Spawn Survey. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Archipelago Marine Research. 2014e. Technical Data Report: Eelgrass Fish Community Survey. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Archipelago Marine Research. 2014f. Technical Data Report: Marine Fish Habitat Characterisation. Prepared for Hemmera, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Catherine Berris Associates Inc Roberts Bank and Sturgeon Bank Reach Overview: Phase 2. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas. Ecosystem Status Report 2004/006. Hemmera. 2014a. Technical Data Report: Marine Vegetation: Intertidal Marsh, Foreshore Habitat and Invertebrate, Eelgrass, Ulva, and Biomat Survey Results. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014b. Technical Data Report: Infaunal and Epifaunal Invertebrate Communities. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014c. Technical Data Report: Marine Invertebrates, Marine Fish and Fish Habitat - Marine Benthic Subtidal Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014d. Technical Data Report: Juvenile Dungeness Crabs. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014e. Technical Data Report: Dungeness Crab Productivity. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 8

157 Hemmera. 2014f. Technical Data Report: Subtidal Benthic Infauna and Epifauna Surveys for Disposal at Sea Site Characterisation. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014g. Technical Data Report: Wintering Raptor Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014h. Technical Data Report: Abundance and Distribution of Over-wintering Shorebirds in the Fraser River Estuary. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014i. Technical Data Report: Coastal Waterbird Distribution and Abundance Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014j. Technical Data Report: Shorebird Abundance and Foraging Use in the Fraser River Estuary during Migration. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014k. Technical Data Report: Upland Waterbirds Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014m. Technical Data Report: Songbirds Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014n. Technical Data Report: Barn Owl Habitat Suitability, Habitat Use, Site Occupancy and Collision Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014o. Technical Data Report: Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines and Vehicular Traffic on Birds. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 9

158 Hemmera. 2014p. Technical Data Report: Migratory Connectivity of Western Sandpipers using the Fraser River Estuary. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver. Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014q. Technical Data Report: Nocturnal Agricultural Habitat use by Dunlin. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera. 2014r. Technical Data Report: Marine Mammal Habitat Use Studies - Shore-based Marine Mammal Observations for the Proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera and Archipelago Technical Data Report: Orange Sea Pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi). Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Hemmera, NHC, and Precision Identification Biological Consultants T2 Environmental Baseline Monitoring Report. Vancouver. MacKenzie, W. H., and J. R. Moran Wetlands of British Columbia, A Guide to Identification. BC Ministry of Forests. RISC Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia. Prepared by Ecosystems Working Group, Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Resource Inventory Committee. Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd Deltaport Third Berth Project Marine Resources Impact Assessment. WorleyParsons Technical Data Report: Biofilm Community at Roberts Bank - Analyses to Support Hyperspectral Mapping. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver. Available at Accessed September Ydenberg, R Technical Data Report: Pacific Dunlin Regional Distribution Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Appendices Appendix IR10-A Supplemental Habitat Maps - Figures IR10-1 to IR10-7 Response to Information Request #10 (IR ) Page 10

159 APPENDIX IR10-A Supplemental Habitat Maps Figures IR10-1 to IR10-7

160 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

161 Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_10\map\RBT2_IR10_Fig1_Salmon_ mxd Vancouver Strait of Georgia Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA MARINE FISH LAA MARINE FISH RAA DFO IMPORTANT AREAS FOR PACIFIC SALMON PACIFIC SALMON MIGRATION ROUTE U.S.A.-CANADA BORDER Kilometres 1:500,000 ± Note: DFO Important Areas for Pacific Salmon and Pacific Salmon Migration Route: DFO, ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 IMPORTANT AREAS FOR PACIFIC SALMON IN THE LAA, RAA, AND STRAIT OF GEORGIA 09/22/2015 IR10-1

162 Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_10\map\RBT2_IR10_Fig2_Herring_ mxd Vancouver Strait of Georgia Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA MARINE FISH LAA MARINE FISH RAA DFO IMPORTANT AREAS FOR PACIFIC HERRING HERRING SPAWNING AREA U.S.A.-CANADA BORDER WASHINGTON HERRING AREAS HERRING SPAWNING PRE-SPAWNER HERRING HOLDING AREAS Kilometres 1:500,000 ± Note: DFO Important Areas for Pacific Herring: DFO, 2012; Herring Spawning Area: Coastal Resource Information Management System (CRIMS), Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2015; Washington Herring Spawning and Holding Areas provided by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WMS. ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 IMPORTANT AREAS FOR PACIFIC HERRING IN THE LAA, RAA, AND STRAIT OF GEORGIA 09/22/2015 IR10-2 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community These data were collected by WDFW staff with contributions from the North Olympic Salmon Coalition and the Friends of the San Juans.

163 Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_10\map\RBT2_IR10_Fig3_MarineVeg_ mxd Vancouver Burnaby New Westminster Richmond Surrey Delta Strait of Georgia White Rock Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA MARINE VEGETATION LAA MARINE VEGETATION RAA U.S.A.-CANADA BORDER FRASER RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FREMP) HABITAT COMMUNITY EELGRASS MACROALGAE MARSH MUD ROCK SAND Kilometres 1:200,000 ± Note: Habitat Communities: Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 REGIONAL HABITAT MAPPING FOR MARINE VEGETATION 09/23/2015 IR10-3 Copyright: 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE

164 Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_10\map\RBT2_IR10_Fig4_Habitat_CoastalBirds_ mxd Burnaby Vancouver New Westminster Surrey Richmond Delta Strait of Georgia White Rock Note: Habitat Communities: Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA 0 FRASER RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FREMP) HABITAT COMMUNITY 5 Kilometres 1:200,000 COASTAL BIRDS LAA CONIFEROUS TREE WOODLAND MARSH COASTAL BIRDS RAA DECIDUOUS TREE WOODLAND MEADOW, NON-VASCULAR U.S.A.-CANADA BORDER EELGRASS MEADOW, VASCULAR ROCK LOW SHRUB WOODLAND MIXED TREE WOODLAND SAND MACROALGAE MUD TALL SHRUB WOODLAND Copyright: 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE 10 ± ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 REGIONAL HABITAT MAPPING FOR COASTAL BIRDS 09/23/2015 IR10-4

165 -o X E ri "' 0> ~ I "' ~ <'>I... 0> :I I> ~I 'e in ~ "' 0 ~I.2' u. 01!!; I ~ (l) %. "' ~ ~I iii I- (J) w => 0 w 0: I z 0 ~ ::< 0:: 0 u. ~ I (J) ~ ~ "'?. 0.c 10 Q. Strait of Georgia 0 0 ~ ~ t,h-.,... h U~tr 018nb~ ""'""~>< 0 0 tl..an:ij """... ft~~par._ ' 0 I 0 ~'..~-~ ' Ruiuuonli L U l U ISLAND 0 c ~ Point Robtsh,..,. 0 o ~... u... \\iu,.,.,.,.. -b.. ~ """ An m ort' Kndu 0 / Port M oodv 1... '""'' ~.,. Coquill..tm -... #., Wiw itl m..,,. ' ".. 0,. i _..J' Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA rs:::::sj COASTAL BIRDS LAA c:::j COASTAL BIRDS RAA U.S.A.-CANADA BORDER RANGE OF YEARS BIRD OBSERVATIONS WERE RECORDED Note: Bird Observations: Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP}, 2006; and ebird, BC Coastal Waterbird Survey, Bird Studies Canada, and the USGS North Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database 2.0, accessed June Kilometres 1:200,000 NAD 1983 UTM Zone lon 8 N A PORT METRO vancouver ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 CONFIRMED HABITAT {VIA SIGHTINGS) FOR COASTAL BIRDS ON A REGIONAL SCALE FROM DATE: FIG No. 10/15/2015 IR10-5 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Tom Tom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

166 Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_10\map\RBT2_IR10_Fig6_CoastalBird_Areas_ mxd Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA COASTAL BIRDS LAA COASTAL BIRDS RAA IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARY NATIONAL WILDLIFE AREA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA U.S.A.-CANADA BORDER Kilometres 1:200,000 Note: BC Important Bird Area provided by IBA Canada, at Accessed September 9, Washington Important Bird Areas provided by National Audubon Society, Important Bird Areas Database, Boundary Digital Data Set. Acquired September 25, Migratory Bird Sanctuary, National Wildlife Area, and Wildlife Management Area provided by Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, at Accessed September 10, ± ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 CONSERVATION AREAS SHOWING IMPORTANT HABITAT FOR COASTAL BIRDS ON A REGIONAL SCALE 09/25/2015 IR10-6 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community.

167 Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_10\map\RBT2_IR10_Fig7_NestingLocations_MarineBirds_ mxd!!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( Strait of Georgia!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( Vancouver!(!(!(!(!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!(!!(!(!(!(!(!(!!(!(!(!(!(!(!!(!( ")")")")")")")") ")")")")")")")") ") ")")")")")")")")") ") ")")")!(!(!(! Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA COASTAL BIRDS LAA COASTAL BIRDS RAA U.S.A.-CANADA BORDER!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( BC MARINE BIRD COLONIES! SHOREBIRDS!( GULLS!( DIVING BIRDS WASHINGTON MARINE BIRD COLONIES ") GULLS ") DIVING BIRDS Kilometres 1:200,000 ± Note: BC Marine Bird Colonies: Environment Canada, 2014; Washington Marine Bird Colonies: Speich, S.M., and T.R. Wahl. 1989, Crescent Coastal Research, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 COASTAL BIRD NESTING LOCATIONS IN THE LAA, RAA, AND STRAIT OF GEORGIA 09/23/2015 IR10-7 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

168 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #11 Species at Risk Rationale The EIS Guidelines (3.3.1, 9.1.6) require information to be provided on all species at risk that may occur in the Project area. Full consideration of section 79 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), which requires that all adverse effects be identified and that measures be taken to avoid or lessen those effects and monitor them, is also required. The EIS identifies several terrestrial bird species listed under SARA that may be affected by the Project (i.e., Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies; Barn Owl; Short-eared Owl; Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies, Western Screech-Owl, Megascops kennicottii subspecies). Information is provided for three of these species (Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies; Barn Owl; and Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies), but not for Short-eared Owl and Western Screech-Owl. The EIS indicates that both species occur within the local assessment area, but they were not selected as representative species due to their low numbers. Moreover, Pacific Water Shrew and Northern Red-legged Frog are mentioned as potentially occurring in the Project area, but no further information is provided on these species. Information Requested Explain how the list of species at risk that potentially occur in the Project area was established. Discuss the possibility that other terrestrial and aquatic species at risk occur in the area, for instance Red Knot and Northern Abalone. Provide baseline information on all terrestrial species at risk potentially occurring in the Project area including the regional importance, abundance, distribution, residences, seasonal movements, movement corridors, habitat requirements, key habitat areas, designated or identified critical habitat and recovery habitat (where applicable) and general life history. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 1

169 Provide a consolidated description of the potential adverse effects to all species at risk potentially occurring in the Project area along with a description of the measures that would be taken to avoid or lessen those effects and monitor them. Response The effects assessment presented in the EIS considered Project-related effects to species at risk and the information below is provided to further explain why certain at-risk species are not expected to be affected by the Project, as they are either unlikely to occur within the Project area or are unlikely to be affected by Project-related activities This response is provided in three parts. The first part describes how the list of species at risk with the potential to occur within the Project area was established, provides a complete list of species at risk likely to occur within the Project area, and describes why specific terrestrial and aquatic species are not likely to occur in the Project area. Due to the different information requirements outlined above, the last two parts of the response separate species based on their habitat use (i.e., marine- or terrestrial-based habitat). Part 2 summarises potential adverse effects, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements for species at risk that use the marine environment or a combination of the marine and terrestrial environments. Part three provides existing conditions 1, potential adverse effects, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements for at-risk species that depend on the terrestrial environment with the potential to occur in the Project area Part 1 Development of Species at Risk List and Potential for Occurrence of Species at Risk in the Project Area The selection of marine biophysical valued components and associated sub-components and representative species considered federally and provincially listed species at risk that have the potential to be affected by RBT2-associated vessel activities in and surrounding the Project area. Because the Project area is so small relative to the ranges of many of these species, there are few data at this spatial scale. Therefore, the general approach was to start at a regional spatial scale (regional assessment area (RAA)) to generate a list of species of conservation concern using databases, and subsequently narrow it down at finer spatial scales (local assessment area (LAA) and Project area) using empirical field data, 1 In the EIS, baseline information is described as existing conditions, and for consistency this response also refers to existing conditions, which for the purposes of this response includes regional importance, abundance, distribution, residences, seasonal movements, movement corridors, habitat requirements, key habitat areas, designated or identified critical habitat and recovery habitat, where applicable, and general life history. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 2

170 26 27 where possible. The following process and reference material sources were used to develop a list of terrestrial and aquatic species that have the potential to occur in the Project area: ) The B.C. Conservation Data Centre (CDC) database 2 was queried to establish a list of all species at risk occurring within British Columbia. Status rankings from Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and B.C. status listings were incorporated into the list. Searches were conducted for the known occurrence of these species within B.C., and filters were not applied to avoid the potential exclusion of species. Refer to EIS Appendix 10-A Species at Risk Information on Federal and Provincial Designations for more information on federal and provincial risk designations. 2) To refine the list of species for B.C. to those species with the potential to occur in the respective RAA for each valued component, databases including Hectares BC 3 and B.C. Marine Conservation Analysis Atlas 4 were queried, species at risk information on the Government of Canada s Species at Risk Public Registry (Schedule 1) 5 was reviewed, and species range maps, habitat associations, and records of documented occurrences within the RAA were referenced (see Appendix IR11-A for a list of data sources). Records of documented occurrence were derived from field studies conducted in the RAA to support the RBT2 environmental assessment and the Deltaport Third Berth Adaptive Management Strategy, as well as records from the Coastal Waterbird Survey database 6, ebird database 7, E-Fauna BC database 8, E-Flora database 9, the Boundary Bay bird species checklists 10, published records of species occurrences, and spatial records derived from the CDC. 3) To refine the list of species to those with the potential to occur in the LAA and Project area, the same procedure described above was used for this finer spatial scale. If data were not available, it was assumed that if a species was present in the RAA, it would also be present in the LAA and Project area Species with documented occurrences within the LAA or RAA (see Appendix IR11-A) that had not been observed in the Project area during RBT2 or Deltaport Third Berth field studies were evaluated for their potential to occur based on the availability of suitable habitat. For example, bird species for which the occurrence was judged to be accidental (i.e., a few documented occurrences within the last 25 years or the species was considered outside its B.C. Conservation Data Centre database available at: Hectares BC database available at: B.C. Marine Conservation Analysis atlas database available at: Species at Risk Public Registry available at: Coastal Waterbird Survey database available at ebird database available at: E-Fauna BC database available at: E-Fauna BC database available at: Boundary Bay bird species checklists available at: Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 3

171 normal range) within either the LAA or RAA (e.g., yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii), ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus)) were excluded from the list of potential species at risk to occur within the Project area As an example for species that rely on the marine environment, the potential occurrence of northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in the Project area is considered unlikely as there are very few published occurrences of abalone in the Strait of Georgia. Egli and Lessard (2011) have documented northern abalone along the southeast coast of Vancouver Island, but there is no evidence of historic or recent occurrences in the Fraser River estuary. In addition, suitable abalone habitat is limited within the estuary, as abalone prefers firm (rocky) substrates with high salinity (DFO 2013). Similarly, the potential occurrence of tope (Galeorhinus galeus) is considered to be unlikely based on lack of preferred habitat, as they are known to occur in Canada s Pacific continental shelf waters along Vancouver Island, Queen Charlotte Sound, and into Hecate Strait; there are no known research records or commercial fishing records of tope from the Strait of Georgia (COSEWIC 2007) The potential occurrences of several terrestrial species at risk within the Project area were considered to be unlikely because the terrestrial habitat that would be affected by the Project is already modified from railroad and municipal infrastructure (i.e., habitat may not be suitable), and the affected area is small in size (1.2 hectares (ha)) (Figure IR11-1). Examples of species at risk, which depend on the terrestrial environment, that have been excluded from the Project list are as follows: At-risk invertebrate species were not observed during field surveys within the Project area (Hemmera 2014a). For example, for at-risk Lepidoptera species (moths and butterflies), suitable habitats were not observed during preliminary aerial photo analysis or field studies within the terrestrial portion of the Project area (Hemmera 2014a). For at-risk terrestrial gastropods, potential occurrences were also considered unlikely due to the highly modified and managed condition of the terrestrial portion within the Project area (see Part three for description of terrestrial portion). At-risk terrestrial plant species that have the potential to occur in the Roberts Bank area include streambank lupine (Lupinus rivularis) and Vancouver Island beggarticks (Bidens amplissima). Neither these species nor any other at-risk plant species were documented as part of field surveys conducted in the area (Hemmera 2014b,c). Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 4

172 At-risk species, which depend on the marine environment or a combination of the marine and terrestrial environments, with the potential to occur in the Project area are listed in Table IR11-1 by valued component, along with their provincial and federal conservation designations. Species at risk that depend solely on the terrestrial environment with the potential to occur in the Project area are listed in Table IR11-2, along with their provincial and federal conservation designations. Appendix IR11-A provides a list of species at risk with potential to occur in the relevant regional and local assessment areas for coastal birds, marine invertebrates, marine fish and marine mammals, as well as the rationale for exclusion from potentially occurring within the Project area. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 5

173 96 Figure IR11-1 Terrestrial Habitat within the Project Area and the Surrounding Environment Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 6

174 97 98 Table IR11-1 Species at Risk Potentially Occurring in the RBT2 Project Area, Associated RBT2 EIS Subcomponents and Representative Species and Project Effects English Name Scientific Name B.C. List a SARA b Subcomponent Coastal Birds Representative Species Project Effects (EIS Section) Black Scoter Melanitta americana Blue Diving Birds Surf Scoter , Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus Red Diving Birds Western Grebe , Common Murre Uria aalge Red Diving Birds Western Grebe , Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Blue Diving Birds Western Grebe , Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Blue Diving Birds Western Grebe , Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Blue Diving Birds Surf Scoter , Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Blue 1-T (Jun 2003) Diving Birds Western Grebe , Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata Blue Diving Birds Surf Scoter , Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis California Gull Larus californicus Blue Gulls and Terns Red Diving Birds Western Grebe , Glaucous-winged Gull , Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Blue Gulls and Terns Caspian Tern , Parasitic Jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Red Raptor Peregrine Falcon , American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Blue Herons Great Blue Heron , Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies Ardea herodias fannini Blue 1-SC (Feb 2010) Herons Great Blue Heron , Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Blue Passerines c Barn Swallow , Black Swift Cypseloides niger Blue Passerines c Barn Swallow , Purple Martin Progne subis Blue Passerines c Barn Swallow , Barn Owl Tyto alba Red 1-SC (Jun 2003) Raptors Barn Owl , Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 7

175 English Name Scientific Name B.C. List a SARA b Subcomponent Representative Species Project Effects (EIS Section) Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Blue Raptors Peregrine Falcon , Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies Falco peregrinus anatum Red 1-SC (Jun 2012) Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus Blue Raptors Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Blue American Golden- Plover 1-SC (Jul 2012) Pluvialis dominica Blue Shorebirds Red Knot Calidris canutus Red 1-T/E (Feb 2010) Raptors Peregrine Falcon , Peregrine Falcon, Barn Owl, Bald Eagle , Raptors Barn Owl , Shorebirds Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus Blue Shorebirds Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Blue Shorebirds Western Sandpiper, Pacific Dunlin Western Sandpiper, Pacific Dunlin Western Sandpiper, Dunlin, Surf Scoter Western Sandpiper, Pacific Dunlin , , , , , Brant Branta bernicla Blue Waterfowl Brant , Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Blue Waterfowl American Wigeon , Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila Blue Eulachon (Fraser River population) Marine Invertebrates 1-SC (2003) Marine Fish Bivalve Shellfish Thaleichthys pacificus Blue Forage Fish Green Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris Red White Sturgeon (Lower Fraser River Population) Acipenser transmontanus pop. 4 Red 1-SC (2006) Pacific Salmon Pacific Salmon Bivalve Shellfish , Pacific Herring, Pacific Sandlance, Shiner Perch, Surf Smelt Chinook Salmon, Chum Salmon Chinook Salmon, Chum Salmon , , , Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 8

176 English Name Scientific Name B.C. List a SARA b Subcomponent Southern Resident Killer Whale Northeast Pacific Transient Killer Whale Fin Whale Eastern Pacific Grey Whale North Pacific Humpback Whale Orcinus orca Orcinus orca Balaenoptera physalus Eschrichtius robustus Megaptera novaeangliae Red Red Red Blue Blue Harbour Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Blue Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Blue Marine Mammals 1-E (2008) 1-T (2008) 1-T (2005) 1-SC (2004) 1-SC (2011) 1-SC (2003) 1-SC (2013) Toothed Whales Toothed Whales Baleen Whales Baleen Whales Baleen Whales Toothed Whales Seals and Sea Lions Representative Species Southern Resident Killer Whale Southern Resident Killer Whale North Pacific Humpback Whale North Pacific Humpback Whale North Pacific Humpback Whale Southern Resident Killer Whale Project Effects (EIS Section) Steller Sea Lion Notes: a. For provincially listed species (B.C. List): Red - includes ecological communities, and indigenous species and subspecies that are extirpated, endangered or threatened in B.C. Blue - includes ecological communities, and indigenous species and subspecies of special concern (formerly vulnerable) in B.C. Yellow - includes ecological communities and indigenous species that are not at risk in B.C. Refer to EIS Appendix 10-A Species at Risk - Information on Federal and Provincial Designations for more information. b. For federally listed at-risk species, each SARA entry consists of the SARA Schedule followed by the status code and may be followed by the date that the rank was last reviewed. Risk designations included the following: E = Endangered: A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction; T = Threatened: A species that is likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed; and SC = Special Concern: A species of special concern because of characteristics that make it is particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. Refer to EIS Appendix 10-A for more information. c. Sub-component includes both passerines and near-passerine species. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 9

177 Table IR11-2 Terrestrial Species at Risk Potentially Occurring in the RBT2 Project Area English Name Scientific Name B.C. List 1 SARA 2 Birds Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Blue 1-SC (Feb 2011) Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Yellow 1-T (2010) Mammals Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Yellow 1-E (Dec 2014) Townsend s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Blue Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii Red 1-E (2003) Amphibians Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora Blue 1-SC (2005) Note: Refer to Table IR11-1 notes a and b for definitions of provincial and federal at-risk designations Part 2 Potential Adverse Project-related Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring Requirements for At-risk Species Dependent on the Marine Environment The EIS presents existing conditions, future conditions with the Project, and cumulative effects for each valued component. As described in the response to Information Request #9 - Species in the Local and Regional Assessment Areas, information provided for representative species is representative of the conditions of (and effects on) the other species they represent. For at-risk species with the potential to occur in the Project area that depend at least partially on the marine environment, Table IR11-1 provides the representative species for each at-risk species, as well as the EIS section where potential adverse effects are described Mitigation measures, including any standard operating procedures, standard management practices, or measures developed to specifically avoid or reduce the potential adverse effects of the Project to species at risk that rely at least partially on the marine environment are provided in the following sections of the EIS: Marine Invertebrates EIS Section 12.7 Mitigation Measures; Marine Fish EIS Section 13.7 Mitigation Measures; Marine Mammals EIS Section 14.7 Mitigation Measures; and Coastal Birds EIS Section 15.8 Mitigation Measures. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 10

178 As outlined in EIS Section 33.0 Environmental Management Program, PMV is committed to developing and implementing monitoring and follow-up programs for RBT2. To ensure program elements adequately reflect conditions of Project approvals (including permits), final designs, construction, or operation approaches, as well as public, Aboriginal group, and regulator feedback received during the review of the EIS, PMV will develop the Follow-up Program after the submission of this EIS, in consultation with federal agencies. Consultation will ensure that the Program delivers the type, quantity and quality of information required to reliably verify predicted effects (or absence of them), and to confirm both the assumptions and the effectiveness of mitigation.. EIS Section Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan and EIS Section Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan outline the compliance monitoring requirements for the construction and operation phases, respectively. EIS Section 33.5 Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Follow-up Program outlines the purpose of the program and provides additional details for each valued component Part 3 Existing Conditions, Potential Adverse Project-related Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring Requirements for Terrestrial Species at Risk with the Potential to Occur in the Project Area This part of the response provides a description of the environment in the terrestrial portion of the Project area for context, followed by characterisations of existing conditions and potential Project-related effects for each terrestrial at-risk species with the potential to occur in the Project area (Table IR11-2). Any measures to mitigate and monitor potential effects to species at risk potentially occurring within the terrestrial Project area are presented, if relevant, under individual species accounts Terrestrial Environment As described in EIS Section 10.1 Terrestrial Setting, although terrestrial wildlife habitat is limited in extent and quality in areas potentially affected by the Project, occasional use by species of conservation concern is expected Terrestrial habitat within the Project area consists of wetland habitat lining the north side of the existing causeway and disturbed habitat starting from the east end of the causeway and extending 450 m eastward in a narrow strip (1.2 ha) on the existing British Columbia Railway (BCR) right-of-way (Figure IR11-1). Adjoining terrestrial land use is primarily agricultural and urban-residential with little remaining in the way of native vegetation. Habitat for wildlife is provided by farm fields, old fields, shrubland, hedgerows, ditch-like watercourses, and marsh above the high-tide line. Due to the prevalence of agricultural land Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11

179 use, freshwater features are limited to channelised ditches and remnant sloughs in the areas adjacent to the Project area. Terrestrial biological communities adjacent to the Project area are summarised in Table IR11-3 and Figure IR Table IR11-3 Biological Communities Within and Adjacent to the Terrestrial Portion of the RBT2 Project Area Biogeoclimatic Unit Vegetated Communities Ed02 Em06 RK Coastal Douglas-fir Moist Maritime (CDFmm) Common or Scientific Name Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis Symphyotrichum subspicatum Carex lyngbyei Herbaceous Vegetation Thuja plicata Pseudotsuga menziesii / Eurhynchium oreganum Agricultural Communities BH Broadleaf herbaceous Description Tufted hairgrass Douglas aster, high marsh zone, irregular inundation. Lyngbye s sedge Douglas water-hemlock, areas of strongly fluctuating brackish water (e.g., salt marsh) and active sedimentation. Western red cedar - Douglas-fir / Oregon beaked-moss, somewhat dry to fresh, very poor to medium soils. Broadleaf crops such as beans, corn, and legumes. Generally annual crops may be subject to frequent turn-over. Area (ha) Directly Affected by the Project FA Fallow field Fields in a state of temporary rest. 0 FO Forage crop Graminoid crops planted for livestock forage. 0 HR OF VE Other Communities RW UR Hedgerow Old field Verge Rural development Urban development Linear or clumped stands of trees and / or shrubs, usually between fields or along ditches. Exhausted agricultural field, trees, and shrubs may be re-establishing, vegetation diversity is increasing, often dominated by grasses. Grassy strip of land usually between roads or rail lines, usually managed. An area in which human residences are scattered and intermingled with vegetated landscapes. An area in which human residences and buildings form an almost continuous covering over the landscape Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 12

180 Two species of birds, three mammals, and one amphibian with provincial or federal at-risk designations (listed in Table IR11-2), which have the potential to use terrestrial habitat within the Project area, were not specifically described in the effects assessments presented in the EIS as Project-species interactions were expected to be unlikely and adverse residual effects were therefore anticipated to be unlikely. To provide additional rationale for these conclusions, the sections below characterise existing conditions for these species, including population trends, abundance in the Province, and potential and actual use of habitat in the Project area to support similar conclusions presented in Part 3. Information was gathered from a variety of sources, including the B.C. CDC, the Species at Risk Public Registry, COSEWIC conservation status reports, Birds of North America species accounts, Christmas Bird Count data, B.C. Coastal Waterbird Survey data, Breeding Bird Survey data, E-Fauna B.C., pertinent publicly-available documents, and peer-reviewed publications (Appendix IR11-A) Existing Conditions and Potential Effects Characterisations for Band-tailed Pigeon Conservation Status and Population Trend Band-tailed pigeons are provincially Blue-listed and have been designated special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA (BC CDC 2015). Band-tailed pigeons are diurnal passerines that are most often found in pairs or flocks (Keppie and Braun 2000). Provincial and federal at-risk designations for the band-tailed pigeon are due to long-term population declines in B.C. and other parts of its range (Sauer et al. 2014). Hunting is thought to have contributed to bandtailed pigeon population declines, but shortened hunting seasons and lower bag limits in the U.S.A. and Canada have reduced harvest rates to sustainable levels (i.e., 1% to 2% of the Pacific flyway population) since the mid-1990s (COSEWIC 2008). Subsequent monitoring of mineral sites that are visited by this species to meet nutritional requirements indicate the Pacific flyway population may be stabilising (COSEWIC 2008). Recovery of band-tailed pigeon populations are limited by their low reproductive rate, loss and degradation of breeding habitat and mineral sites, and predation of nests by introduced species (e.g., rats, cats, and squirrels) (COSEWIC 2008) Life History Overview In the Pacific Northwest, band-tailed pigeons inhabit a variety of habitats, including coniferous rainforests, forest edges, and agricultural areas (COSEWIC 2008). Their diet varies seasonally, consisting of mostly berries, predominantly red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), from June through mid-august, and cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) from mid- Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 13

181 August through September (March and Sadleir 1972, Leonard 1998, Sanders 1999, Keppie and Braun 2000). Lower energy foods such as grain are eaten during spring and earlier in the summer (March and Sadleir 1972). The berries that band-tailed pigeons consume during the breeding period are low in minerals and high in potassium (COSEWIC 2008). This is thought to cause an electrolyte imbalance which requires band-tailed pigeons to consume supplementary minerals (e.g., sodium) from sites with mineral deposits in sediments or mineral-rich water (Keppie and Braun 2000, Sanders and Jarvis 2000) (see Habitat subsection below for more information on mineral sites) Active band-tailed pigeon nests have been reported throughout the year, but breeding and nesting generally occur between February and October (Keppie and Braun 2000). In southwest B.C., the peak nesting period is mid-june through late July (March and Sadleir 1970). Nests are built in a wide variety of trees, but most (43%) are reported in Douglas fir in closed-canopy, coniferous forests (Leonard 1998, Keppie and Braun 2000). Typical clutch size is one egg, sometimes two and rarely three with one or two clutches per year. Overall reproductive success (i.e., young successfully fledging the nest) is estimated at 1.3 individuals per female per year (Leonard 1998) Distribution Band-tailed pigeons are partial migrants, with migrants and annual residents occurring in B.C. during the breeding season. Within B.C., the species breeds on southern Vancouver Island and the south mainland coast north to Whistler and Tofino from sea level to approximately 700 m (Campbell et al. 2011). Outside of the breeding season, they occur throughout south and central B.C. as far north as Hazelton and Fort St. John and can occur at elevations greater than 2,000 m in the province s interior montane forests (Campbell et al. 2011). Although movement patterns are not well understood, it appears that some individuals also migrate to southern U.S.A. and Mexico during the non-breeding season. Individuals in urban environments of the Pacific coast such as the Lower Mainland of B.C. are considered likely year-round residents (Keppie and Braun 2000) Habitat Preferred nesting habitat is found in closed-canopied coniferous forest containing Douglas fir, western red cedar, and Sitka spruce (Leonard 1998, Campbell et al. 2011). Nests occur less frequently in open-canopied stands, deciduous trees, and shrubs. Preferred foraging habitat is associated with creeks or moist lowlands (Leonard 1998). Earlier research indicates that band-tailed pigeons require mineral sites in proximity to nesting habitat Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 14

182 (March and Sadleir 1972, Passmore 1977). Mineral sites include mineral deposits exposed after landslides, areas around livestock salt-blocks, mineralised springs, dried ponds, waste water from pulp mills, and estuaries (Sanders and Jarvis 2000). Mineral sites with nearby perching structures are used most often (Sanders and Jarvis 2000, COSEWIC 2008). Mineral sites are likely the most limited habitat and conservation of such sites is particularly important to the species recovery Foraging sites are located generally in areas with open or sparse canopy (i.e., clear cuts or young stands), providing abundant sunlight to shrub species (Leonard 1998) as well as arbutus and oak trees that offer berries and acorns. Band-tailed pigeons are also known to occur in city parks, at backyard birdfeeders, railway yards, and agricultural areas where waste grain and fruits are available (COSEWIC 2008). Perching structures (e.g., taller snags and trees) are also important at foraging sites, allowing birds to perch before and after flying down to feed and may also be important for escaping predators (Jarvis and Passmore 1992, Leonard 1998). 252 Currently, there is no critical habitat or recovery habitat designated for band-tailed pigeon Abundance Band-tailed pigeon population estimates for B.C. are uncertain, and range broadly (Campbell et al. 2011). The B.C. CDC status report provides a broad estimate of 10,000 to 1,000,000 individuals for the province (BC CDC 2015); COSEWIC provides a more refined estimate of 20,000 to 170,000 mature individuals (COSEWIC 2008); and Partners in Flight most recently estimated a provincial population of 43,000 to 170,000 birds (COSEWIC 2008). Based on a review of numerous resources (see Appendix 11-A), band-tailed pigeons have not been documented in and adjacent to the Project area; however, records of the species in the LAA and RAA are reported in the ebird database (Sullivan et al. 2009) Value of Habitat in Project Area The terrestrial portion of the Project area is small (1.2 ha) and consists of largely anthropogenically disturbed habitat similar to other industrial sites throughout the Lower Mainland. The foraging value of the habitat is limited and primarily in the form of non-native Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). There is potential value in the marsh habitat (Table IR11-3, Biogeoclimatic units Ed02 and Em06) as a mineral site; however, there is no evidence that it is used or that any adjacent estuarine habitat is used by band-tailed pigeon. Consequently, habitat in the Project area is not characterised as high-quality Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 15

183 foraging or breeding habitat for band-tailed pigeon. Perching structures (e.g., distribution and transmission line structures) are present within the Project area and adjacent agricultural areas, so there is potential for band-tailed pigeon to transit through or perch in the area while feeding on berries or grain crops, although such occurrences have not been documented. Therefore, based on the highly modified condition of the habitat, the Project area contributes little to directly supporting band-tailed pigeon s ecological requirements. Extensive alternate habitat exists throughout the RAA, and the habitat within the Project area is considered to be of low importance in a regional context Potential Adverse Effects Potential Project-related effects on band-tailed pigeon are limited to potential behavioural changes resulting from increased noise during construction on the causeway and increased train and vehicle movements during operation. Behavioural responses could include habitat avoidance, startle or alarm, or relocation from an affected area. Since the area supports current industrial-related activities that are expected to be similar to Project-related conditions, birds, if they are present, may habituate to future noise emissions and not elicit a behavioural response, or birds may move to nearby alternative habitat within the RAA. Any potential adverse effects to band-tailed pigeon behaviour and productivity, which can be linked to energy expenditure associated with atypical behavioural responses, are anticipated to be negligible Existing Conditions and Potential Effects Characterisations for Common Nighthawk Conservation Status and Population Trend The common nighthawk is provincially Yellow-listed and has been designated threatened on Schedule 1 of SARA (COSEWIC 2007, BC CDC 2015). Provincial and federal at-risk designations for common nighthawk, a medium-sized nocturnal bird, reflect the observed decline in the common nighthawk population. Data from the Breeding Bird Survey in Canada indicate populations have declined at a rate of 4.2% per year between 1968 and 2005 (COSEWIC 2007) and have continued to decline in B.C. and Canada through 2013 (Sauer et al. 2014). Reasons for the decline have not been confirmed, but threats may include reductions in insect prey due to pesticide use, loss and alteration of open habitat (i.e., reforestation of cutblocks and old agricultural fields), and reduction of buildings with flat gravel-covered roofs (COSEWIC 2007, Environment Canada 2015). Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 16

184 Life History Overview The common nighthawk annually migrates long distances between distinct breeding and non-breeding ranges. It feeds on a crepuscular 11 and nocturnal schedule primarily on flying ants and beetles (COSEWIC 2007). Most foraging activities occur over water, and other open or semi-open habitats that have populations of flying insects (Campbell et al. 1990). These birds are generally solitary and males are territorial, but they will come together to roost and form large flocks during migration (Brigham et al. 2011). The breeding season of the common nighthawk is concentrated between late May and August. Nests are typically built on open ground on gravel, bare rock, bare earth, or grass clumps, but are also found on flat gravel roofs in urban areas. Clutch size is almost always two eggs with one clutch per year. Estimates of overall reproductive success are unavailable due to data deficiency (Brigham et al. 2011). Distribution The common nighthawk breeds throughout most of North America and portions of Central America (COSEWIC 2007) and overwinters in South America (Brigham et al. 2011). It is present in North America from April through October during the breeding season and migration. In B.C., common nighthawks typically arrive in late May and depart by late September. This species has been reported breeding up to an elevation of 1,250 m throughout most of the province excluding the Coast Mountains and Haida Gwaii (Campbell et al. 1990, Brigham et al. 2011). Habitat The common nighthawk is associated with a variety of open or semi-open habitats, including forest clearings, burned areas, grassy meadows, rocky outcrops, sandy areas, grasslands, pastures, peat bogs, marshes, lake shores, quarries, and mines (Peck and James 1987, Brigham et al. 2011, BC CDC 2015). Forested areas with low canopy closure and exposed patches of bare rock and ground can provide suitable breeding habitat (Hagar et al. 2004). Eggs are laid directly on bare ground (e.g., soil, gravel, sand, or rock), which contributes to their requirement of open habitat types (COSEWIC 2007). Roosting occurs singly or in groups of over 50 individuals in a variety of habitat types, including open areas, on buildings, poles and lines, on rock outcrops, and in small stands of trees (Campbell et al. 2006). 11 Crepuscular means active during twilight hours (dusk and dawn). Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 17

185 Critical habitat has not been designated for common nighthawk due to a lack of understanding and data to inform decisions concerning the most important and sensitive habitat types in Canada (Environment Canada 2015). Information on recovery habitat is also unavailable Abundance Estimates of the common nighthawk population size in B.C. are uncertain, with a range of at least 10,000 to a potential maximum of 1,000,000 individuals reported by the B.C. CDC (BC CDC 2015). Estimates based on Breeding Bird Survey data from the 1990s suggest a global and B.C. population size of 11,000,000 and 400,000 individuals, respectively (Rich et al 2004, BC CDC 2015). No common nighthawks were reported in the LAA from the surveys and reports reviewed (Appendix IR11-A); however, ebird database records indicate that solitary individuals are occasionally present in the LAA and RAA (Sullivan et al. 2009) Value of Habitat in Project Area The terrestrial portion of the Project area is not primary foraging or breeding habitat for common nighthawk; however, there is potential for vegetation in the marsh and vegetation surrounding the aquatic ditch habitat north of the Project area to support insects that nighthawks could feed on. Given the small size and highly modified nature of habitat within the Project area, and the infrequent presence of the common nighthawk in the region, the value of habitat in the Project area is considered to be low. In a regional context, the habitat within the Project area is considered to be of low importance due to the extensive alternate habitat for common nighthawk that exists throughout the RAA Potential Adverse Effects Potential adverse effects from the Project on common nighthawk are as follows: Behavioural changes resulting from increased noise from construction activities on the causeway and increased noise emitted from trains and vehicles during operation; The removal of 0.41 ha of marsh habitat on the north side of the Roberts Bank causeway potentially used for foraging (refer to Figure IR11-1, biological communities Ed02 and Em06); and Increased potential for collisions with vehicles associated with increased traffic volume. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 18

186 Common nighthawk behavioural responses to increases in noise could include habitat avoidance, startle or alarm, or relocation from an affected area. The Project area supports current industrial-related activities that are expected to be similar to Project-related conditions. Birds may habituate to future noise emissions and not elicit a behavioural response, or birds may move to nearby alternative habitat within the RAA. Effects to common nighthawk behaviour or productivity, which can be linked to energy expenditure associated with atypical behavioural responses, are anticipated to be negligible, as noise increases are expected to be temporary or of very short duration, resulting in either no response or birds moving to nearby alternative habitat within the RAA The removal of a small amount of marsh habitat that could be used by foraging nighthawks is also determined to have a negligible effect. Large amounts of alternate foraging habitat, in the form of agricultural fields, ditches, and marsh, exist in the RAA. All of these habitats support populations of flying insects available as prey to nighthawks Common nighthawks will periodically forage low to the ground in pursuit of insects, which can make them vulnerable to collisions with vehicles. Common nighthawks occur in low numbers throughout the RAA, with the closest documented occurrence within the last 45 years located approximately four kilometres from the Project area (Sullivan et al. 2009). Therefore, the potential for common nighthawks to collide with Project-associated vehicles in the Project area is considered low. Additionally, mitigation and monitoring developed in conjunction with transportation organisation(s) (e.g., B.C. Rail, B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure) and the Canadian Wildlife Service to avoid collisions between barn owls and vehicles within PMV jurisdiction in the LAA will also mitigate any potential effects to common nighthawk (see EIS Section Mitigation #3 Measures to Address Productivity Loss Due to Direct Mortality). Therefore, potential adverse effects to common nighthawk are considered negligible Existing Conditions and Potential Effects Characterisations for Little Brown Myotis Conservation Status and Population Trend The little brown myotis is provincially Yellow-listed and has been designated endangered on Schedule 1 of SARA (COSEWIC 2013, BC CDC 2015). Large numbers of little brown myotis, a small nocturnal bat, have died in northeastern U.S.A. and eastern Canada within the past eight years (COSEWIC 2013). The rapid decline in population has been mainly attributed to white-nose syndrome, which is caused by an introduced fungus. Populations were thought to have been stable before white-nosed syndrome. On average, population declines of 73% Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 19

187 have been found within infected hibernation sites within two years of infection (Frick et al. 2010). White-nosed syndrome has not yet been recorded within B.C., but is expected to affect provincial populations within the next 20 years (COSEWIC 2013) Life History Overview The diet of little brown myotis varies with geographic location, and includes aquatic insects such as midges and caddisflies, as well as moths, spiders, beetles, and flies (Anthony and Kunz 1977, Whitaker and Lawhead 1992). The little brown myotis feeds at dusk, with feeding activities concentrated in forest openings and over water (Krusic et al. 1996, Crampton and Barclay 1998). It forages and roosts in small groups The little brown myotis mates during late summer and early fall (late August to October) at swarming sites that can also serve as hibernacula 12 (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Kunz and Reichard 2010). Female little brown myotis store sperm over the fall and during hibernation (Wimsatt 1945). If females have sufficient fat reserves in the spring, ovulation occurs and eggs are fertilised within a few days of their ending hibernation (Kunz and Reichard 2010) Nursery sites where female bats roost in the summer are generally hot (30-55 C) with stable temperatures that facilitate the development of young (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Kunz and Reichard 2010). Any naturally sheltered site with such conditions can be used by this species, and attics of houses are known to attract many such roosts. Males rarely occupy nursery colonies, but roost alone or in small colonies at cooler sites. Each pregnant female produces a single pup with births typically occurring in May. The survival of these pups and reproductive success of the species depends on the availability of insect prey during the summer to support lactation in adult females and foraging by young bats as they transition to independence in June and July (Kurta et al. 1989, Kunz and Reichard 2010) Distribution The little brown myotis occurs throughout most of Canada and U.S.A. (COSEWIC 2013). In B.C., little brown myotis is found throughout the province from sea level on the coast to approximately 2,300 m in the Rocky Mountains (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). In summer, males and females generally roost separately. Females congregate to maternity colonies in April and early May (Barclay 1982). Hibernation begins in September or October, and bats emerge around April or early May in the interior of B.C., and as early as March on the coast 12 Hibernacula: a shelter occupied during the winter by a dormant animal. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 20

188 (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Klinkenberg 2015). Hibernacula are generally in different locations than summer roosts. Females are known to move several hundred kilometres between summer roosts and winter hibernacula, but less is known about the movements of males (Fenton and Barclay 1980, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) Habitat In B.C., the little brown myotis occurs in a range of habitats, including coastal and boreal forest, arid grasslands, and Ponderosa pine forests (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Klinkenberg 2015). It is often associated with old-growth mixed-wood forests and edge habitats such as those adjacent to water and clear-cut areas (Furlonger et al. 1987, Thomas 1988, Crampton and Barclay 1998, Patriquin 2001). Old-growth forests are thought to contain a combination of habitat features used for roosting and foraging that are not found in younger forested habitats (Thomas 1988, Crampton and Barclay 1998). Still water is an important resource that draws bats from a large area to drink and feed (Krusic et al. 1996). The network of agricultural ditches adjacent to the Project area may provide such a resource The little brown myotis roosts in crevices and cavities in trees, as well as in caves and buildings, which remain warmer than ambient temperature at night (Fenton and Barclay 1980, Barclay 1982). Locations of hibernacula for most B.C. populations are largely unknown, and the few hibernacula that have been identified in B.C. are located in old mines in the interior and contain a few individuals (Klinkenberg 2015) Currently, there is no critical habitat or recovery habitat designated for little brown myotis. The species is found in a wide variety of habitats for both roosting and foraging, which likely increases the resilience of the B.C. population. Conservation and recovery of the species is more dependent on preventing or minimising exposure to white-nosed syndrome than habitat loss; however, key habitat in the province includes the old-growth forests described above (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, BC CDC 2015) Abundance As with most bat species, population estimates are not available for the little brown myotis; however, its range covers most if not all of B.C., and it is generally considered one of the most abundant bats in the province (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 21

189 Value of Habitat in Project Area There are no data available on the frequency or occurrence of little brown myotis activity in the Project area; therefore, habitat value has been assessed based on occurrence at nearby sites and the habitat preferences. Based on the species regular occurrence in the Lower Mainland, use of coastal sites, and the presence of adjacent drainage ditches, the species likely occurs within the Project area either to transit through or forage. Even though adjacent ditch habitat could provide a resource for drinking or feeding, as stated previously, given the small size of the terrestrial portion of the Project area and the lack of key habitat features regularly associated with little brown myotis (e.g., old-growth forest, forest edge), the quality of habitat within the Project area is considered to be low. The nearest structures to the Project that could provide roosting opportunities are two buildings associated with B.C. Rail operations, located approximately 50 m from the northeastern end of the Project footprint. No alterations will be made to these structures or any other potential roosting habitat as part of the Project. Extensive alternate habitat for little brown myotis exists within the RAA, and the habitat within the Project area is considered to be of low importance in a regional context. Potential Adverse Effects Potential adverse effects from the Project on little brown myotis are associated with behavioural changes resulting from increases in noise, light, and visual disturbances during construction. As noted above, bat roosting habitat and hibernacula are not present within the Project area. Therefore, Project-related effects to bat roosts and hibernacula are not anticipated. As bats are nocturnal, bats feeding or travelling through the Project area will only be affected at night. If bats experience sensory disturbance due to auditory and visual changes, behavioural responses may include habitat avoidance, startle or alarm, or relocation from an affected area. This in turn could increase energy expenditure with an associated small increase in the potential to affect little brown myotis productivity. Since the area supports current industrial-related activities that are expected to be similar to Project-related conditions, and mitigation measures to reduce light emissions and noise have been incorporated in the Project design 13, construction, and operation, bats may habituate to auditory and visual changes and not elicit a behavioural response. Any effect to 13 The three additional LED roadway light fixtures to be installed in the terrestrial portion of the Project area (see EIS Appendix 9.4-A Light Assessment Study) will be shielded (i.e., light valences will be used) and oriented downward to minimise light trespass (see EIS Section Light Management Plan). The Project area is currently well lit from lighting fixtures illuminating Deltaport Way, the rail corridor, and the B.C. Rail operations buildings. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 22

190 little brown myotis productivity is anticipated to be negligible, as a disturbance would likely be of short duration and result in the bat(s) moving to nearby alternative habitat, and future conditions with the Project are not anticipated to vary from existing conditions with respect to sensory stimuli. Existing Conditions and Potential Effects Characterisations for Townsend's Bigeared Bat Conservation Status and Population Trend Townsend s big-eared bat is provincially Blue-listed, but is not designated as a species of conservation concern under SARA (BC CDC 2015). Conservation concern for Townsend s big-eared bat stems from the species sensitivity to disturbance at maternity roosts and winter hibernacula combined with a distribution that largely overlaps developed areas within the province (Rasheed and Garcia 1995, BC CDC 2015). Monitoring at roosts and elsewhere has been insufficient to reliably demonstrate population trends in B.C. (BC CDC 2015) Life History Overview Townsend s big-eared bat is a relatively sedentary bat with overlapping summer roost and winter hibernacula ranges (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, BC CDC 2015). Small moths form the bulk of the diet for this bat, with other insects such as beetles, lacewings, and sawflies taken opportunistically (Leslie Jr and Clark 2002, Dodd 2006). Townsend s big-eared bat begins feeding about an hour after dark and feeds several times throughout the night (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Klinkenberg 2015). It forages and roosts in small groups Mating begins in autumn and continues into winter. Females commonly form nursery colonies that can number in the hundreds, but solitary pregnant females are frequently encountered (Handley 1959). Males roost separately (apparently solitarily) during this time. Fertilisation of an egg is delayed until late winter/early spring. Gestation lasts two to 3.5 months, with a single litter of one born in early summer (approximately July in Washington and most likely in B.C.) (BC CDC 2015). Young can fly at 2.5 to four weeks of age and are weaned by six to eight weeks. Females are sexually mature their first summer and nearly all adult females breed every year. The maximum documented lifespan of a Townsend s big-eared bat is over 20 years (BC CDC 2015). Estimates of annual survival of wintering Townsend's big-eared bats in three locations in Washington ranged from 54% to 76% and varied by location, time or trends, and sex (BC CDC 2015). Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 23

191 Distribution In Canada, Townsend s big-eared bat is known to occur in southern B.C., including eastern Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, Quadra and Cortes islands, and the Lower Mainland (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, BC CDC 2015). In the B.C. interior, this bat ranges as far north as Williams Lake and east to Fort Steele in the Rocky Mountain Trench. It is most common at low elevations in B.C., but has been observed as high as 1,070 m in western Canada (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Klinkenberg 2015). Winter records and hibernacula are known for most of its B.C. range, with the closest documented occurrences of Townsend s big-eared bat at a maternity colony in Minnekhada Regional Park in Coquitlam, B.C. (Smyth 2000) and at Fisherman s Cove in West Vancouver in 1948 (BC CDC 2015), each located approximately 40 km from the Project area Habitat Townsend s big-eared bat is found in a wide variety of habitats (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Klinkenberg 2015). It is most common in forested habitats, but also regularly occupies arid grasslands and is periodically found at low densities in deserts (Kunz and Martin 1982, BC CDC 2015). Townsend s big-eared bat forms daytime roosts in caves, rock crevices, abandoned mines, and buildings. Night roosts are in mines, caves, and buildings. Winter hibernacula are in old mines, tunnels, and natural caves. Because this bat roosts in dry environments relative to other bat species, it may not be as susceptible to white-nosed syndrome. Currently, there is no critical habitat or recovery habitat designated for Townsend s big-eared bat; however, identification of roost sites is required and such sites are a conservation priority (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, BC CDC 2015) Abundance Population estimates are not available for the Townsend s big-eared bat, although populations are considered to be small relative to other bat species. Only a handful of summer roosts (containing 150 to 450 individuals) and smaller winter hibernacula (less than 50 individuals) have been reported (BC CDC 2015) Value of Habitat in the Project Area There are no data available on the frequency of Townsend s big-eared bat activity in the Project area, so habitat value has been assessed based on habitat preferences. While there are records of Townsend s big-eared bat occurring in the Lower Mainland, the species is observed less often in agricultural and estuarine habitats, such as those surrounding the Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 24

192 Project area, compared to coastal forest habitat, riverside habitat, and lakeside habitat. Therefore, the occurrence of Townsend s big-eared bat within the Project area is considered unlikely. The nearest structures to the Project that could provide roosting opportunities are two buildings associated with B.C. Rail operations, located approximately 50 m from the northeastern end of the Project footprint. No alterations will be made to these structures or any other potential roosting habitat as part of the Project. Similar to little brown myotis, given the Project area s small size, the lack of habitat features important to Townsend s big-eared bat, and the availability of extensive similar alternate habitat throughout the RAA, the regional importance of habitat contained within the Project area to the species is considered low Potential Adverse Effects Potential Project-related effects on Townsend s big-eared bat are similar to those described above for little brown myotis. Therefore, Project-related effects to Townsend s big-eared bat behaviour or productivity are anticipated to be negligible Existing Conditions and Potential Effects Characterisations for Pacific Water Shrew Conservation Status and Population Trend The Pacific water shrew, a semi-aquatic small mammal, was listed due to large-scale ongoing threats to shrew habitat from development and agriculture (COSEWIC 2006). It is provincially Red-listed, and listed as endangered under Schedule 1 of SARA. There has been no systematic monitoring of Pacific water shrew populations or habitat in B.C., so direct estimates of population trends are unavailable (COSEWIC 2006). Conservation concern stems from large scale habitat removal associated with human population growth and its associated fragmentation. It is likely that populations have declined in B.C. over the past decade due to this extensive habitat loss (COSEWIC 2006) Life History Overview Little is known concerning Pacific water shrew biology outside of its diet. The Pacific water shrew is dependent on riparian and aquatic habitat and forages both on land and in water (Craig 2007, BC CDC 2015). Its diet includes at least 25% aquatic species, including larvae, slugs, snails, ground beetles, harvestmen, earthworms, spiders, and centipedes (COSEWIC 2006, Craig 2007). The shrew relies on its sensitive nose to detect prey (Nagorsen 1996). Based on information for this species from U.S. populations, the breeding season extends from January to August with most young born in March (Nagorsen 1996). It is thought that Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 25

193 Pacific water shrew can produce two to three litters per year, with litter size possibly equalling five to seven young (COSEWIC 2006). The maximum lifespan is thought to be about 18 months. Assuming that most females do not breed in their first summer, the generation time is believed to be about one year (COSEWIC 2006) Distribution The range of the Pacific water shrew in B.C. is primarily restricted to riparian areas of the Lower Mainland (COSEWIC 2006). Records suggest that its range in the Lower Mainland is limited to Point Grey in Vancouver in the west, the Chilliwack River and Harrison Lake in the east, and Squamish in the north, although the exact boundaries are unknown (BC CDC 2015). The range extent is estimated to be between 4,000 km 2 and 5,700 km 2 (BC CDC 2015). The Pacific water shrew is known largely from low elevation records (less than 650 m) in B.C., but has been discovered as high as 850 m elevation in Mount Seymour Provincial Park (Nagorsen 1996). Twenty-three Pacific water shrew populations in suitable habitat have been identified, based on 48 captures or recoveries since 1991 and two from 1981 (Environment Canada 2014) Habitat Pacific water shrew require coniferous or deciduous forest or dense marsh or wetland vegetation to provide cover and maintain a moist microenvironment, an area of water to support foraging, and coarse woody debris (i.e., downed wood, which provides nest sites, travel corridors, increased cover, foraging habitat, and shelter (Environment Canada 2014)). The highest quality sites include the presence of rich moist habitat (e.g., skunk cabbage, salmon berry, devils club, red alder) and downed wood, and possess the following features (COSEWIC 2006, Craig et al. 2010): A riparian area around a permanent stream or creek (less than 10 m wide) with a mature coniferous forest of western red-cedar or western hemlock or a mature deciduous or mixed forest; and Habitat surrounding the stream sufficient to protect the normal functioning of the riparian ecosystem (i.e., a protective area) Other important habitat features that may support Pacific water shrew, but are associated with sites of lesser quality, including: Younger structural stage sites with an associated riparian area; Non-forested sites around streams/wetlands with heavy shrub cover; and Ephemeral or intermittent waterways. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 26

194 The importance of water or moist environments may outweigh a forest s age, as shrews have been documented in non-forested grassy habitats bordering ditches and sloughs in B.C. (COSEWIC 2006). Furthermore, the majority of shrew captures have occurred within 60 m of water bodies (Craig et al. 2010) There are 22 sites within the range of the Pacific water shrew (described above) that have been designated critical habitat (Environment Canada 2014), the closest of which is located approximately 10 km from the Project area. These sites contain ideal habitat conditions, including a moist, shaded environment, downed wood, and a watercourse at least 1.5 km in length Abundance No estimates of population density exist for Pacific water shrew within its range and the total number of individuals in B.C. is unknown. This species is generally considered rare (Nagorsen 1996, COSEWIC 2006). The Pacific water shrew has not been recorded within the Project area or the LAA, but there are records of occurrence in the RAA (Appendix IR11-A) (BC CDC 2015) Value of Habitat in the Project Area Habitat suitability for Pacific water shrew within the Project area was ranked as low and nil (Hemmera 2014d), based on best management practices (BMPs) (Craig et al. 2010). Due to the diversity of habitats where Pacific water shrew have been documented, all habitats occurring within 100 m of a water feature in the Lower Mainland are considered to provide at least low quality habitat for shrews (Craig et al. 2010). Habitat with low suitability in the Project area consists of a narrow strip of vegetation adjacent to an agricultural drainage ditch dominated by grasses and some shrubs, such as Himalayan blackberry (Figure IR11-1). Downed woody debris and indicators of rich moist habitat (e.g., skunk cabbage, salmon berry, devils club, red alder) are minimal to absent throughout the site Based on no documented Pacific water shrew occurrences within 10 km of the Project, and poor habitat suitability in the Project area as described above, the potential for Pacific water shrew to occur within the Project area is considered very low, and the habitat within the Project area is considered to be of low importance in a regional context. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 27

195 Potential Adverse Effects No physical alteration to the network of existing agricultural ditches is planned as part of the Project. However, agricultural ditch habitat and water quality (and shrews, if present) could be affected by sediment-laden runoff during construction. To prevent the potential degradation of habitat in the agricultural ditches associated with increased water turbidity or sedimentation, standard sediment erosion and control measures will be implemented for all Project areas where necessary, as described in EIS Section Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. As outlined in EIS Section 33.0 Environmental Management Program, monitoring and follow-up programs will occur before, during, and after the construction of the Project, with details to be further determined collaboratively with regulatory agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service. With sediment and erosion control measures in place, residual effects to Pacific water shrew are considered to be negligible Existing Conditions and Potential Effects Characterisations for Red-legged Frog Conservation Status and Population Trends The red-legged frog is provincially Blue-listed and has been designated of special concern on Schedule 1 of SARA (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004, BC CDC 2015). Information on the red-legged frog population in B.C. is insufficient to derive a reliable population trend, but population declines due to habitat loss from development within the Lower Mainland have been cited as a primary cause for its conservation listing (BC CDC 2015). Additional concern stems from the isolation of populations due to habitat fragmentation that prevent recolonisation of extirpated sites, and competition with introduced bullfrogs and exotic fish species (Adams 1999, Ovaska and Sopuck 2004) Life History Overview Red-legged frogs are nocturnally active and hibernate during winter months. Adults eat a variety of invertebrates and typically forage for prey on land (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004). Juveniles are also carnivorous, feeding mainly on invertebrates such as spiders, beetles, leaf hoppers, damsel bugs, minute moss beetles, adult flies, and fly larvae in terrestrial and riparian environments, (BC CDC 2015). Tadpoles are herbivorous, feeding mainly on filamentous green algae, and potentially suspended plant material or benthic detritus (Licht 1986). Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 28

196 Distribution In Canada, the range of the red-legged frog is largely limited to southwest B.C. Red-legged frogs occur primarily on Vancouver Island (over 50% of their Canadian range), but also on the Gulf Islands and in the Lower Mainland, including Richmond, Delta, and Surrey (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004, BC CDC 2015). Distribution on the mainland occurs west of the Coast Mountains in the Fraser Valley and adjacent to the Strait of Georgia (Maxcy 2004). The northern extent of this species in B.C. has not been verified, though the species is thought to occur as far north as Kingcome Inlet (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004). The species is also well established on Graham Island of Haida Gwaii (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004) Habitat Red-legged frogs inhabit moist, lower elevation (below 500 m (BC CDC 2015)) coniferous or deciduous forests and forested wetlands (Corkran and Thoms 2006). They have also been observed using disturbed sites, including suburban gardens and seasonal ponds in agricultural landscapes adjacent to forested areas (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004). Agricultural and roadside ditches are likely used outside the breeding season depending on water quality. Red-legged frogs require both aquatic breeding sites and terrestrial foraging habitats, and optimal habitat includes close proximity of both these habitat features (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004). A diversity of waterbodies and wetlands are used by breeding red-legged frogs with a wide variation in size, water depth, degree of permanency, and community structure (Adams 1999, BC CDC 2015). Breeding red-legged frogs select water bodies with low water flows and thin-stemmed, emergent plants, such as rushes and sedges (Richter and Azous 1995). Microhabitat complexity provided by emergent vegetation and submerged coarse woody debris provides cover and foraging opportunities required by developing red-legged frog tadpoles (Maxcy 2004). Other important habitat features may include a deciduous forest component (Gomez and Anthony 1996), and an abundance of coarse woody debris (Aubry and Hall 1991). 701 Currently, there is no critical habit or recovery habitat designated for red-legged frog Abundance The species is considered common within its range (Haycock and Knopp 1998, BC CDC 2015), with a the province-wide population estimated to range from 10,000 to 100,000 individuals (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004, BC CDC 2015). Two surveys of the Fraser Valley in the mid-1990s found red-legged frogs at 14 sites, but not at 25 sites where Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 29

197 apparently suitable habitat existed (Ovaska and Sopuck 2004). Additional wetland surveys for amphibians in the region found red-legged frogs at 50% of sites surveyed; however, much of this habitat has since been lost or degraded (Haycock and Knopp 1998). Sources reviewed for this response revealed no records of red-legged frog within the Project area or the LAA; however, there are records of occurrence in the RAA in spring 2013 (Appendix IR11-A), including vocalisations at a roadside site approximately 1 km from the terrestrial portion of the Project area (Hemmera 2014e) Value of Habitat in Project Area Red-legged frogs have been detected in proximity to Roberts Bank, albeit at low densities (Hemmera 2014e). Although it is not considered optimal habitat, red-legged frogs have been documented using roadside agricultural ditches, similar to those bordering the Project footprint. As red-legged frogs are capable of dispersing over land it is possible for them to occur within vegetated areas close to drainage ditches within the Project area. Agricultural ditch habitat is unlikely to support breeding, and the value of habitat to the northern red-legged frog B.C. population is likely low to nil relative to other habitat, particularly due to a lack of forested habitat close to the Project area (greater than three km away) Potential Adverse Effects Agricultural ditch habitat and water quality (and frogs, if present) could be affected during construction. To prevent the potential degradation of habitat in the agricultural ditches associated with increased water turbidity or sedimentation, standard sediment erosion and control measures will be implemented for all Project areas where necessary, as described in Section Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. As outlined in EIS Section 33.0 Environmental Management Program, monitoring and follow-up programs will occur before, during, and after the construction of the Project, with details to be further determined collaboratively with regulatory agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service. With sediment and erosion control measures in place, residual effects to red-legged frogs are considered to be negligible. Appendices Appendix IR11-A List of Species at Risk Potentially Occurring in the Project Area Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 30

198 References Adams, M. J Correlated Factors in Amphibian Decline: Exotic Species and Habitat Change in Western Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management Anthony, E. L., and T. H. Kunz Feeding Strategies of the Little Brown Bat, Myotis lucifugus, in Southern New Hampshire. Ecology Aubry, K. B., and P. A. Hall Terrestrial Amphibian Communities in the Southern Washington Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW- GTR-Pacific Northwest Research Station (USA). Barclay, R. M Night Roosting Behavior of the Little Brown Bat, Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy 63: BC Conservation Data Centre (BC CDC) BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Provincial Database created by BC Ministry of Environment. Available at Accessed July British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA) Marine Atlas of Pacific Canada: A Product of the British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA). Available at Accessed July Biodiversity BC Hectares BC. Available at Accessed July Brigham, R. M., J. Ng, R. G. Poulin, and S. D. Grindal Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor). The Birds of North America. Campbell, R. W., N. K. Dawe, M. C. E. McNall, G. W. Kaiser, J. M. Cooper, and I. McTaggert- Cowan Birds of British Columbia, Volume 2: Nonpasserines - Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Volume 2. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Campbell, W., N. K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. M. Cooper, G. W. Kaiser, M. C. McNall, and G. J. Smith Birds of British Columbia, Volume 3: Passerines-Flycatchers through Vireos. UBC Press. Corkran, C. C., and C. Thoms Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, B.C. COSEWIC COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa, ON. Available at Accessed July Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 31

199 COSEWIC COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Ottawa, Canada. Available at Accessed July COSEWIC COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, ON. COSEWIC COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subflavus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Craig, V. J Species Account and Preliminary Habitat Ratings for Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) using TEM data v. 2. Draft, Prepared by EcoLogic Research Ltd., Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Surrey, B.C. Craig, V. J., R. G. Venneslad, and K. E. Welstead Best Management Practices for Pacific Water Shrew in Urban and Rural Areas: Working Draft. MOE BMP Series, B.C. Ministry of Environment. Available at r%20pacific%20water%20shrew%20-%20sept% pdf. Accessed July Crampton, L. H., and R. M. Barclay Selection of Roosting and Foraging Habitat by Bats in Different Aged Aspen Mixedwood Stands. Conservation Biology 12: Dodd, L. E Diet and Prey Abundance of the Ozark Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) in Arkansas. Egli, T.P. and Lessard, J Survey of Northern abalone, Haliotis kamtschatkana, population in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, October Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences pp. Environment Canada Recovery Strategy for the Pacific Water Shrew (Sorex bendirii) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Environment Canada Recovery Strategy for the Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) in Canada [Proposed]. Species At Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Abalone Biology. Available at: [Accessed September 2015]. Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 32

200 Fenton, M. B., and R. M. Barclay Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian species 1 8. Frick, W. F., J. F. Pollock, A. C. Hicks, K. E. Langwig, D. S. Reynolds, G. G. Turner, C. M. Butchkoski, and T. H. Kunz An Emerging Disease causes Regional Population Collapse of a Common North American Bat Species. Science 329: Furlonger, C. L., H. J. Dewar, and M. B. Fenton Habitat Use by Foraging Insectivorous Bats. Canadian Journal of Zoology 65: Gomez, D. M., and R. G. Anthony Amphibian and Reptile Abundance in Riparian and Upslope Areas of Five Forest Types in Western Oregon. Northwest Science 70: Hagar, J., S. Howlin, and L. Ganio Short-term Response of Songbirds to Experimental Thinning of Young Douglas-fir Forests in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management 199: Handley, C. O A Revision of American Bats of the Genera Euderma and Plecotus. Proceedings U.S. National Museum 110: Haycock, R. D., and D. Knopp Amphibian Survey with Special Emphasis on the Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa. Selected Wetland Sites: Fraser River Lowlands and Corridors to the Interior Plateau. Report to Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C. Hemmera. 2014a. Technical Data Report Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation At-risk Terrestrial Invertebrate Species Study. Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc., Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, B.C. Available at Accessed July Hemmera. 2014b. Technical Data Report Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation At-risk Plant Study. Technical Data Report, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed July Hemmera. 2014c. Technical Data Report Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping. Technical Data Report, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed July Hemmera. 2014d. Technical Data Report Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Small Mammal Habitat Inventory. Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc., Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed July Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 33

201 Hemmera. 2014e. Robert Bank Terminal 2 Technical Data Report, Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation: Amphibians and Reptiles. Technical Data Report, Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc., Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed July Jarvis, R. L., and M. F. Passmore Ecology of Band-tailed Pigeons in Oregon. DTIC Document. Keppie, D. M., and C. E. Braun Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata). Account 530 in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists Union, Washington, DC, USA. Klinkenberg, B E-Fauna BC: Electronic Atlas of the Fauna of British Columbia. E-Fauna BC: Electronic Atlas of the Fauna of British Columbia [ Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Database. Available at Accessed July Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Pekins Bat Habitat Use in White Mountain National Forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management Kunz, T. H., and R. A. Martin Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian species 1 6. Kunz, T. H., and J. D. Reichard Status Review of the Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and Determination that Immediate Listing under the Endangered Species Act is Scientifically and Legally Warranted. Boston University, Boston, MA. Kurta, A., G. P. Bell, K. A. Nagy, and T. H. Kunz Energetics of Pregnancy and Lactation in Freeranging Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus). Physiological Zoology Leonard, J. P Nesting and Foraging Ecology of Band-tailed Pigeons in Western Oregon. Leslie Jr, D. M., and B. S. Clark Feeding Habits of the Endangered Ozark Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) Relative to Prey Abundance. Acta chiropterologica 4: Licht, L.E Food and feeding behaviour of sympatric red-legged frogs, Rana aurora and spotted frogs, Rana pretiosa, in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist. 100: Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 34

202 March, G. L., and R. Sadleir Studies on the Band-tailed pigeon (Columba fasciata) in British Columbia. 1. Seasonal Changes in Gonadal Development and Crop Gland Activity. Canadian Journal of Zoology 48: March, G. L., and R. Sadleir Studies on the Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata) in British Columbia. II. Food Resources and Mineral-gravelling Activity. Syesis 5: Maxcy, K. A Red-legged Frog. Pages in. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife Coast Forest Region. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, B.C. Available at Accessed July Nagorsen, D. W., and R. M. Brigham Bats of British Columbia. Volume 1. Mammals of British Columbia, Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook, Royal British Columbia Museum co-published with UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Nagorsen, D. W Opossums, Shrews and Moles of British Columbia. Volume 2. Mammals of British Columbia, Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook, Royal British Columbia Museum co-published with UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C. Ovaska, K., and L. Sopuck Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada. Unpublished Revised Report Prepared for COSEWIC. Passmore, M. F Utilization of Mineral Sites by Band-tailed Pigeons. Patriquin, K. J Ecology of a Bat Community in Harvested Boreal Forest in Northwestern Alberta. University of Calgary, AB. Peck, G. K., and R. D. James Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 2. Royal Ontario Museum Toronto, ON. Rasheed, S. A., and P. F. J. Garcia Status of Townsend s Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii) in British Columbia. Prepared for the Wildlife Branch, BC Environment, Victoria, BC. Rich et al Partners in Flight North America Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, N.Y. Richter, K. O., and A. L. Azous Amphibian Occurrence and Wetland Characteristics in the Puget Sound Basin. Wetlands 15: Sanders, T. A., and R. L. Jarvis Do Band-tailed Pigeons seek a Calcium Supplement at Mineral Sites? The Condor 102: Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 35

203 Sanders, T. A Habitat Availability, Dietary Mineral Supplement, and Measuring Abundance Of Band-tailed Pigeons in Western Oregon. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, and W. A. Link The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis Version North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis Available at Accessed September Smyth, M A Maternity Colony of Townsend s Big-eared Bats, Corynorhinus townsendii. Master of Science Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed September Sullivan, B. L., C. L. Wood, M. J. Iliff, R. E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling ebird: A Citizen-based Bird Observation Network in the Biological Sciences. Biological Conservation 142: Thomas, D. W The Distribution of Bats in Different Ages of Douglas-fir Forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management Whitaker Jr, J. O., and B. Lawhead Foods of Myotis lucifugus in a Maternity Colony in Central Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy Wimsatt, W. A Notes on Breeding Behavior, Pregnancy, and Parturition in some Vespertilionid Bats of the Eastern United States. Journal of Mammalogy Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 36

204 APPENDIX IR11-A List of Species at Risk Potentially Occurring in the Project Area

205 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

206 Appendix IR11-A Appendix IR11-A List of Species at Risk Potentially Occurring in the Project Area The following tables provide the risk designations for at-risk coastal bird, terrestrial, and marine species, based on the provincial conservation status for the species or ecological community assigned by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre (B.C. List) and Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the likely presence within the regional assessment area (RAA), local assessment area (LAA) and Project area (PA). The rationale for the presence classification is provided along with the associated data source(s). Species with potential to occur in the Project area are presented first followed by those species unlikely to occur for each of these three groups. The rationale is provided for the presence classification for each species. For each coastal bird, amphibian, and terrestrial mammal species likely to occur in the Project area, a summary of whether or not the species is migratory and their preferred habitat type is provided, and the abundance by season is also provided for coastal bird species. A common legend for the tables that defines acronyms and ranks/classifications, and list information sources is provided at the end of the tables. Coastal Bird Species at Risk With Potential to Occur in Project Area Subcomponent English Name Scientific Name Diving Birds Black Scoter Melanitta americana Blue - Y Y Y Diving Birds Brandt's Cormorant Phalacrocorax penicillatus Listing Status a Presence in Area b Rationale for Abundance by Season c,d Presence Data Source(s) e Migratory Habitat B.C. List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Classification Spring Summer Fall Winter 12,13,15,16, Y Ocean u - u u Red - Y Y Y 3,11,12,13,15,16, N Ocean - - r r Diving Birds Common Murre Uria aalge Red - Y Y Y 4,11,13,15,27, Y Ocean - - r r Diving Birds Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Blue - Y Y Y 3,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,21, 27 Y Ocean u c c c Diving Birds Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Blue - Y Y Y 3,27 Y Ocean - - u u Diving Birds Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis Blue - Y Y Y 3,13,15, Y Ocean u - - u Diving Birds Diving Birds Diving Birds Gulls and Terns Gulls and Terns Raptors Herons Herons Marbled Murrelet Surf Scoter Western Grebe Brachyramphus marmoratus Melanitta perspicillata Aechmophorus occidentalis Blue 1-T (Jun 2003) Y Y Y Detected in PA 15 N Ocean u - u u Blue - Y Y Y 3,11,12,13,15,16,17,27 Y Ocean c u c c Red - Y Y Y 3,11,12,13,15, Y Ocean u - c u California Gull Larus californicus Blue - Y Y Y 3,11,12,13,15,16,27 Y Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Blue - Y Y Y 3,11,12,13,15,16,27 Y Parasitic Jaeger American Bittern Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies Stercorarius parasiticus Botaurus lentiginosus Ardea herodias fannini Red - P Y Y Detected in LAA Intertidal/ Ocean Intertidal/ Ocean u u c r c c u - 27 Y Ocean r - r - Blue - P Y Y 27 Y Marsh r r r r Blue Passerines Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Blue 1-SC (Feb 2010) 1-SC (Feb 2011) Y Y Y Detected in PA 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,27 N Intertidal c c c c P Y Y Detected in LAA 27 Y Forest u u u r Passerines Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Blue - Y Y Y Detected in PA 3,11,12,13,15,16,18,19,27 Y Intertidal u c u - Passerines Black Swift Cypseloides niger Blue - P Y Y Detected in LAA 15,27 Y Cliffs r r r - Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-1

207 Appendix IR11-A Subcomponent Passerines English Name Common Nighthawk Scientific Name Listing Status a Presence in Area b Rationale for Abundance by Season c,d Presence Data Source(s) e Migratory Habitat B.C. List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Classification Spring Summer Fall Winter Chordeiles minor Yellow 1-T (2010) P Y Y 27 Y Grassland - r r - Passerines Purple Martin Progne subis Blue - P Y Y Detected in LAA 27 Y Raptors Barn Owl Tyto alba Red 1-SC (Jun 2003) Y Y Y Intertidal/ Marsh r u r - 14,16,17,19,27 N Grassland u u u u Raptors Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Blue - Y Y Y Detected in PA 27 Y Grassland r - r r Raptors Raptors Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies Rough-legged Hawk Falco peregrinus anatum Red Raptors Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Blue Shorebirds American Golden- Plover Shorebirds Red Knot Calidris canutus Red Shorebirds Shorebirds Red-necked Phalarope Short-billed Dowitcher 1-SC (Jun 2012) Y Y Y Buteo lagopus Blue - P Y Y 1-SC (Jul 2012) Detected in LAA 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,27 Y Intertidal r u r r 3,11,12,14,15,17,27 Y Grassland u - u u P Y Y 3,11,13,14,15,17,21,27 Y Grassland u r u u Pluvialis dominica Blue - P Y Y 27 Y Grassland - - r - 1-T/E (Feb 2010) P Y Y 3,12,13,14,15,17,27 Y Intertidal u u u - Phalaropus lobatus Blue - Y Y Y Detected in PA 11,15,16, Y Limnodromus griseus Intertidal/ Ocean r r r - Blue - P Y Y Detected in LAA 3,14,17,27 Y Intertidal u - u - Waterfowl Brant Branta bernicla Blue - Y Y Y 3,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,27 Y Intertidal c - u c Detected in PA Waterfowl Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus Blue - Y Y Y 16 Y Ocean r - r r Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-2

208 Appendix IR11-A Coastal Bird Species at Risk Unlikely to Occur in Project Area Sub-component English Name Scientific Name Listing Status a Presence in Area b Rationale for Presence B.C. List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Classification Diving Birds American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Red - P Y Y Diving Birds Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus Blue 1-SC (Aug 2006) Data Source(s) e Detected in LAA, but considered P Y Y 27 accidental (outside typical range) Diving Birds Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Red - P Y Y 27 Diving Birds Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii Blue - Y Y Y 27 Gulls and Terns Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea Accidental 1-E (Mar 2009) Y Y Y Detected in PA, but considered accidental (outside typical range) 27 Gulls and Terns Ross's Gull Rhodostethia rosea Accidental 1-T Y Y Y 9,13,27 Herons Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Red - U Y Y Herons Green Heron Butorides virescens Blue - U Y Y Detected in LAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA Passerines Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Red - U U Y Detected in RAA, but considered 9,27 Passerines Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Blue - U U Y accidental (outside typical range) 27 Passerines Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Blue 1-T (Feb 2010) U Y Y Passerines Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Blue 1-SC (Mar 2009) U U Y Detected in LAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA Passerines Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Red 1-E (Jun 2003) U U Y Detected in RAA, but considered 27 accidental (outside typical range) Passerines Smith's Longspur Calcarius pictus Blue - U U Y 27 Passerines Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Red 1-E (Jun 2003) U U Y 27 Raptors Northern Goshawk, laingi subspecies Accipiter gentilis laingi Red 1-T (Jun 2003) U U Y Raptors Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Red - U U Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat 27 Raptors Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Red - U U Y not present in PA 27 Raptors Western Screech-Owl, kennicottii subspecies Megascops kennicottii kennicottii Blue 1-SC (Jan 2005) Shorebirds American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Blue - U P Y ,14,17,27 U P Y 27 Detected in RAA, but considered accidental (outside typical range) Shorebirds Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica Red - P Y Y 27 Detected in LAA, but considered 1-SC (Jan Shorebirds Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Blue P Y Y accidental (outside typical range) ) Shorebirds Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Red - U U Y Shorebirds Wandering Tattler Tringa incana Blue - P Y Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA Detected in LAA, but considered accidental (outside typical range) Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-3

209 Appendix IR11-A Terrestrial Species at Risk With Potential to Occur in Project Area Sub-category English Name Scientific Name Amphibians Terrestrial Mammals Terrestrial Mammals Terrestrial Mammals Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora Listing Status a Presence in Area b B.C. Rationale for Presence Classification List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Blue Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Yellow 1-SC (Jan 2005) 1-E (Dec 2014) Amphibians Data Source(s) e Migratory Habitat P P Y Detected in RAA 10 N Wetlands Terrestrial Mammals P P P Detections in the Lower Mainland are common and widespread; no roosting habitat within PA; potential within PA restricted to foraging Pacific Water Shrew Sorex bendirii Red 1-E (Jun 2003) P P Y Detected in RAA 4 N Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Blue - P P P Within range but apparently not abundant with detections in the Lower Mainland restricted to a few sites. 4 N Forest/Grassland Forest/Streams/ Wetlands 8 N Forest/Grassland Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-4

210 Appendix IR11-A Terrestrial Species at Risk Unlikely to Occur in Project Area Sub-category English Name Scientific Name Amphibians Coastal Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei Blue Listing Status a Presence in Area b Rationale for Presence Classification B.C. List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Amphibians 1-SC (Jun 2003) Amphibians Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa Red 1-E (Jun 2003) N N P Amphibians Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Blue 1-SC (Jan 2005) Plants Beaked Spike-rush Eleocharis rostellata Blue - P P P Plants Data Source(s) e N N Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA 2 Potentially suitable habitat present in RAA, but not in LAA or PA N N Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA 2,10 Plants California-tea Rupertia physodes Blue - P P P 44 Plants Carolina Meadow-foxtail Alopecurus carolinianus Red - P P P 44 Plants Chaffweed Anagallis minima Blue - P P P 44 Plants Flowering Quillwort Lilaea scilloides Blue - P P P 44 Plants Green-fruited Sedge Carex interrupta Red - P P P 44 Plants Henderson's Checker-mallow Sidalcea hendersonii Blue - P P P 44 Plants Joe-pye Weed Eutrochium maculatum var. bruneri Red - P P P 44 Helenium autumnale var. Plants Mountain Sneezeweed Blue - P P P grandiflorum Potentially suitable habitat and within range, but surveys 44 demonstrate absence from PA. Plants Needle-leaved Navarretia Navarretia intertexta Red - P P P 44 Plants Nuttall's Quillwort Isoetes nuttallii Blue - P P P 44 Plants Pointed Rush Juncus oxymeris Blue - P P P 44 Plants Slender-spiked Mannagrass Glyceria leptostachya Blue - P P P 44 Plants Small Spike-rush Eleocharis parvula Blue - P P P 44 Plants Snow Bramble Rubus nivalis Blue - P P P 44 Plants Streambank Lupine Lupinus rivularis Red 1-E (2005) P P P 44 Plants Three-flowered Waterwort Elatine rubella Blue - P P P 44 Plants Two-edged Water-starwort Callitriche heterophylla ssp. heterophylla Plants Vancouver Island Beggarticks Bidens amplissima Blue 1-SC (2003) P P Y Plants Washington Springbeauty Claytonia washingtoniana Red - P P P Blue - P P P 44 Detected in RAA, but surveys demonstrate absence from potential habitat in PA. Potentially suitable habitat and within range, but surveys demonstrate absence from PA Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-5

211 Appendix IR11-A Sub-category English Name Scientific Name Listing Status a Presence in Area b Rationale for Presence Classification B.C. List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Reptiles Reptiles Sharp-tailed Snake Contia tenuis Red 1-E (Jun 2003) N N Y Turtles Painted Turtle - Pacific Coast Population Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA Chrysemys picta pop. 1 Red 1-E (Dec 2007) N N Y 4 Gastropods Gastropods Black Gloss Zonitoides nitidus Blue - U U P Gastropods Broadwhorl Tightcoil Pristiloma johnsoni Blue - U U P 4 Gastropods Evening Fieldslug Deroceras hesperium Red - U U P Suitable habitat possibly present in RAA, but unlikely in 4 Gastropods Pacific Sideband Monadenia fidelis Blue - U U P LAA or PA 28 Gastropods Scarletback Taildropper Prophysaon vanattae Blue - U U P 20 Gastropods Western Thorn Carychium occidentale Blue - U U P 20 Insects Insects Afranius Duskywing Erynnis afranius Red - U U Y Detected in RAA but considered accidental (outside typical range) Insects Audouin's Night-stalking Tiger Beetle Omus audouini Red - U U Y 4,7 Insects Autumn Meadowhawk Sympetrum vicinum Blue - U U Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA 26 Insects Blue Dasher Pachydiplax longipennis Blue - U U Y 23 Insects Checkered Skipper Pyrgus communis Blue - U U Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat unlikely present in 1 Insects Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris Red 1-T (Jun 2003) U U Y PA 4, 1-SC (Jun Insects Monarch Danaus plexippus Blue U U Y 2003) Detected in RAA (likely accidental), but suitable habitat 4,22 unlikely in PA Insects Propertius Duskywing Erynnis propertius Red - U U Y 1,4 Insects Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus Blue - U U Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat unlikely in PA 1 Insects Western Pine Elfin, sheltonensis subspecies Callophrys eryphon sheltonensis Blue - U U P Possible in RAA but unlikely in PA (habitat = mesic meadows in Fd forests, host plant viola species) Insects Western Pondhawk Erythemis collocata Blue - U U Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat unlikely in PA 23,25 Insects Zerene Fritillary, bremnerii subspecies Speyeria zerene bremnerii Red - U U P Terrestrial Mammals Terrestrial Mammals Olympic Shrew Sorex rohweri Red - N N Y Potentially suitable habitat present in RAA, but not in LAA or PA Data Source(s) e 2 4 1, Terrestrial Mammals Southern Red-backed Vole, occidentalis subspecies Myodes gapperi occidentalis Red - U U Y Detected in RAA, but suitable habitat not present in PA 26 Terrestrial Mammals Trowbridge's Shrew Sorex trowbridgii Blue - N N Y 4 Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-6

212 Appendix IR11-A Marine Species at Risk With Potential to Occur in Project Area Sub-component English Name Scientific Name Listing Status a Presence in Area b Rationale for Presence Classification B.C. List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Marine Invertebrates Bivalve Shellfish Olympia Oyster Ostrea conchaphila Blue 1-SC P P Y Detected in RAA historically 29 Forage Fish Eulachon (Fraser River population) Marine Fish Thaleichthys pacificus Blue No Status Y Y Y Detected in LAA/RAA, likely to migrate through PA 32 Pacific Salmon Green Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris Red 1-SC P P Y Detected (but rare) in RAA 33 Pacific Salmon Toothed Whales Toothed Whales White Sturgeon (Lower Fraser River population) Southern Resident Killer Whale Northeast Pacific Transient Killer Whale Acipenser transmontanus Red No Status P Y Y Detected in LAA/RAA 36 Marine Mammals Orcinus orca Red 1-E Y Y Y Critical habitat within the PA, LAA and RAA and frequently observed in RAA Orcinus orca Red 1-T Y Y Y Frequently observed within the LAA and RAA 45 Toothed Whales Harbour Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Blue 1-SC Y Y Y Frequently observed within LAA and RAA 41, 45 Baleen Whales Eastern Pacific Grey Whale Eschrichtius robustus Blue 1-SC P Y Y Periodically observed in LAA and RAA 45 Baleen Whales North Pacific Humpback Whale Data Source(s) e Megaptera novaeangliae Blue 1-SC P Y Y Critical habitat within RAA and commonly observed in RAA 41, 45 Seals and Sea Lions Steller Sea Lion Eumetopias jubatus Blue 1-SC Y Y Y Frequently observed within LAA and RAA 45 41, 45 Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-7

213 Appendix IR11-A Marine Species at Risk Unlikely to Occur in Project Area Sub-component English Name Scientific Name Listing Status a Presence in Area b Rationale for Presence Classification B.C. List 5 SARA 5,6 PA LAA RAA Marine Invertebrates Bivalve Shellfish Northern Abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana Red 1-E U U U Marine Fish n/a Basking Shark Cetorhinus maximus No Status 1-E N U Y n/a Bluntnose Sixgill Shark Hexanchus griseus No Status 1-SC N N U n/a Tope (Soupfin Shark) Galeorhinus galeus No Status 1-SC N N N Pacific Salmon White Sturgeon (Middle Fraser River population) Acipenser transmontanus Red No Status N N N Reef Fish Rougheye Rockfish Sebastes aleutianus No Status 1-SC N N N Reef Fish Yelloweye rockfish (Pacific Ocean inside waters population) Sebastes ruberrimus No Status 1-SC N N N Reef Fish Longspine Thornyhead Sebastolobus altivelis No Status 1-SC N N N Toothed Whales Northeast Pacific Offshore Killer Whale Marine Mammals Orcinus orca Red 1-SC N N P Toothed Whales Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Blue No Status N N P Baleen Whales Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus Red 1-T N N U Baleen Whales Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Red 1-E N N N Baleen Whales North Pacific Right Whale Eubalaena japonica Red 1-E N N N Baleen Whales Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis Red 1-E N N N Seals and Sea Lions Sea otter Enhydra lutris Blue 1-SC N N N Seals and Sea Lions Northern Fur Seal Callorhinus ursinus Red No Status N N P No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; very little rocky habitat in the Fraser estuary No documented occurrences in PA/LAA; recent documented occurrence in RAA (i.e., Puget Sound 2014) No documented occurrences within PA/LAA/RAA. Lack of suitable habitat in PA, primarily a deepwater species found in waters below 91 m. No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; outside range (continental shelf waters along Vancouver Island, Queen Charlotte Sound, and into Hecate Strait) No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; outside range (i.e., Hell's gate to Prince George) No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; lack of suitable habitat (i.e., sloping, bouldered bottoms, occurring between 170 and 660 m) No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; lack of suitable habitat (i.e., hard substrates that are complex and with some vertical relief) No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; lack of suitable habitat (i.e., tyically occurs in waters over 800 m deep) No documented occurrences in PA/LAA; potential to occur in RAA No documented occurrences within the PA and LAA but potential to occur within RAA No documented occurrences in PA/LAA; has potential to occur in RAA (southern Strait of Georgia), but unlikely. No documented occurerences in PA/LAA/RAA; primarily offshore species that feeds at edge of continental shelf No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; no sightings in BC waters for last 50 years No documented occurrences in PA/LAA/RAA; associated with deep offshore habitat No documented occurrences within the PA/LAA/RAA and no suitable habitat (prefer wave exposed coastlines). RAA is not part of historical range. No documented occureences in PA/LAA; very low frequency of occurrence within RAA Data Source(s) e , , , Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-8

214 Appendix IR11-A LEGEND FOR TABLES Notes: '-' means either not relevant or no data available a. Listing Status Provincial List: Red - includes ecological communities, and indigenous species and subspecies that are extirpated, endangered or threatened in B.C. Blue - includes ecological communities, and indigenous species and subspecies of special concern (formerly vulnerable) in B.C. Yellow - includes ecological communities and indigenous species that are not at risk in B.C. Accidental - species occurring infrequently and unpredicatably, outside their usual range (species are excluded from the Red, Blue and Yellow lists). Federal Status: Each SARA status consists of the Schedule followed by the status code. E = ENDANGERED: A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. T = THREATENED: A species that is likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. SC = SPECIAL CONCERN: A species of special concern because of characteristics that make it is particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. b. Presence in Area: PA = Project Area; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area Y = Yes, species has been detected in area. P = Potential, Species has not been documented in specific area in the last 25 years (since 1990), but has the potential to occur based on habitat or documented occurence(s) in larger region. U = Unlikely, Species has not been documented in specific area in the last 25 years and is unlikely to occur based on habitat suitability/availability. N = No, Species has not been documented in the specific area in the last 25 years and is not anticipated to occur in future. c. Seasonal abundance categories for bird species occuring in the LAA were consolidated from Boundary Bay, BC 42 and Maplewood Flats, BC 43 bird checklists and verified with ebird 27 records: a (abundant) - Many birds documented annually (Note that this category is only presented for context as no species are considered to be abundant in the first table above). c (common) - Species is observed every year, but are not abundant. u (uncommon) - Species observed in most years. r (rare) - Species observed in some years. ac (accidental) - A few observations over the 25 year period, outside typical range (Note that this category is only presented for context as no species are considered to be accidental in the first table above). d. Seasons: Spring = March, April, May; Summer = June, July, August; Fall = September, October, November; Winter = December, January, February e. Data Source: 1: BC Butterfly Atlas Data for Atlas Square ID: 10DV94. < 2: BC Frogwatch Program Amphibians of BC. In partnership with the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF), BC Ministry of Environment (MoE), the Conservation Data Centre, Thompson Rivers University, and the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Netweod (EMAN). 3: Bird Studies Canada British Columbia Coastal Waterbirds Survey. Bird Studies Canada, Citizen Science - British Columbia Coastal Waterbirds Survey Program website. < 4: British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (BC CDC) BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Provincial Database created by BC Ministry of Environment. < 5: British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (BC CDC) BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Provincial Database created by BC Ministry of Environment. < 6: Species at risk public registry: < 7: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Audouin s Night-stalking Tiger Beetle Omus audouini in Canada. Ottawa. x + 57 pp. 8. Community Bat Programs of BC BC's Bat Species. < 9. Cornell Lab of Ornithology Birds of North America Online: Range Maps & Species Accounts. < 10: Gebauer, M Status of Wildlife in Burns Bog, Delta Late Summer/Early Fall 1999 Survey Results and Review of Existing Information. Enviro-Pacific Consulting, Surrey, B.C. 11: Hemmera, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, and Precision Identification Biological Consultants Adaptive Management Strategy 2007 Annual Report, Deltaport Third Berth. Final Report, Prepared for Vancouver Fraser Port Authority., Vancouver, B.C. 12: Hemmera, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, and Precision Identification Biological Consultants Adaptive Management Strategy 2008 Annual Report, Deltaport Third Berth. Final Report, Prepared for Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Vancouver, B.C. 13: Hemmera, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, and Precision Identification Biological Consultants Adaptive Management Strategy 2009 Annual Report, Deltaport Third Berth. Final Report, Prepared for Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Vancouver, B.C. 14: Hemmera Technical Data Report Coastal Birds: Abundance and Distribution of Overwintering Shorebirds in the Fraser River Estuary. 15: Hemmera Technical Data Report Coastal Birds: Coastal Waterbird Distribution and Abundance Study. Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc., Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 16: Hemmera Technical Data Report Coastal Birds: Effects of Overhead Transmission Lines and Vehicle Traffic on Birds. Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc., Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 17: Hemmera Technical Data Report Coastal Birds: Shorebird Usage of the FRE during Migration. Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc., Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 18: Hemmera Technical Data Report Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation: Small Mammal Habitat Inventory. Draft Report, Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 19: Hemmera Technical Data Report Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation: Songbirds Study. Draft Report, Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 20: Hemmera Technical Data Report: Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation: At-risk Terrestrial Invertebrate Species Study. Draft Report, Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 21: Hemmera Technical Data Report: Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation: Upland Waterbirds Study. Draft Report, Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 22: Klinkenberg, B Electronic Atlas of the Fauna of British Columbia (E-Fauna BC). Lab for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Database. < 23: Knopp, D Dragonfly/Butterfly Sruveys, South Fraser Perimeter Road. Prepared by B.C.'s Wild Heritage for the Gateway Program, Ministry of Transportation. 24: Nagorsen, D., and N. Panter Identification and Status of the Olympic Shrew (Sorex rohweri) in British Columbia. Northwest Naturalist 90: Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-9

215 Appendix IR11-A 25: Palmer, C., and D. Knopp South Fraser Perimeter Road Invertebrate Monitoring, February Prepared for the Gateway Program, Ministry of Transportation. 26: Robertson Environmental Services Ltd (RESL) Vegetation and Wildlife Impact Assessment, Technical Volume 12 of the Environmental Assessment Application for South Fraser Perimeter Road. Prepared for the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. 27: Sullivan, B.L., C.L. Wood, M.J. Iliff R.E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S.Kelling ebird: A Citizen-based Bird Observation Network in the Biological Sciences. Biological Conservation 142: : Zevit, P., K. Ovaska, and L. Sopuck BC s Coast Region: Species & Ecosystems of Conservation Concern: Oregon Forestsnail (Allogona townsendiana); Pacific Sideband (Monadenia fidelis). Adamah Consultants and Biolinx Environmental for the South Coast Conservation Program (SCCP) in partnership with: International Forest Products (Interfor), Capacity Forestry (CapFor) and the BC Ministry of Environment, E-Flora and E-Fauna the Electronic Atlas of the Flora and Fauna of BC, Species at Risk & Local Government. 29: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 56 pp. ( 30: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Pacific population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 34 pp. ( 31: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the bluntnose sixgill shark Hexanchus griseus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 33 pp. ( 32: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eulachon, Nass/Skeena Rivers population, Central Pacific Coast population and the Fraser River population Thaleichthys pacificus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xv + 88 pp. ( 33: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 31 pp. ( 34: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the longspine thornyhead Sebastolobus altivelis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 27 pp. ( 35: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the rougheye rockfish Sebastes sp. type I and Sebastes sp. type II in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 36 pp. ( 36: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxvii + 75 pp. ( 37: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Northern Abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 48 pp. ( 38: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the rougheye rockfish Sebastes sp. type I and Sebastes type II in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 36 pp. (sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). 39: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the tope Galeorhinus galeus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 29 pp. (sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). 40: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus, Pacific Ocean inside waters population and Pacific Ocean outside waters population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 75 pp. ( 41: Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd Deltaport Third Berth Project Marine Resources Impact Assessment. 42: Mol, A. L Boundary Bay regional park bird checklist. Originally compiled in 1995 by Allen Poynter. < 43: Hawkes, B., and Q. Brown Bird Checklist: The Conservation Area at Maplewood Flats. Wild Bird Trust of British Columbia. < 44: Hemmera Technical Data Report Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation At-risk Plant Study. Technical Data Report, Vancouver, B.C. 45: Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) Environmental Impact Statement. Report submitted to Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by PMV. Available at Accessed June : COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the sei whale Balaenoptera borealis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 27 pp. 47: Gregr, E.J., J. Calambokidis, L. Convey, J.K.B. Ford, R.I. Perry, L. Spaven, M. Zacharias Recovery Strategy for Blue, Fin, and Sei Whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, and B. borealis) in Pacific Canadian Waters. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Vancouver: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vii + 53 pp. 48: COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the North Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 22 pp. ( Response to Information Request #11 (IR ) Page 11-A-10

216 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #12 Mitigation Measures Rationale The EIS Guidelines (11.1.1) require that mitigation measures be identified for each environmental effect along with the reasons for determining if the measures reduce the significance of the effect, the anticipated effectiveness of the measures, other measures that were considered but rejected and the reasons for their rejection. However, in section of the EIS, for example, mitigation measures are identified to address productivity loss due to changes in habitat quality related to underwater noise. It is highlighted that measures will be developed to mitigate the effect (some options are listed), but the other mitigation related requirements are not discussed. Appendices 29-A and 29-B provide a summary of all mitigation measures, but mostly refer to plans without being explicit about the mitigation measures. Section 24.8 of the EIS states that with the implementation of mitigation measures the residual effects of the Project would be negligible, but there is no discussion of how the mitigation measures are meant to reduce significance and result in negligible effects. Information Requested For each environmental effect: a) provide a list of mitigation measures; b) explain how the mitigation measures are meant to reduce significance; c) discuss the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures; d) if there is some question as to effectiveness of the mitigation measures, discuss the potential risks and effects to the environment should those measures not be effective; and e) provide the list of other mitigation measures that were considered and the reasons for rejecting them. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 1

217 Response Mitigation measures are described or listed in several EIS sections. Descriptions of proposed mitigation measures are provided within each intermediate or valued component section, as applicable to the anticipated potential effect, and summaries are provided in the following locations: EIS Appendix 29-A Changes to Components of the Environment within Federal Jurisdiction: Provides a summary of mitigation measures pertaining to changes to components of the environment (i.e., biophysical valued components) within federal jurisdiction. EIS Appendix 29-B Changes to the Environment that would occur on Federal or Transboundary Lands (Intermediate Components): Provides a summary of mitigation measures pertaining to changes the Project may cause to the environment on federal lands or transboundary lands for intermediate components. EIS Appendix 29-C Changes to the Environment that would occur on Federal or Transboundary Lands (Valued Components): Provides a summary of mitigation measures pertaining to changes the Project may cause to the environment on federal lands or transboundary lands for biophysical valued components. EIS Table 35-1: Provides a complete list of mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or offset potential Project-related effects for all intermediate and valued components (biophysical, social, and economic). EIS Table 35-2: Provides a summary description of all commitments, including mitigation measures listed in EIS Table 35-1 and other commitments, including accommodation measures for effects on Aboriginal groups For each valued component, the following information is provided in Appendix IR12-A to address information request items a) through d): A list of adverse measurable potential effects for which mitigation measures are proposed (noting that mitigation is not required for negligible or positive effects); The relevant phase mitigation is applicable to; Actions or measures (including environmental management plans (EMPs)) that are proposed to mitigate the potential effect; A description of how the mitigation is intended to reduce the significance of the potential effect; and The anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measure, as well as the risks (if any) to the environment should the mitigation not be effective. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 2

218 For each valued component, Appendix IR12-B addresses information request item e). For each measurable potential effect related to the Project, other mitigation measures that were considered but not applied to reduce significance are listed and the rationale for the rejection of each considered measure is provided, on the basis of technical feasibility, economic feasibility, or effectiveness. References None Appendices Appendix IR12-A Summary of Proposed Mitigation and Anticipated Effectiveness Appendix IR12-B Summary of Other Mitigation Considered and Rationale for Rejection Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 3

219 APPENDIX IR12-A Summary of Proposed Mitigation And Anticipated Effectiveness

220 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

221 Appendix IR12-A APPENDIX IR12-A SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVENESS Table IR12-A Summary of Proposed Mitigation and Anticipated Effectiveness Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Marine Vegetation (EIS Section 11.0) Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Compliance checking for water quality Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Maintain existing macroalgae productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (i.e., guideline levels for total suspended solids (TSS) / turbidity). Environmental Training Plan Environmental awareness training Prevent unnecessary disturbance to macroalgae to maintain existing productivity. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Productivity loss for macroalgae during construction and operation phases Construction Dredging and Sediment Discharge Plan Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Compliance checking for water quality according to Disposal At Sea Permit Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Installation and regular inspection of land-based erosion-control measures (e.g., silt fence) Control of storm water to avoid sensitive environments Compliance checking for water quality Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of construction equipment Maintain existing macroalgae productivity through protection of water quality. Maintain existing macroalgae productivity through protection of water quality. Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the aquatic environment to maintain habitat quality. Effective regulatory conditions and guidelines for dredging and discharge will apply. Effective regulatory conditions and guidelines for land development and the maintenance of water quality to prevent sedimentation will apply. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Minimise direct effects to species and maintain habitat quality through intervention for any released deleterious substances. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant regulations, guidelines, and reporting requirements will apply. Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan Site inspections and sample collection to evaluate implemented measures Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Maintain existing macroalgae productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity). Operation Environmental Training Plan Environmental awareness training Prevent unnecessary disturbance to macroalgae to maintain existing productivity. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-1

222 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of operation equipment Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the aquatic environment. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Minimise effects through intervention for any released deleterious substances. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Offsetting Plan Creation of subtidal rock reef habitat Provide habitat for attachment and recolonisation to promote increase in macroalgae productivity. Effective proven approach at Roberts Bank. Changes in biofilm assemblage composition during freshet during construction and operation phases Construction and Operation No known measures to mitigate temporary changes in salinity. No known measures to mitigate temporary changes in salinity. N/A N/A Marine Invertebrates (EIS Section 12.0) Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Alignment of construction activities to avoid fisheries-sensitive windows for Dungeness crabs Compliance checking for water quality Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Reduce direct mortality of crabs (specifically gravid female crabs) below -5.0 m chart datum (CD) water depth through work window restrictions from October 15 to March 30. Maintain existing bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crab, and orange sea pen productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity, DFO-regulated timing windows). Productivity loss for bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crabs, and orange sea pens during construction and operation phases Construction Environmental Training Plan Dredging and Sediment Discharge Plan Environmental awareness training Compliance checking for water quality according to Disposal At Sea Permit Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Prevent unnecessary disturbance to marine invertebrates to maintain existing productivity. Maintain existing bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crab, and orange sea pen productivity through protection of water quality. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Effective regulatory conditions and guidelines for dredging and discharge will apply. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Installation and regular inspection of land-based erosion-control measures (e.g., silt fence) where necessary Control of storm water to avoid sensitive environments Compliance checking for water quality Maintain existing bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crab, and orange sea pen productivity through protection of water quality. Effective regulatory conditions and guidelines for land development and the maintenance of water quality will apply. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-2

223 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Marine Species Salvage Plan Crab Salvage Program Orange Sea Pen Transplant Capture and relocate crabs within intermediate transfer pit (ITP), and within terminal and causeway containment dykes to local area outside of Project-related disturbance area to partially mitigate contstruction-related mortality and physical injury. Collect and relocate orange sea pens to local area outside of Project-related disturbance area to partially mitigate direct mortality from terminal construction. Partially effective for crabs proven approach at Roberts Bank for Deltaport Third Berth Project; effectiveness of mitigation incorporated into environmental assessment as salvages are known to only reduce and not fully mitigate construction related crab productivity decreases. Therefore, a change in the significance of the residual effect is not anticipated if this mitigation measure is not fully effective in salvaging all crabs from within work zones. Partially effective for sea pens a pilot study has confirmed that sea pens can be successfully transplanted in the wild and monitoring of survival success continues. A small portion of the sea pen aggregation is targeted for transplant, and the effectiveness of this measure for a portion of the population was taken into consideration in the effects assessment. Therefore, a change in the significance of the residual effect is not anticipated if this mitigation measure is not fully effective. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of construction equipment Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the aquatic environment to maintain habitat quality. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Minimise direct effects to species and maintain habitat quality through intervention for any released deleterious substances. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant regulations, guidelines, and reporting requirements will apply. Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan Site inspections and sample collection to evaluate implemented measures Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Maintain existing bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crab, and orange sea pen productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity). Operation Environmental Training Plan Environmental awareness training Prevent unnecessary disturbance to bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crab, and orange sea pen to maintain existing productivity. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of operation equipment Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the aquatic environment to maintain habitat quality. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-3

224 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Minimise direct effects to species and maintain habitat quality through intervention for any released deleterious substances. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Offsetting Plan Creation of eelgrass habitat Creation of tidal marsh habitat, mudflat, and sandy gravel beach habitat Creation of subtidal rock reef habitat Eelgrass to promote increase in bivalve shellfish (heart cockles) and crab productivity Tidal marsh, mudflat, sandy gravel beach to promote increase in bivalve shellfish productivity Subtidal rock reef to promote increase in bivalve shellfish (bay mussel and Pacific oysters) productivity Effective these habitats have been proposed as mitigation based on the proven success of previous habitat creation projects within the Fraser River estuary and similar environments. Marine Fish (EIS Section 13.0) Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Alignment of construction activities to avoid fisheries-sensitive windows for juvenile salmon Compliance checking for water quality Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Reduce productivity losses for fish during sensitive periods through work window restrictions from March 1 to August 15 above -5.0 m CD water depth. Maintain existing marine fish productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity, DFO-regulated timing windows). Loss of productivity for marine fish subcomponents during construction and operation phases Construction Environmental Training Plan Dredging and Sediment Discharge Plan Environmental awareness training Compliance checking for water quality according to Disposal At Sea Permit Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Prevent unnecessary disturbance to marine fish to maintain existing productivity. Maintain existing marine fish productivity through protection of water quality. Partially effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Effective regulatory conditions and guidelines for dredging and discharge will apply. Light Management Plan Direct light away from marine environment Control light levels Limit use of lights to active work areas where possible Maintain existing marine fish habitat quality and fish productivity by minimising light trespass into marine environment. Partially effective as stated in environmental assessment, the effectiveness of lighting mitigation measures on marine fish are not well established, and therefore, this uncertainty has been taken into consideration. Therefore, a change in the significance of the residual effect is not anticipated if these mitigation measure are not fully effective in reducing light in the marine environment. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-4

225 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) During piling, use of vibratory hammer instead of impact pile driving when practical Underwater Noise Management Plan Hydrophone monitoring to confirm sound levels remain below thresholds Implementation of sound reduction or dampening methods or technologies (e.g., bubble curtains) to manage pile-driving sound levels, if required, to lower sound levels below thresholds To conduct activities under the threshold sound level that may cause harm (injury or mortality) to fish. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (existing standard management practices for pile driving activities will apply). Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Installation and regular inspection of land-based erosion-control measures (e.g., silt fence) where necessary Control of storm water to avoid sensitive environments Compliance checking for water quality Maintain existing macroalgae productivity through protection of water quality. Effective regulatory conditions and guidelines for land development and the maintenance of water quality will apply. Marine Species Salvage Plan Fish Salvage Strategy Crab Salvage Program Capture and relocate fish within ITP, and within terminal and causeway containment dykes to local area outside of Project-related disturbance area to partially mitigate contstruction-related mortality and physical injury. Partially effective proven approach at Roberts Bank for Deltaport Third Berth Project; effectiveness of mitigation incorporated into environmental assessment as salvages are known to only reduce and not fully mitigate construction-related fish productivity decreases. Therefore, a change in the significance of the residual effect is not anticipated if this mitigation measure is not fully effective in salvaging all fish from within the work zones. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of construction equipment Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the aquatic environment to maintain habitat quality. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Minimise direct effects to species and maintain habitat quality through intervention for any released deleterious substances. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant regulations, guidelines, and reporting requirements will apply. Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan Site inspections and sample collection to evaluate implemented measures Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Maintain existing marine fish productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity). Operation Light Management Plan Direct light away from marine environment Control light levels Limit use of lights to active work areas where possible Maintain existing marine fish habitat quality and fish productivity by minimising light trespass into marine environment. Partially effective as stated in environmental assessment, the effectiveness of lighting mitigation measures on marine fish are not well established, and therefore, this uncertainty has been taken into consideration in the effects assessment. Therefore, a change in the significance of the residual effect is not anticipated if these mitigation measures are not fully effective in reducing light in the marine environment. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-5

226 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Environmental Training Plan Environmental awareness training Prevent unnecessary disturbance to marine fish to maintain existing productivity. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of operation equipment Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the aquatic environment. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Minimise effects through intervention for any released deleterious substances. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Eelgrass to promote productivity increases for juvenile salmon, juvenile rockfish, forage fish, and small demersal fish Offsetting Plan Creation of eelgrass habitat Creation of tidal marsh habitat Creation of mudflat Creation of sandy gravel beach habitat Creation of subtidal rock reef habitat Tidal marsh to promote productivity increases for juvenile salmon Mudflat to promote productivity increase in benthic invertebrates, which are food sources for fish Sandy gravel beach to promote increase in juvenile salmon productivity, and promote forage fish spawning Subtidal rock reef to promote increase in reef fish productivity Effective proven approach at Roberts Bank. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-6

227 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Marine Mammals (EIS Section 14.0) Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Compliance checking for underwater noise levels Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Maintain existing marine fish productivity (food source) and marine mammal habitat quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments. During piling, use of vibratory hammer instead of impact pile driving when practical Change in acoustic environment resulting in behavioural effects or acoustic masking for southern resident killer whale, North Pacific humpback whale, and Steller sea lion during construction and operation phases Construction Underwater Noise Management Plan Marine Mammal Observation Plan Establish protective buffer zones around Project construction activities Hydrophone monitoring to confirm sound levels remain below thresholds Hydrophone monitoring in darkness or weatherinduced poor visibility will supplement Marine Mammal Observation Plan Implementation of sound reduction or dampening methods or technologies (e.g., bubble curtains) to manage pile-driving sound levels, if required, to lower sound levels below thresholds Onshore and on-construction-vessel Marine Mammal Observers to visually and acoustically monitor the safety and buffer zones and record location and behaviour of observed animals Observers have the authority to suspend construction activities if marine mammals are within the buffer distance Reduce potential marine mammal behavioural disturbance and physical injury to hearing caused by an increase in underwater noise. Maintain habitat quality. Reduce potential marine mammal behavioural disturbance and physical injury to hearing caused by an increase in underwater noise or increased construction-vessel traffic. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (existing best management practices for pile driving activities will apply). Partially Effective visual observations are limited by weather-induced limitations and daylight, but in conjunction with acoustic monitoring, marine mammal presence within a buffer zone will be improved. The effectiveness of the mitigation will not change the significance of the effect, as current underwater noise levels are deemed to be significant. Environmental Training Plan Environmental awareness training Reduce potential disturbances by increasing individual awareness and knowledge of potential consequences of actions or lack of action in response to an incident. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Operation No mitigation proposed. N/A N/A N/A Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-7

228 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Physical disturbance from vessel strikes for southern resident killer whale and North Pacific humpback whale during construction and operation phases Construction Operation Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Environmental Training Plan Environmental Training Plan N/A (PMV initiative, not Terminal Operator EMP) Compliance checking for adherence to buffer zones and effectiveness of hydrophone and observer in detecting marine mammal presence Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Environmental awareness training Environmental awareness training Distribution of a marine mammal awareness pamphlet, "Marine Mammals of the Roberts Bank Area" to marine pilots working within PMV jurisdiction Reduce potential marine mammal behavioural disturbance and physical injury from interactions with vessels. Maintain habitat quality. Reduce potential disturbances by increasing individual awareness and knowledge of potential consequences of actions or lack of action in response to an incident. Reduce potential disturbances by increasing individual awareness and knowledge of potential consequences of actions or lack of action in response to an incident. Raise awareness of sensitivity of Roberts Bank and surrounding areas to potentially avoid interactions between whales and vessels. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments, but effectiveness of this EMP will not change the significance of the effect. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Unknown as effectiveness of this measure is difficult to measure, the application of this measure was not taken into consideration in the determination of significance, and therefore, if it is ineffective, there would be no change to the signficance of this residual effect. Coastal Birds (EIS Section 15.0) Productivity loss for coastal bird sub-components during construction and operation phases Construction Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Environmental Training Plan Alignment of construction activities to avoid periods when diving birds are abundant in the area (coincides with Dungeness crab least-risk timing window) Compliance checking for water quality, aboveground noise, underwater noise Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Environmental awareness training Maintain existing bird productivity by minimising disturbance and through protection of habitat. Reduce potential disturbances by increasing individual awareness and knowledge of potential consequences of actions or lack of action in response to an incident. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity). Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-8

229 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Light Management Plan Orienting lights downward and away from known bird-occupied areas where possible Using shielding to minimise light trespass Controlling light levels and limiting light use to areas where activities are occurring, where possible Where possible, using fixtures that emit light at specific wavelengths Ensuring dredge lighting system shields light from spilling outside the basic working footprint of the dredge. To minimise disorienting effects to birds, thereby maintaining habitat quality. Partially effective research continues on general effects to birds from artificial light, including which wavelengths minimise disorientating effects to birds, which can vary by species. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated, as the determination of significance took into account the fact that birds have habituated to current light levels from the existing terminals, and are likely to habituate to any Project-related light increases. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Installation and regular inspection of land-based erosion-control measures (e.g., silt fence) where necessary Control of storm water to avoid sensitive environments Compliance checking for water quality Maintain existing bird productivity by minimising disturbance and through protection of habitat. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity). Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of construction equipment Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the environment to maintain habitat quality. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the environment to maintain habitat quality. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Relevant regulations, guidelines, and reporting requirements will apply. Shutdown of equipment and vehicles when not in use Noise Management Plan Utilisation of equipment that produces less noise where feasible Awareness and training for construction crew Using barriers (e.g., acoustic blankets) to shield wildlife from abrupt loud noise where feasible Increasing or ramping-up sound levels slowly to allow birds to habituate or temporarily leave the area where feasible Where possible, implementing measures to minimise impulsive noise Maintain habitat quality. Partially Effective minor disturbance as birds can relocate or habituate; should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated, as the determination of significance took into account the fact that birds have habituated to current noise levels from the existing terminals, and are likely to habituate to any Project-related noise increases. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-9

230 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Underwater Noise Management Plan During piling, use of vibratory hammer instead of impact pile driving when practical Implementation of sound reduction or dampening methods or technologies (e.g., bubble curtains) to manage pile-driving sound levels, if required, to lower sound levels below thresholds Hazing birds prior to construction to move them away from the affected zone if loud operations are necessary during periods of peak bird abundance Reduce potential behavioural disturbance and physical injury to hearing caused by an increase in underwater noise. Maintain habitat quality. Effective existing best management practices for pile driving activities will apply. Land and Marine Traffic Management Plan Sensitive areas to be avoided by marine vessel traffic operating in the Project area during construction will be established Reduce potential disturbance and maintain habitat quality. Effective published thresholds for noise and visual disturbance do not exist for birds; however, literature indicates minimal effects as long as vessel traffic is restricted to designated areas. The establishment of designated areas will effectively mitigate potential disturbances. Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan Site inspections and sample collection to evaluate implemented measures Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Maintain existing bird productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (i.e., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity). Operation Environmental Training Plan Environmental awareness training Prevent unnecessary disturbance to birds to maintain existing productivity. Partially Effective minor risk through temporary environmental disturbance should an unauthorised activity occur. Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated due to likelihood of isolated incident (limited spatial and temporal scale). Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Maintain inventory of hazardous products on site Safe storage and handling of hazardous products Standard practices for onsite fuelling of operation equipment Prevent introduction of deleterious substances to the aquatic environment. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Spill Preparedness and Response Plan Spill preparedness measures, including equipment staging and personnel training Development of procedures for spill response and containment, clean-up and disposal Minimise effects through intervention for any released deleterious substances. Effective proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-10

231 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Shutdown of equipment and vehicles when not in use Utilisation of equipment that produces less noise where feasible Noise Management Plan Awareness and training for construction crews Using barriers (e.g., acoustic blankets) to shield wildlife from abrupt loud noise where feasible Increasing or ramping-up sound levels slowly to allow birds to habituate or temporarily leave the area Implementing measures to minimise impulsive noise where feasible Maintain existing bird productivity by minimising disturbance and maintaining habitat quality. Partially Effective minor disturbance as birds can relocate or habituate; should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated, as the determination of significance took into account the fact that birds have habituated to current noise levels from the existing terminals, and are likely to habituate to any Project-related noise increases. Where possible, avoiding operations generating loud noise (greater than 85 dba at 60 m from source) during the period of peak northward shorebird migration (April 20 to May 7) within 3 km of the high tide line (i.e., the shoreline) Light Management Plan Orienting lights downward and away from known bird-occupied areas where possible Using shielding to minimise light trespass Controlling light levels and limiting light use to areas where activities are occurring, where possible Where possible, using fixtures that emit light at specific wavelengths To minimise disorienting effects to birds, thereby maintaining habitat quality. Partially effective research continues on general effects to birds from artificial light, including which wavelengths minimise disorientating effects to birds, which can vary by species; Should mitigation measure be ineffective, change in significance of residual effect is not anticipated, as the determination of significance took into account the fact that birds have habituated to current light levels from the existing terminals, and are likely to habituate to any Project-related light increases. Eelgrass an important food source for waterfowl and brant, and habitat for various prey. Offsetting Plan Creation of eelgrass habitat Creation of tidal marsh habitat Creation of mudflat Creation of sandy gravel beach habitat Creation of subtidal rock reef habitat Tidal marsh provides food and shelter for many coastal birds. Mudflat promotes productivity increase in marine invertebrates and biofilm, which are food sources for birds. Sandy gravel beach promotes increases in the productivity of food sources (e.g., forage fish, bivales). Effective these habitats have been proposed as mitigation based on the proven success of previous habitat creation projects within the Fraser River estuary and similar environments. Subtidal rock reef promotes increase in diving bird prey (e.g., bivalve shellfish). Construction and Operation N/A PMV to work collaboratively with appropriate transportation authorities and CWS to develop and implement measures to mitigate effects to barn owl from vehicle collisions. Minimise potential of barn owl-vehicle interactions to reduce injury or mortaility. Effective proven approaches have been applied along other linear corridors. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-11

232 Appendix IR12-A Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Ongoing Productivity of Commercial, Recreational, and Aboriginal (CRA) Fisheries (EIS Section 16.0) Change to the ongoing productivity of CRA fisheries Labour Market (EIS Section 19.0) Change in employment during construction and operation Change in labour income during construction and operation Change in training opportunities during construction and operation Change in unemployment and participation rates during construction and operation Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Economic Development (EIS Section 20.0) Change in materials, goods and services contracting revenues during construction and operation Increase in induced output (revenue) during construction and operation Consistency with economic development plans during operation Construction and Operation Operation No mitigation required as no measurable effects anticipated for CRA fisheries. No mitigation required as a positive labour market effect is predicted. No mitigation required as a positive labour market effect is predicted. No mitigation required as a positive labour market effect is predicted. No mitigation required as a positive labour market effect is predicted. No mitigation required as a positive economic development effect is predicted. No mitigation required as appositive economic development effect is predicted. No mitigation required as a positive economic development effect is predicted. Mitigation Applied Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-12

233 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Marine Commercial Use (EIS Section 21.0) Communications Plan Inform marine commercial operators about the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Minimise effect on harvesting by providing timely information about potential closures and other activities during construction. This will allow commercial crab harvesters to adjust their planned activities in advance. Effective it is anticipated that advanced notification of potential regulatory changes in connection with Project construction and operation would allow commercial crab harvesters to adjust their planned activities if they thought necessary to do so. Displacement of commercial crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels and associated revenue during construction and operation Construction Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Marine Species Salvage Plan Alignment of construction activities to avoid fisheries-sensitive windows for Dungeness crabs Compliance checking for water quality Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Crab Salvage Program Avoid effect on reduction of harvest levels by: 1) reducing direct mortality of crabs (specifically gravid female crabs) below m CD water depth through work window restrictions from October 15 to March 30; and 2) Maintain existing Dungeness crab productivity through protection of water quality. Minimise effects of displacement by reducing effects to harvestable crab population to be relocated from portion of closure area. Involves the capture and relocation of crabs within ITP, and within terminal and causeway containment dykes to local area outside of Project-related disturbance area. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity, DFO-regulated timing windows). Partially effective for crabs proven approach at Roberts Bank for Deltaport Third Berth Project; effectiveness of mitigation incorporated into environmental assessment as salvages are known to only reduce and not fully mitigate construction-related crab productivity decreases. Therefore, a change in the significance of the residual effect is not anticipated if this mitigation measure is not fully effective in salvaging all crabs from within work zones. Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Work with DFO to ensure necessary consultation with commercial crab harvesters concerning the proposed navigational closure expansion. Where identified and agreed upon, implement feasible mitigation Minimise effects through supporting the identification and implementation of feasible measures to mitigate displacement effects. Effective PMV can effectively work with DFO to ensure consultation with commercial crab harvesters occurs on the matter of the proposed navigational closure area expansion. Where identified and agreed upon, PMV will work with other parties, including DFO to implement feasible mitigation to address displacement effects. Local Government Finances (EIS Section 22.0) Change in local government property tax and payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) revenue and expenditures during construction and operation Construction and Operation No mitigation required as positive effect. N/A N/A N/A Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-13

234 Appendix IR12-A Potential Project-related Effect Phase Services and Infrastructure (EIS Section 23.0) Constraint on healthcare services capacity and supply during construction and operation Constraint on emergency services capacity and supply during construction and operation Construction Operation Construction Operation Construction and Operation Construction and operation Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Health and Safety and Emergency Response Management Plan Land and Marine Traffic Management Plan Health and Safety and Emergency Response Management Plan Health and Safety and Emergency Response Management Plan Land and Marine Traffic Management Plan Communications Plan Health and Safety and Emergency Response Management Plan Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Measures to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency Procedures for notifying and communicating with the Coast Guard, Corporation of Delta, Delta Police Department, Delta Fire and Emergency Services, and the B.C. Ambulance Service Measures to address land-based construction traffic, traffic control, and potential traffic hazards. Measures to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency Procedures for notifying and communicating with the Coast Guard, Corporation of Delta, Delta Police Department, Delta Fire and Emergency Services, and the B.C. Ambulance Service Measures to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency Procedures for notifying and communicating with the Coast Guard, Corporation of Delta, Delta Police Department, Delta Fire and Emergency Services, and the B.C. Ambulance Service Measures to address land-based construction traffic, traffic control, and potential traffic hazards Measures to inform emergency services regarding the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Measures to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency Procedures for notifying and communicating with the Coast Guard, Corporation of Delta, Delta Police Department, Delta Fire and Emergency Services, and the B.C. Ambulance Service Communication with emergency services on operational plans, activities, timelines, service requirements, and management of emergency service utilisation Police and security management, including site security services, site security systems, and equipment Mitigation Applied Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Minimise demands on local health services in the event of an emergency. Reduce potential land and marine traffic hazards associated with the Project, which would minimise demands on local health services during construction. Minimise demands on local health services in the event of an emergency. Minimise demands on local emergency services in the event of an emergency. Reduce potential land and marine traffic hazards associated with the Project, which would minimise demands on local health services during construction. Minimise constraint on emergency services by ensuring timely communication of traffic detours or interruptions. Minimise demands on local emergency services in the event of an emergency. Minimise constraint on emergency services by ensuring timely communication about anticipated service demands. Minimise demand on police services through provision of independent security services. Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Effective standard mitigation measure and proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Effective standard mitigation measure and proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Effective standard mitigation measure and proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Effective standard mitigation measure and proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Effective standard mitigation measure and proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Effective mitigation measure identified by emergency service providers. Effective standard mitigation measure and proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Effective mitigation measure identified by emergency service providers. Effective as with previous and existing terminal construction and port operations, port infrastructure developer and Terminal operator concessionaire will be responsible for project site security coverage, as is standard practice. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-14

235 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Constraint on municipal infrastructure capacity and supply during construction and operation Construction Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan Details of expected sources and quantities of construction waste Measures to minimise waste generation Minimise demand on municipal services through standard waste management measures. Effective standard mitigation measure and proven approach. Relevant legislation, guidelines, and standard management practices will apply. Outdoor Recreation (EIS Section 24.0) Construction Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Alignment of construction activities to avoid fisheries-sensitive windows for Dungeness crabs Compliance checking for water quality Provisions for intervention in the case of noncompliance Avoid effect on reduction of harvest levels by: 1) reducing direct mortality of crabs (specifically gravid female crabs) below m CD water depth through work window restrictions from October 15 to March 30; and 2) maintaining existing Dungeness crab productivity through protection of water quality. Effective proven approach in aquatic environments (e.g., guideline levels for TSS/turbidity, DFO-regulated timing windows). Displacement of recreational crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels during construction and operation Construction Construction Marine Species Salvage Plan Communications Plan Crab Salvage Program Inform marine recreational operators about the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Minimise effects of displacement by reducing effects to harvestable crab population to be relocated from portion of closure area. Involves the capture and relocation of crabs within ITP, and within terminal and causeway containment dykes to local area outside of Project-related disturbance area. Minimise effect on harvesting by providing timely information about potential closures and other activities during construction. This will allow recreational crab harvesters to adjust their planned activities in advance. Partially effective for crabs proven approach at Roberts Bank for Deltaport Third Berth Project; effectiveness of mitigation incorporated into environmental assessment as salvages are known to only reduce and not fully mitigate construction related crab productivity decreases. Therefore, a change in the significance of the residual effect is not anticipated if this mitigation measure is not fully effective in salvaging all crabs from within work zones. Effective it is anticipated that advanced notification of potential regulatory changes in connection with Project construction and operation would allow commercial crab harvesters to adjust their planned activities if they thought necessary to do so. Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Work with DFO to ensure necessary consultation with recreational crab harvesters concerning the proposed navigational closure expansion. Where identified and agreed upon, implement feasible mitigation Minimise effects through supporting the identification and implementation of feasible measures to mitigate displacement effects. Effective PMV can effectively work with DFO to ensure consultation with commercial crab harvesters occurs on the matter of the proposed navigational closure area expansion. Where identified and agreed upon, PMV will work with other parties, including DFO to implement feasible mitigation to address displacement effects. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-15

236 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Visual Resources (EIS Section 25.0) Change in daytime visual resources during construction and operation Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Crane colour optimisation to reduce contrast and enhance blending with the landscape Minimise visibility of prominent visual features (cranes), by optimising colour to enhance blending with the landscape. Effective research indicates that light grey camouflage colour used by NATO is most effective at blending sea and sky during daytime. Change in nighttime visual resources during construction and operation Construction Operation Light Management Plan Light Management Plan Orienting lights downward and away from residential and marine areas Using shielding to minimise light trespass Controlling light levels and limiting light use to areas where activities are occurring Ensuring dredge lighting system shields light from spilling outside the basic working footprint of the dredge Orienting lights downward and away from residential and marine areas Using shielding to minimise light trespass Controlling light levels and limiting light use to areas where activities are occurring Establishing a centralised lighting control system to select lighting where required Reduce the light emitted from construction equipment and activities to reduce changes in sky glow and light trespass. Reduce the light emitted from operation phase activities to reduce changes in sky glow and light trespass. Effective proven approach. Best practices as recommended by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC), International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), and the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC) to reduce changes in sky glow and light trespass. Effective proven approach. Best practices as recommended by CIE, IESNA, OGC, IDA, and RASC to reduce changes in sky glow and light trespass. Land and Water Use (EIS Section 26.0) Consistency with land use planning designations during construction Construction Construction Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Engagement with land and water users, including dialogue and communications through a mechanism for two-way dialogue and communications about port-related issues in Delta Land Use Planning Approach: Engagement with local governments, Aboriginal groups, and other land use authorities per objective in PMV Land Use Plan, when updating or amending Land Use Plan, or determining land use designations Reduce potential inconsistencies through identification of opportunities to improve compatibility of port and adjacent land uses. Avoid potential inconsistency through amendments or updates to Land Use Plan, and engagement with appropriate groups about the changes. Effective engagement with land and water users is standard approach to land use planning matters. Effective engagement with governments with jurisdiction and Aboriginal communities is standard approach for land and water use planning matters. Disturbance to marinerelated industrial uses during construction Construction Construction Mitigation not in EMP Communications Plan Engagement with land and water users, including dialogue and communications through a mechanism for two-way dialogue and communications about port-related issues in Delta, and use of Community Feedback Line Inform marine commercial operators about the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Reduce potential disturbance through engagement to identify and resolve issues. Reduce potential for navigational disturbance, including delays or route changes, by notifying industrial users of construction activities. Effective the measure provides an effective mechanism for marine industrial users to communicate with the Proponent, and address potential concerns/questions in a timely and ongoing manner. Effective the communications plan, in conjunction with the measure above, provides communication to the users that will enable them to plan their activities to avoid interference. Construction Land and Marine Traffic Management Plan Project-specific mitigations to minimise interference Reduce potential disturbance by providing guidance to minimise interference with commercial/industrial vessel activity. Effective managing marine traffic by establishing areas to be avoided will avoid direct interference with other activities. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-16

237 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Disturbance to protected area (Roberts Bank Wildlife Management Area (WMA)) during construction Construction Construction Mitigation not in EMP Communications Plan Land and Marine Traffic Management Plan Engagement with land and water users, including dialogue and communications through a mechanism for two-way dialogue and communications about port-related issues in Delta, and use of Community Feedback Line Inform marine recreational operators about the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Identify areas to be avoided by marine vessel traffic through establishment of restricted access areas Reduce potential disturbance through engagement to identify and resolve issues. Reduce potential for navigational disturbance, including delays or route changes, by notifying recreational users of construction activities. Reduce potential disturbance by providing guidance to avoid construction activity and vessel travel in WMA. Effective engagement with water users is a standard approach to identifying potential matters of concern. Effective marine recreational users may be able to plan to avoid marine areas with construction activity. Effective the potential for direct disturbance within protected areas will be avoided. Construction Mitigation not in EMP Engagement with land and water users, including dialogue and communications through a mechanism for two-way dialogue and communications about port-related issues in Delta, and use of Community Feedback Line Reduce potential disturbance through engagement to identify and resolve issues. Effective engagement with water users, in this case Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN), is the standard approach to identifying and addressing potential issues. This measure is complemented and supported by other ongoing consultation with TFN. Changes in access to community lease lands Construction Communications Plan Land and Marine Traffic Management Plan Inform Aboriginal groups about the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Identify areas to be avoided by marine vessel traffic through establishment of restricted access areas Reduce potential for navigational disturbance, including delays or route changes, by notifying Aboriginal groups (as applicable) of construction activities. Reduce potential disturbance by providing guidance to avoid construction activity and vessel travel that will affect access to the community lease lands. Effective community lease users may be able to plan to avoid marine areas with construction activity. Effective establishment of an area to be avoided, such that there will continue to be direct access to the community lease without interference from Project vessels, is considered effective. Human Health (EIS Section 27.0) Regular inspection and maintenance of construction vehicles and equipment Avoidance of creating traffic congestion Restrictions on vehicle idling Adverse health effects related to air emissions during construction Construction Air Quality and Dust Control Plan Preferential use of low-sulphur fuels Installation of wheel washer or regular sweeping of paved surfaces Covering of haul vehicles during transport of bulk fine materials Stabilisation of exposed earthworks Timing activities to avoid high wind events Reduce risk of health effects by reducing air emissions of contaminants and fugitive dust. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Compliance checking for air quality Reduce risk of health effects by contributing to reduction in air emissions through monitoring and adaptive management. Effective feedback provided through monitoring will facilitate adaptive management. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-17

238 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Scheduling of higher noise-generating activities during weekdays, and during the daytime Construction Noise Management Plan Shutdown of equipment and vehicles when not in use Utilisation of equipment that produces less noise Awareness and training for construction crews Reduce risk of health effects by reducing noise generated during construction. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Compliance checking for above-ground noise Reduce risk of health effects by contributing to reduction in noise through monitoring and adaptive management. Effective proven approach for noise monitoring. Adverse health effects related to noise during construction and operation Construction Communications Plan Inform local residents, Tsawwassen First Nation, and other Aboriginal groups about the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Reduce potential for exposure to noise from peak construction activity by notifying local residents and Aboriginal groups of construction activities. Effective the communications plan provides communication to residents and Aboriginal groups that will enable them to plan their activities to avoid exposure to noise from peak construction activity. Optimised tonality for equipment alarms Operation Noise Management Plan Operator awareness and training Regular maintenance of equipment Advertisement and maintenance of PMV Community Feedback Line Reduce risk of health effects by reducing noise generated during operation. Effective assuming adequate management and control of implementation. Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan Routine instrument-based monitoring Reduce risk of health effects by contributing to reduction in noise through monitoring and adaptive management. Effective proven approach for noise monitoring. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-18

239 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Light Management Plan Orienting lights downward and away from residential and marine areas Using shielding to minimise light trespass Controlling light levels and limiting light use to areas where activities are occurring Ensuring dredge lighting system shields light from spilling outside the basic working footprint of the dredge Reduced risk of health effects from stress and annoyance by reducing light as a source of stress and annoyance during construction. Effective proven approach. Best practices as recommended by CIE, IESNA, OGC, IDA, and RASC to reduce changes in sky glow and light trespass. Construction Noise Management Plan Scheduling of higher noise-generating activities during weekdays, and during the daytime Shutdown of equipment and vehicles when not in use Utilisation of equipment that produces less noise Awareness and training for construction crews Reduce risk of health effects from stress and annoyance by reducing noise as a source of stress and annoyance during construction. Effective proven approach on construction sites. Adverse health effects due to stress and annoyance during construction and operation Operation Operation Operation Construction and Operation Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan Construction Communications Plan Operation Noise Management Plan Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan Light Management Plan Mitigation not in EMP Compliance checking for above-ground noise Inform local residents, Tsawwassen First Nation, and other Aboriginal groups about the nature, location, status, and progress of construction work Optimised tonality for equipment alarms Operator awareness and training Regular maintenance of equipment Advertisement and maintenance of PMV Community Feedback Line Routine instrument-based monitoring Orienting lights downward and away from residential and marine areas Using shielding to minimise light trespass Controlling light levels and limiting light use to areas where activities are occurring Establishing a centralised lighting control system to select lighting where required Awareness and education measures regarding results of contaminant sampling of edible shellfish Reduce risk of health effects, caused by stress and annoyance from noise, by contributing to reduction in noise through monitoring and adaptive management. Reduce potential for exposure to noise from peak construction activity by notifying local residents and Aboriginal groups of construction activities. Reduce stress and annoyance from the unknown by providing information about the duration and frequency of noise that will be experienced. Reduce risk of health effects from stress and annoyance by reducing noise as a source of stress and annoyance during operation. Reduce risk of health effects, caused by stress and annoyance from noise, by contributing to reduction in noise through monitoring and adaptive management. Reduce risk of health effects from stress and annoyance by reducing light as a source of stress and annoyance during operation. Reduce risk of health effects from stress and annoyance by reducing perception of shellfish contamination as a source of stress and annoyance. Effective proven approach for noise monitoring. Effective the communications plan provides communication to residents and Aboriginal groups that will enable them to plan their activities to avoid exposure to noise from peak construction activity. Effective standard noise management measures. Effective proven approach for noise monitoring. Effective proven approach. Best practices as recommended by CIE, IESNA, OGC, IDA, and RASC to reduce changes in sky glow and light trespass. Effective results of shellfish contamination studies can be effectively shared with each interested Aboriginal group through ongoing consultation activities. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-19

240 Appendix IR12-A Potential Project-related Effect Adverse health outcomes due to changes in health inequity during construction and operation Phase Construction and Operation Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Mitigation not in EMP Archaeological and Heritage Resources (EIS Section 28.0) Crushing or biological degradation of potential fish trap stakes during construction Reduced access for future archaeological study or preservation of potential fish trap stakes during construction Exposure of potential fish trap stakes during construction Current Use (EIS Section 32.2) Changes in access to preferred Current Use locations Construction Construction Construction Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Construction Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Accommodation measures related to Aboriginal employment, training, and contracting opportunities Excavate a test trench, or series of trenches, across the area of archaeological potential to locate potential fish trap stakes, if present Excavate a test trench across the area of archaeological potential to locate potential fish trap stakes, if present, and sample/investigate/preserve fish trap stakes if found Annually monitor, for a period of 4 years, predicted tidal erosion and sample/investigate fish trap stakes if found Continue to abide by the Memorandum of Agreement in place with TFN to accommodate TFN for effects from the Project Work with Musqueam First Nation to draft Terms of Reference to guide future discussions related to accommodation for effects from the Project Mitigation measures noted above regarding marine commercial use and outdoor recreation to address potential displacement-related effects on commercial and recreational crab harvesting Work with DFO to ensure necessary consultations with Aboriginal domestic or food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) crabbers concerning the proposed expansion of the area closed to commercial and recreational crabbing Support Aboriginal crabbing for domestic or FSC purposes within the area closed to commercial and recreational crabbing Mitigation measure noted above regarding land and water use to reduce potential disturbance to marine access to TFN community lease lands (Tsawwassen Water Lots) Mitigation Applied Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Reduce effects of health inequity by enhancing positive effects for vulnerable populations. Reduce risk of damage to resources by identifying and removing any resources prior to construction. Reduce risk of limiting access for future archaeological study and preservation by mapping and preserving any resources identified. Reduce risk of limiting access for future archaeological study and preservation by mapping and preserving any resources identified. Provide accommodation for potential effects on Current Use. Provide accommodation for potential effects on Current Use. Minimise effects through identification of feasible measures to mitigate displacement effects. Minimise effects through identification of feasible measures to mitigate displacement effects. Reduce displacement effect of terminal by ensuring FSC fishing can continue in navigational closure area. Minimise potential disturbance through provision of timely information to allow for alternate access plans. Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Effective these accommodation measures will reduce adverse effects on health inequity that may occur via employment and income. Effective proven mitigation and standard practice in construction. Effective proven mitigation and standard practice in construction. Effective proven mitigation and standard practice in construction. Effective combined with other mitigation measures proposed for this effect, effective mitigation is anticipated. Effective combined with other mitigation measures proposed for this effect, effective mitigation is anticipated. Effective combined with other mitigation measures proposed for this effect, effective mitigation is anticipated. Effective combined with other mitigation measures proposed for this effect, effective mitigation is anticipated. Effective combined with other mitigation measures proposed for this effect, effective mitigation is anticipated. Effective proposed measures combined are expected to be effective at addressing planned and unforeseen events that may interfere with access to community lease lands. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-20

241 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Develop a communications protocol to inform appropriate Aboriginal groups of planned or unplanned events related to Project construction or operation that may affect Current Use access Minimise potential disturbance through provision of timely information to allow for alternate access plans. Effective combined with other mitigation measures proposed for this effect, effective mitigation is anticipated. Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Work with appropriate Aboriginal groups to develop and implement a communications mechanism that will support dialogue between PMV and appropriate Aboriginal groups on topics of concern that arise during the construction and initial operation phases Minimise potential disturbance through provision of timely information to allow for alternate access plans. Effective combined with other mitigation measures proposed for this effect, effective mitigation is anticipated. Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation measures noted above regarding changes in access to Current Use locations See above mitigation measures for effects on access to Current Use locations also mitigate potential effects on availability of preferred Current Use resources. Effective see above. Changes in availability of preferred Current Use resources Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation measures noted above to reduce Projectrelated effects to marine resources, including marine vegetation, marine invertebrates, marine fish, marine mammals, and coastal birds Share with appropriate Aboriginal groups information gained through environmental monitoring and followup programs to support monitoring, by Aboriginal groups, of environmental conditions related to Current Use See above mitigation measures for effects on productivity of marine resources also mitigate potential effects on availability of preferred Current Use resources. Minimise potential effect by facilitating early identification of any unanticipated outcomes. See above for effectiveness of mitigation measures re: marine resources. Effective participation in monitoring will allow for identification of unanticipated outcomes. Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Work with appropriate Aboriginal groups to identify opportunities to participate in environmental monitoring and follow-up programs Minimise potential effect by facilitating early identification of any unanticipated outcomes. Effective participation in monitoring will allow for identification of unanticipated outcomes. Changes in quality of preferred Current Use resources Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation measures noted above regarding changes in access to Current Use locations and changes in availability of Current Use resources Mitigation measures noted above regarding human health to address perceived contamination of traditional food sources See above mitigation measures for effects on access to Current Use locations also mitigate potential effects on quality of preferred Current Use resources. Reduced risk of avoidance of preferred Current Use resources through awareness building measures regarding contamination of shellfish. Effective see above. Effective to the extent that other mitigation measures are effective at mitigating effects on stress and annoyance, as described above, they are expected to be effective at mitigating effects on Current Use. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-21

242 Appendix IR12-A Mitigation Applied Potential Project-related Effect Phase Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (if applicable) Applicable Mitigation Measures Within EMP / Other Specific Mitigation Intent of Mitigation to Reduce Significance of Residual Effect Anticipated Effectiveness of Mitigation and Risks (if relevant) Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation measures noted above regarding changes in access to Current Use locations, changes in availability of Current Use resources, and changes in quality of Current Use resources See above mitigation measures for all other effects on Current Use also mitigate potential effects on the quality of preferred Current Use experience. Effective to the extent that other mitigation measures are effective at mitigating effects on other Current Use effects, as described previously, they are expected to be effective at mitigating effects on changes in quality of preferred Current Use experience. Changes in quality of preferred Current Use experience Construction and Operation Construction and Operation Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation measures noted above regarding visual resources to reduce Project-related changes in daytime and nighttime visibility Mitigation measures noted above regarding human health to decrease potential effects from Projectrelated noise, light, perceived shellfish contamination, and air emissions Reduce effect of quality of experience by reducing visibility of features (cranes) and light that could potentially affect quality of experience. Reduce effect of quality of experience by reducing factors that could potentially degrade the quality of experience. Effective to the extent that other mitigation measures are effective at mitigating effects on visual resources, as described above, they are expected to be effective at mitigating effects on Current Use. Effective to the extent that other mitigation measures are effective at mitigating effects on human health, as described above, they are expected to be effective at mitigating effects on Current Use. Construction Mitigation not in EMP Mitigation to identify and reduce potential damage to fish trap stakes Reduce effect of quality of experience by reducing factors that could potentially degrade the quality of experience in terms of sense of place. Effective to the extent that this mitigation is effective at mitigating effects on archaeological and heritage resources, as described above, it is expected to be effective at mitigating effects on Current Use. Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-A-22

243 APPENDIX IR12-B Summary of Other Mitigation Considered and Rationale for Rejection

244 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

245 Appendix IR12-B APPENDIX IR12-B SUMMARY OF OTHER MITIGATION CONSIDERED AND RATIONALE FOR REJECTION Table IR12-B Summary of Mitigation Considered and Rationale for Rejection Potential Project-related Effects Phase Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Applied Rationale for Rejection Marine Vegetation (EIS Section 11.0) Productivity loss for macroalgae Construction and Operation No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Changes in biofilm assemblage composition during freshet Construction and Operation Although originally considered to reduce scour adjacent to the terminal, flow exchange could be improved (allowing for fresh and salt water mixing) by adding a 100 m wide flow passage channel between the existing Westshore terminals and RBT2 (see EIS Section Alternative Means, Terminal Optimisation). Breach the causeway to improve flow exchange between north side of Roberts Bank causeway and inter-causeway area on the south side. Ineffective and Potential Adverse Effects the incorporation of a 100 m wide channel near the terminal was predicted to imperceptively improve water exchange (and therefore fresh and salt water mixing) from intertidal to subtidal areas. It is also anticipated that additional scour in the passage itself and adjacent areas could occur resulting in increased water turbidity and sedimentation, thereby increasing adverse environmental effects. Ineffectiveness and Potential Adverse Effects the amount of flow exchange across the causeway through a structure such as a culvert or bridge is expected to be negligible compared to the volume exchanged during a tide cycle from higher-salinity subtidal waters to intertidal waters; therefore, this option is deemed to be ineffective in increasing salinities on the north side of the causeway from the south side of the causeway. In addition, the installation of a flow exchange structure in the intertidal zone could lead to the development of dendritic channels, thereby increasing erosion and altering drainage and sediment deposition on the mudflats. Marine Invertebrates (EIS Section 12.0) Productivity loss for bivalve shellfish, Dungeness crabs, and orange sea pens Construction and Operation No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Marine Fish (EIS Section 13.0) Loss of productivity for marine fish sub-components Construction and Operation Add a 100 m wide flow passage channel between the existing Westshore terminals and RBT2 (see above biofilm mitigation for more information) to improve fish access between intertidal and subtidal zones. Breach the causeway to restore juvenile fish movements between the north and south side of the Roberts Bank causeway. Uncertainty of Effectiveness and Potential Adverse Effects it is unknown whether or not the incorporation a 100 m wide channel near the terminal would be effective in improving direct passage of juvenile fish to deeper waters, or increase the predation of juvenile fish. It is anticipated that additional scour in the passage itself and adjacent areas could occur resulting in increased water turbidity and sedimentation, thereby increasing adverse environmental effects. Uncertainty of Effectiveness and Potential Adverse Effects fish may not swim through a long passage such as a culvert or bridge if light conditions are unfavourable, and stranding of fish could occur depending on the tide cycle. In addition, the installation of a structure in the intertidal zone could lead to the development of dendritic channels, thereby increasing erosion and altering drainage and sediment deposition on the mudflats. Marine Mammals (EIS Section 14.0) Change in acoustic environment resulting in behavioural effects or acoustic masking for southern resident killer whale, North Pacific humpback whale, and Steller sea lion N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Physical disturbance from vessel strikes for southern resident killer whale and North Pacific humpback whale N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-B-1

246 Appendix IR12-B Potential Project-related Effects Phase Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Applied Rationale for Rejection Coastal Birds (EIS Section 15.0) Productivity loss for coastal bird subcomponents Construction and Operation Establish construction timing or schedule operation maintenance works to avoid conducting loud activities during periods of peak bird abundance. Construction Economically Infeasible not economically feasible given that the fisheries-sensitive windows for Dungeness crabs and juvenile salmon have been incorporated in the construction schedule, and incorporating other work restrictions would extend the construction phase on the order of years; however, an important period to minimise disturbance to coastal birds is from April 20 to May 15 during western sandpiper northward migration, which overlaps with DFO's fisheries sensitive window for juvenile salmon from March 01 to August 15, thereby benefitting birds. Operation Technically Infeasible some routine maintenance works could be scheduled during low risk periods depending on the requirements of the works, but to ensure safe working conditions it is unlikely that emergent maintenance works can be delayed to coincide with low risk periods. Ongoing Productivity of Commercial, Recreational, and Aboriginal (CRA) Fisheries (EIS Section 16.0) All potential effects are considered negligible N/A No mitigation required as no anticipated measurable effect. N/A Labour Market (EIS Section 19.0) Change in employment during construction and operation Change in labour income during construction and operation Change in training opportunities during construction and operation Change in unemployment and participation rates during construction and operation N/A No mitigation required as a positive effect. N/A N/A No mitigation required as a positive effect. N/A N/A No mitigation required as a positive effect. N/A N/A No mitigation required as a positive effect. N/A Economic Development (EIS Section 20.0) Change in materials, goods and services contracting revenues during construction and operation Increase in induced output (revenue) during construction and operation Consistency with economic development plans during operation N/A No mitigation required as a positive effect. N/A N/A No mitigation required as a positive effect. N/A N/A No mitigation required as a positive effect. N/A Marine Commercial Use (EIS Section 21.0) Displacement of commercial crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels and associated revenue during construction and operation N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Local Government Finances (EIS Section 22.0) Change in local government property tax and PILT revenue and expenditures during construction and operation N/A No mitigation required as positive effect. N/A Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-B-2

247 Appendix IR12-B Potential Project-related Effects Phase Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Applied Rationale for Rejection Services and Infrastructure (EIS Section 23.0) Constraint on healthcare services capacity and supply during construction and operation N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Monitor vehicle movements generated by Project construction and operations on/off the causeway. Monitoring results could communicated to municipalities and emergency service providers. Where required, additional mitigation measures will be developed to reduce traffic congestion and incidents, and manage incremental increase on emergency service demand. Not Required - Objectives of this proposed mitigation are met by the mitigation measures included in the EIS (Land and Marine Traffic Management Plan; Communication with service providers, measures to reduce demand on emergency service providers); measure therefore not required. Constraint on emergency services capacity and supply during construction and operation Construction and Operation Should additional fire equipment or personnel be required in order to safely and effectively provide fire services to the Project, PMV could work with the Corporation of Delta with regards to offsetting costs. Should additional ambulance equipment or personnel be required in order to safely and effectively provide ambulance services to the Project, PMV could work with the Corporation of Delta with regards to offsetting costs. Not Required - The Project's anticipated incremental demand on fire services is expected to be low. Mitigation measure therefore not required. Not Required - The Project's anticipated incremental demand on ambulance services is expected to be low. Mitigation measure therefore not required. Monitor construction and operation phase activities' demand on emergency service utilisation. Work collaboratively with the Corporation of Delta and service providers to share monitoring results and, where required, identify improvements to project construction and operation activities and their management to minimise emergency service utilisation. Technically Infeasible data management of this kind not feasible for PMV on a Project-specific basis. Objectives of this proposed mitigation are met by the mitigation measures included in the EIS (communication with service providers, and measures to reduce demand on emergency service providers); measure therefore not required. Constraint on municipal infrastructure capacity and supply during construction and operation N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Outdoor Recreation (EIS Section 24.0) Displacement of recreational crab harvesting and reduction in harvest levels during construction and operation N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Visual Resources (EIS Section 25.0) Technically Infeasible vegetation buffer planted as mitigation for Deltaport Third Berth Project was not viable (plants did not thrive in soil along causeway). Change in daytime visual resources during construction and operation Operation Vegetation buffer along causeway to mitigate visibility of expanded causeway and truck/train movements. Additional Adverse Effects - Vegetation on causeway could also result in adverse effect of additional bird strikes, due to creating bird perches on causeway. Input from Consultation with Aboriginal groups discussions in Fall 2014 consultation with Aboriginal groups suggested that the causeway was not a prominent visual feature of concern and there was not support for this mitigation option, as it was not expected to mitigate the primary visual effect. Change in nighttime visual resources during construction and operation N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-B-3

248 Appendix IR12-B Potential Project-related Effects Phase Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Applied Rationale for Rejection Land and Water Use (EIS Section 26.0) Consistency with land use planning designations during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Disturbance to marine-related industrial uses during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Disturbance to protected area (Roberts Bank WMA) during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Changes in access to TFN community lease lands during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Human Health (EIS Section 27.0) Adverse health effects related to air emissions during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Construction and Operation Optimisation of location and orientation of noise sources: locate fixed noise sources (fans, pumps, or compressors) adjacent to on-site buildings, structures, or container stacks to take advantage of noise shielding. It may be possible to orient noise sources which are highly directional to minimise the sound that is radiated towards sensitive receptors (e.g., residences). These measures would serve to reduce global, and to a lesser degree, low frequency noise emissions. Not Required Effects on health from noise are anticipated to be sufficiently mitigated by proposed mitigations, including EMPs and monitoring to identify sources of noise that cause unanticipated disturbance. If such disturbance and sources are identified through monitoring, additional measures such as optimisation of location and orientation of noise sources will be considered. Adverse health effects related to noise during construction and operation Construction and Operation Selection of quieter equipment: selection of low-noise models when purchasing new equipment. This could include the fitting of "residential or hospital grade" exhaust silencers/mufflers on diesel engines, the installation of special acoustic lining on engine enclosures, and the selection of water-cooled engines rather than air-cooled. These types of noise control measures would be directed at the control of global noise, as well as low-frequency noise emissions. Not Required Effects on health from noise are anticipated to be sufficiently mitigated by proposed mitigations, including EMPs and monitoring to identify sources of noise that cause unanticipated disturbance. If such disturbance and sources are identified through monitoring, additional measures such as selection of quieter equipment will be considered. Operation Noise barriers: control noise along its propagation path by interposing a noise barrier of appropriate size and density between the noise source and receiver. Noise barriers must be at least as high and wide as the noise source region they are intended to shield, and preferably higher and wider. Smaller, fixed noise sources such as roof top fans, pumps, or generators may be shielded more conveniently by erecting solid, acoustically lined noise screens on their eastern sides. Noise barriers would be most effective in reducing noise from trucks and trains on the causeway. Not Required Effects on health from noise are anticipated to be sufficiently mitigated by proposed mitigations, including EMPs and monitoring to identify sources of noise that cause unanticipated disturbance. If such disturbance and sources are identified through monitoring, additional measures such as smaller noise barriers will be considered. Additional Adverse Effects Large noise barriers along the causeway and terminal would result in a new prominent visual feature likely to result in an adverse effect on visual resources. Adverse health effects due to stress and annoyance during construction and operation N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Adverse health outcomes due to changes in health inequity during construction and operation N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Archaeological and Heritage Resources (EIS Section 28.0) Crushing or biological degradation of potential fish trap stakes during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Reduced access for future archaeological study or preservation of potential fish trap stakes during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Exposure of potential fish trap stakes during construction N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-B-4

249 Appendix IR12-B Potential Project-related Effects Phase Mitigation Measures Considered But Not Applied Rationale for Rejection Current Use (EIS Section 32.2) Changes in access to preferred Current Use locations N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Changes in availability of preferred Current Use resources N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Changes in quality of preferred Current Use resources N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Changes in quality of preferred Current Use experience N/A No other technically or economically feasible mitigation measures were identified for this effect. N/A Response to Information Request #12 (IR ) Page 12-B-5

250 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #13 Cumulative Effects Assessment Rationale Context: To enable the assessment of Project-related effects and cumulative effects of the Project in combination with the effects of other Projects and activities that have been or will be carried out, Port Metro Vancouver considered four temporal cases: Existing conditions: describes the current conditions of each component, and takes into account the effects to date of other projects and activities that have been carried out; Expected conditions: describes changes that may occur in the existing conditions as a result of other projects that may be carried out before Project construction begins in 2018 or operations in 2024; Future conditions with the Project: predicts the future condition by examining how the Project would change the existing conditions or, if appropriate, the expected conditions; and Future conditions with the Project and other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities: considers the total future cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities that will be carried out. Port Metro Vancouver assessed cumulative effects by examining the potential for the residual effects of the Project to combine with effects of other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities. Port Metro Vancouver assumed that residual effects of the Project had integrated effects of past projects and activities and, as such, did not explicitly examine these effects in the context of cumulative effects. For instance, Port Metro Vancouver determined that no cumulative interactions were expected for marine invertebrates, because the effects of past projects (e.g. existing terminals) were already reflected in the baseline and, consequently, did not need to be considered in the cumulative effects assessment and no future activities and projects would interact with the residual effects of the Project. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 1

251 Considerations: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 requires that any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out, be taken into account in the environmental assessment. The EIS Guidelines (12.1.2) define cumulative effects as being changes to the environment due to the project combined with the existence of other works or other past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities and further states that cumulative effects may result if residual effects of the Project may combine with the effects of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable physical activities. The EIS Guidelines require an analysis of the total cumulative effect on a valued component over the life of the Project, including the incremental contribution of all current and proposed physical activities, in addition to that of the Project. While existing conditions have been shaped by effects of past projects and activities, using only the current state of a valued component in combination with future effects to fulfill the requirement of a cumulative effects assessment may not always provide a full understanding of the cumulative effects of successive projects from the past, present and future. If each successive project in an area uses a baseline into which past effects have been incorporated, the baseline is continually shifted and significant effects to valued components could be overlooked because of the absence of consideration of the effects of prior projects. A cumulative effects assessment that fulfills the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the EIS Guidelines would need to provide a clear understanding of how a valued component (1) has been affected by past projects and activities, (2) is being affected by existing projects and activities and, (3) could be affected by future projects and activities. Consideration of past effects could be done by describing qualitatively known trends in the condition of the valued component using available Aboriginal traditional knowledge, historic data or any other sources and describing how past activities have affected the conditions of the valued component. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 2

252 Information Requested For each valued component that may be affected by residual adverse effects of the Project, provide an analysis of the total cumulative effects over the life of the Project. The analysis should include: a) how the valued component has been affected by past projects and activities; b) how the valued component would be further affected by the residual effects of the Project; and c) how other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities may also affect the valued component. Response The EIS as currently written provides the requested analysis, including information about how the valued components (VCs) that will or may be affected by the Project have been affected by past projects and activities; how those VCs would be further affected by the Project; and how other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities may also affect the VCs that will or may be affected by the Project. A summary table is provided as an attachment to this response indicating, for each VC, where in the EIS the requested information was provided In addition, this response provides contextual information regarding the methodological approach to cumulative effects assessment to aid the reader in understanding the rationale for how the analysis was undertaken and how the requested information was presented in the EIS In response to the request to provide an analysis of total cumulative effects for each VC that may be affected by residual adverse effects of the Project, a summary table is provided in Appendix IR13-A. Drawing on the existing EIS content (with section references provided), the table in Appendix IR13-A summarises where in the EIS information has been provided about the following: a) How each VC has been affected by projects and activities that have been carried out ( A ); b) How each VC would be further changed or affected by the Project ( B ); and c) If the Project is determined to have a residual adverse effect on a VC, how other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities may also affect that VC ( C ). Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 3

253 These key data points, A, B, and C, are also indicated in a methods flowchart in Figure IR13-1 that is discussed further in PMV s Approach to Assessing Cumulative Effects below. As indicated in the summary table, information about how the VCs (specifically those that may be adversely affected by the Project) (and sub-components) have been affected by past projects and activities (Column A ) is generally found in the Existing Conditions section for each VC. This approach is consistent with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency s Operational Policy Statement Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (OPS) 1 (CEA Agency 2015) and with existing Agency and other guidance, as described in Section below. Additional information regarding how VCs have been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out is provided (where relevant) in the Context of Residual Effects section for those VCs for which residual effects of the Project are predicted. The amount of information provided in the EIS regarding how VCs have been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out varies, depending on information availability. This information is taken into consideration during the characterisation and determination of significance of residual effects of the Project, if any are predicted Information about how VCs would be further affected by the Project (Column B ) comprises the core of the environmental assessment. For each VC, the EIS provides comprehensive analysis of the potential effects (i.e., before mitigation) (in the Future Conditions with the Project section) and residual effects (i.e., those effects remaining after the implementation of mitigation) in the Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context and Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects sections (if any measurable residual effects are predicted) Information about how other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities may also affect the VCs (Column C ) is provided in the EIS for any VC for which a residual effect of the Project is predicted. This information is found in the Cumulative Effects Assessment section for each VC, where applicable. 1 It should be noted that the OPS was updated in March 2015, superseding the OPS that was in place at the time the original EIS Guidelines were issued and the EIS was prepared. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 4

254 PMV s Approach to Assessing Cumulative Effects The following sections provide contextual information regarding the requirements for, and methodological approach to, cumulative effects assessment to aid the reader in understanding the rationale for how the analysis was undertaken and how the requested information was presented in the EIS Requirements This section outlines the requirements PMV considered for taking cumulative effects into account in the environmental assessment as a means to establish a foundation for the methodological approach to assessing cumulative effects Section 19(1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) states the following: 19. (1) The environmental assessment of a designated project must take into account the following factors: (a) the environmental effects of the designated project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the designated project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out Port Metro Vancouver developed an approach to assessing cumulative effects in accordance with these requirements First, the scope of the assessment was focused on those cumulative effects that are likely to result. That is, cumulative effects that are not likely to occur, such as those that may be related to an unlikely accident or malfunction, were not taken into account Second, the cumulative effects that were considered resulted from the designated project in combination with other physical activities. That is, a residual effect of the Project was required for a cumulative effect to be considered. This means that while an 2 This is consistent with the Operational Policy Statement Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (OPS). Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 5

255 environmental component may be cumulatively affected by other past, present, or future projects and activities occurring within a region, if RBT2 will not contribute to those effects, those cumulative effects were not taken into account in the environmental assessment of the designated project. In other words, the environmental assessment took into account only project-specific cumulative effects, not regional cumulative effects that are unrelated to the designated project. Further, if RBT2 was not expected to have a measurable effect on a VC, it was not necessary to consider the (cumulative) effects of other projects and activities on that VC, whether those other effects arise from other projects and activities that have been or will be carried out Finally, the assessment considered other physical activities that both have been and will be carried out. That is, the assessment of cumulative effects considered how the residual effects of the Project combine with the effects of other projects and activities that have already occurred or are occurring (past and present), as well as with the potential effects of other projects and activities that will occur in the future. The scope of the future projects and activities that was taken into account was based on the Updated Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (Updated EIS Guidelines) 3 for the Project, as explained further below Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines The Updated EIS Guidelines for the Project specify the nature, scope, and extent of the information required to be included in the EIS for the Project. In addition to referencing the cumulative effects requirements included in section 19(1)(a) of CEAA 2012, the Updated EIS Guidelines (in section ) required PMV to identify and assess the Project s cumulative effects using the approach described in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency s Operational Policy Statement Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (OPS) (CEA Agency 2015). 3 The original EIS Guidelines were issued January 7, They were superseded by the Updated EIS Guidelines on April 17, The cumulative effects assessment requirements were not revised in the Updated EIS Guidelines, although additional requirements were added with respect to the additional matters of marine shipping and provincial socio-economic assessment. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 6

256 The Updated EIS Guidelines define cumulative effects as changes to the environment due to the project combined with the existence of other works or other past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities [emphasis added]. The term reasonably foreseeable establishes the scope of the future projects and activities that must be taken into account in the assessment. The OPS provides further clarity on this scoping aspect. It states the following: A cumulative environmental effects assessment of a designated project must include future physical activities that are certain and should generally include physical activities that are reasonably foreseeable. These concepts are defined as follows: Certain: the physical activity will proceed or there is a high probability that the physical activity will proceed, e.g., the proponent has received the necessary authorisations or is in the process of obtaining those authorisations. Reasonably Foreseeable: the physical activity is expected to proceed, e.g., the proponent has publicly disclosed its intention to seek the necessary environmental assessment or other authorisations to proceed Thus, the assessment of cumulative effects of the Project took into consideration certain and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities consistent with the definitions given above. That is, hypothetical future projects and activities (e.g., those that have not been publicly disclosed) were not taken into account The Updated EIS Guidelines also note that cumulative effects may result if the following applies: Implementation of the project being studied may cause direct residual adverse effects on the environmental components, taking into account the application of technically and economically feasible mitigation measures; and The same environmental components may be affected by other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable physical activities This confirms the requirement specified in CEAA 2012 that there must be a residual effect of the Project for cumulative effects to be taken into account in the environmental assessment. This also clarifies that for other projects and activities to be taken into account, they must affect the same environmental components that are affected by the Project 4. 4 This requirement is stated also in the OPS as follows: The cumulative environmental effects assessment must consider other physical activities that have been carried out up to the time of the analysis or will be carried out in the future, provided that these physical activities are likely to have an environmental effect on the same VCs that would be affected by residual environmental effects of the designated project [emphasis added]. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 7

257 This is important, as it underpins the method (described in Section 2.0 below) for determining which other projects and activities are taken into account in the assessment of cumulative change for each intermediate component (IC) and cumulative effects for each VC in the EIS. 1.2 Operational Policy Statement As noted above, the Updated EIS Guidelines directed PMV to identify and assess the Project s cumulative effects using the approach described in the OPS. The OPS describes a five-step process for cumulative effects assessment that includes scoping, analysis, mitigation, significance, and follow-up. The scoping step includes identifying VCs, determining spatial and temporal boundaries, and examining the relationship of the residual environmental effects of the designated project with those of other physical activities that have been and will be carried out. The methodology applied to the assessment of cumulative effects of the Project is consistent with the OPS, as explained more fully in Section 2.0 below Methodology for Assessment of Cumulative Effects of the Project 2.1 Overview The methodology used to assess the potential effects, including cumulative effects, of the Project was described in EIS Section 8.0 Effects Assessment Methods. Key aspects of the methodology that pertain specifically to the assessment of cumulative effects are explained in more detail in this section, to support the reader in understanding the cumulative effects assessment provided in the EIS. Figure IR13-1 illustrates the steps in the environmental assessment methodology, and indicates how cumulative effects were considered in each methodological step The methodology was developed specifically to meet the above-described requirements for a project-specific environmental assessment, and is consistent with the OPS and with existing federal guidance for cumulative effects assessment, specifically the Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide 5 (Hegmann et al. 1999) and the Reference Guide: Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects 6 (FEARO 1994) Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 8

258 Figure IR13-1 Cumulative Effects Assessment Methods Flowchart Steps in Environmental Assessment Methodology Issues Scoping Select Valued Components Establish Boundaries Describe Existing Conditions (and, where relevant, Expected Conditions) Determine Potential Effects of the Project Identify Mitigation Measures for the Project Evaluate Residual Effects of the Project Assess Future Cumulative Effects (substeps listed below) Identify VCs on which the Project has residual effect Identify other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities that affect the same VCs Confirm spatial boundaries Identify potential cumulative effects Identify additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects Evaluate residual cumulative effects Determine Followup Requirements How Cumulative Effects are Considered in Each of the Above Methodological Steps Issues regarding cumulative effects are noted. Potential for cumulative effects is often considered during VC selection. Regional study and assessment areas encompass the area within which the residual effects of the Project on the VC are likely to combine with the effects of other projects and activities to result in a cumulative effect. Information about how other past and present projects and activities have affected the VC is included in Existing (and Expected) Conditions (cumulative effects of other projects and activities that have been carried out ("A")). Project effects on the VC ("B") combine with existing (or expected) conditions of the VC, and therefore with the cumulative effects of other projects and activities that have been carried out. "A" + "B" This step considers the future condition of the VC (that is, after the effects of the Project combine with existing (or expected) conditions). Because the existing (or expected) conditions reflect the effects of other past and present projects and activities, this future condition reflects the cumulative effect of the Project in combination with other projects and activities that have been carried out. Thus, this step of the assessment is in fact an important part of the cumulative effects assessment. All that remains is to consider the incremental future cumulative effect (next step). "A" + "B" + "C" In this step, the incremental contribution of other projects and activities that will be carried out ("C") is considered. Through this and the preceding steps, the total future cumulative effects, including the effects of other past and present projects and activities (reflected in the existing (or expected) conditions), the residual effects of the Project, and the potential effects of other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities, are assessed. Follow-up is considered for both Project and cumulative effects. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 9

259 Scoping and Analysis During initial scoping of the environmental assessment, issues regarding cumulative effects were noted; this information was taken into account when identifying and evaluating candidate components for assessment. The selection of VCs considered the potential for a component to be subject to cumulative effects. Further scoping occurs specifically in relation to cumulative effects, as described below Determining the Need for a Cumulative Effects Assessment If the Project was predicted to cause a measurable change in an IC, that component was carried forward to assess potential cumulative changes. Similarly, any VC upon which the Project was predicted to have a residual adverse effect, regardless of the significance of the residual effect, was carried forward for assessment of potential cumulative effects. Where potential effects on a VC were due to changes in an IC (e.g., air quality, marine water quality, etc.), the assessment of potential cumulative effects on the VCs considered both the changes in the IC caused by the Project and those caused by the Project in combination with other projects and activities (cumulative changes) As explained in Section 1.0 above, the assessment of cumulative effects focused on potential cumulative effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other past and present projects and activities that have been carried out and other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities that will be carried out. That is, unlikely cumulative effects were not considered, nor were (regional) cumulative effects to which the Project is not expected to contribute, nor were potential cumulative effects of hypothetical projects and activities Determining the Spatial Boundary When the spatial boundaries were established early in the environmental assessment process, the regional study area (for ICs) and regional assessment area (for VCs) typically encompassed the area within which the effects of the Project were expected to interact cumulatively with the effects of other projects and activities on each component. As more information became available during the course of the environmental assessment (e.g., the results of air emissions dispersion modelling or underwater noise modelling), the spatial boundary for the assessment of cumulative effects on both ICs and VCs was adjusted as required to ensure potential cumulative interactions were captured. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 10

260 The spatial boundaries for assessment of cumulative effects took into consideration the distribution and mobility of the component being assessed. For example, the spatial boundary for assessing cumulative effects on a mobile VC encompassed not only the area within which that component may be affected by the Project but other areas within the range of that species within which it may be affected by other projects and activities, so long as the residual effects of the Project and the effects of the other projects and activities interact cumulatively The spatial boundaries were also scaled to neither under-estimate nor over-estimate the residual effects of the Project and its contribution to cumulative effects. For example, a boundary that is too large could make the scale of the effects of the Project appear unimportant, whereas a boundary that is too small could exclude other important contributors to cumulative effects and over-state the contribution of the Project Temporal boundaries for assessing cumulative effects took into account other past and present projects and activities, as well as future projects and activities that are certain and reasonably foreseeable. Temporal boundaries are discussed further in relation to how the effects of other projects and activities were taken into account in Section below Scoping and Examining Other Projects and Activities To satisfy the requirements outlined in Section 1.0 above, the assessment of cumulative effects comprised two parts: (1) the assessment of potential cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other past and present projects and activities that have been carried out; and (2) the assessment of potential cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities that will be carried out. The approach to each of these parts is explained more fully below Part 1: Other Projects and Activities that Have Been Carried Out Other projects and activities that have been carried out included both past and present projects and activities. Some of those projects and activities may have already been completed or terminated, while others may continue today. Likewise, the effects of some past and present projects and activities may have ended (and ICs and VCs fully or partially recovered from them), while other effects may still persist. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 11

261 Existing conditions reflect effects to date of past and present projects and activities As noted in the OPS, present-day environmental conditions reflect the cumulative environmental effects of many past and existing physical activities. This is acknowledged also in existing cumulative effects assessment guidance, including the draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEA Agency 2014), the Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al. 1999), and the Good Practice Handbook: Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets (International Finance Corporation 2013). For example, the latter guidance explains that, in some cases, the existing conditions of a VC integrates the collective effects of all existing developments and exogenous pressures on that component Hegmann et al. (1999) further state, In practice, past actions often become part of the existing baseline conditions. It is important, however, to ensure that the effects of these actions are recognized. This information is documented in the EIS as follows The other past and present projects and activities contributing to existing conditions are identified in EIS Section Projects Contributing to Existing Conditions and Section Activities Contributing to Existing Conditions and described in EIS Appendix 3-A Descriptions of Projects and Activities Contributing to Existing Conditions and Expected Conditions. Additional information about how past development at Roberts Bank affected the condition of environmental components is available in a document entitled History of Development at Roberts Bank An Overview (Hemmera 2004). Technical discipline subject matter experts took available information about past and present projects and activities into consideration when evaluating the existing conditions and resilience of their respective ICs or VCs 7. Thus, the Existing Conditions section for each IC and VC in the EIS includes information about how the existing conditions of each component have been affected by other past and present projects and activities (the Existing Conditions temporal case). Information about known or observed trends in the condition of the components is also provided. 7 This information was also used to identify potential effects, understand how components have responded to adverse effects in the past, and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 12

262 Some effects might not yet be manifest It is understood that the effects of some other past and present projects and activities, particularly more recent and ongoing projects and activities, might not yet be apparent in existing conditions of natural or human environmental components. In particular, at Roberts Bank, there are several other projects that are being undertaken or will have been undertaken by the time the Project will commence, and the effects of those other projects are not yet fully manifest. These other projects are identified in EIS Section Projects Contributing to Expected Conditions and described in EIS Appendix 3-A Descriptions of Projects and Activities Contributing to Existing Conditions and Expected Conditions To ensure these effects were considered, for those ICs and VCs that are expected to be affected by these ongoing projects, the EIS includes an Expected Conditions section that provides information about how the existing conditions of those components are expected to change in response to the identified ongoing projects (the Expected Conditions temporal case) Relying on existing (and expected) conditions to consider cumulative effects to date As explained in the draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEA Agency 2014), relying on existing conditions of components to represent the effects of other past and present projects and activities is an approach that is used to overcome the limitations of data availability regarding component conditions in the past. Documentation of conditions in the past is often absent or incomplete 8, and reliable information about the specific effects of past projects and activities is often not available. These data gaps generally worsen the farther back in time one looks. In contrast, existing conditions can be directly observed and measured, providing a reliable foundation for the assessment Assessing the residual effects of the Project in combination with other projects and activities that have been carried out In this context, it is important to note that the intent of PMV s environmental assessment was not to assess the effects of past projects and activities, but to assess the effects of the RBT2 Project, and more particularly with respect to this part of the cumulative effects 8 This is particularly true for marine environments, for which historical remote sensing data do not necessarily illuminate component conditions. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13

263 assessment, to assess how the effects of the Project combine with the effects of other projects and activities that have been carried out. Since the effects of those other projects and activities that have been carried out are reflected in the existing (or expected) conditions, this is achieved by predicting and evaluating the future condition of the components, after the residual effects of the Project have combined with the existing (or expected) conditions (the Future Conditions with the Project temporal case) The manner in which this evaluation is done is important, as, in order to adequately consider cumulative effects to date, it is necessary to avoid basing the evaluation on so- called shifting baselines. This issue is addressed in further detail in Section 2.4 below Thus, the reader of the EIS must be aware that the evaluation of Project effects comprises an important part of the cumulative effects assessment, as it includes the consideration of how the effects of the Project will or may combine with the effects of other projects and activities that have been carried out. This is documented in the EIS in the Future Conditions with the Project section for each IC and in the Residual Effects sections for each VC in the EIS Part 2: Other Projects and Activities that Will Be Carried Out Once the effects of the Project in combination with other projects and activities that have been carried out were assessed, as described above, all that remained was to identify the incremental effects of other projects and activities that will be carried out and assess how those effects may combine with the residual effects (if any) of the Project to result in cumulative effects. This evaluation comprised the second part of the cumulative effects assessment, and is documented in the EIS in the Future Conditions with the Project and Other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities section for each IC and in the Cumulative Effects Assessment section for each VC in the EIS To facilitate this assessment, other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities that will or may have effects that could interact with those of the Project were identified. These other future projects and activities were listed in Table 8-8 in EIS Section Identification of Other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities, and were identified based on a review of a range of publicly available information sources (listed in EIS Section ). Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 14

264 If the Project was predicted to measurably change an IC or to have a residual adverse effect on a VC, the responsible technical discipline subject matter expert then considered whether those changes or residual effects were likely to interact cumulatively with any effects of any of the other identified future projects and activities. In some cases, some other future projects or activities were excluded from further consideration, either because they were not expected to affect the same ICs or VCs as the Project or because the changes or effects were not considered likely to interact cumulatively. Rationales for the exclusion (if any) of other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities from the assessment of cumulative effects are appended to each IC or VC section Potential effects of the other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities relevant to each IC or VC are identified in the EIS, drawing on publicly available information sources, such as other environmental assessments and regulatory submissions and proponent websites. Information about other past and present projects and activities (compiled in relation to the first part of the cumulative effects assessment, above) was also used to identify potential effects of other future projects and activities, and to understand how components have responded to adverse effects in the past and how they may respond in the future Each technical discipline subject matter expert then predicted and evaluated the future condition of the ICs and VC, after the residual effects of the Project have combined with the existing (or expected) conditions and with the potential effects of the other future projects and activities (the Future Conditions with the Project and Other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities temporal case). Thus, this future cumulative case represents the total cumulative effect of the Project in combination with other projects and activities that have been and will be carried out Mitigation Measures to avoid or minimise potential adverse effects of the Project are described in the Mitigation section of each component in the EIS. By avoiding or minimising the potential adverse effects of the Project, these measures also serve to reduce the contribution (if any) of the Project to potential cumulative effects. For those components on which the Project is expected to have a residual Project effect and a potential (future) cumulative effect, additional mitigation measures to avoid or minimise potential cumulative effects were considered (although none were identified). Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 15

265 Characterising Residual Effects and Determining Significance The manner in which the residual effects are characterised and significance determined was an important aspect in PMV s methodological approach to cumulative effects assessment, particularly to ensure the cumulative effects to date of other projects and activities that have been carried out were adequately considered Characterising residual effects In the EIS, the changes to each component caused by the Project are compared against existing conditions, and residual effects (if any) characterised using criteria specified in relevant guidance documents (i.e., A Reference Guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Determining Whether A Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects (FEARO 1994)), including magnitude, extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility. This approach enables the reader to understand the scale of the change or effect caused by the Project relative to a directly observable, quantified condition (the Existing Conditions or Expected Conditions temporal cases) documented in the EIS Determining significance However, in contrast to the characterisation of the residual effect, the significance of the residual effect was generally not evaluated as a degree of change from the existing conditions. This is because simply comparing future conditions with the Project (and with other projects and activities that will be carried out) against existing conditions does not take into account the change that has previously occurred in the VC. Rather, the importance (i.e., significance) of the change caused by the Project was best understood by examining the future condition of the VC, which reflected all of the change it will have experienced, against a threshold of integrity pertinent to that component Therefore, significance was determined where possible in terms of the integrity of the VC. That is, the future condition of the VC (in both the Future Conditions with the Project temporal case and the Future Conditions with the Project and Other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities temporal case) is compared against a threshold, beyond which the integrity of that component (e.g., population integrity, ecosystem function, survival or recovery of a species at risk) may be jeopardised By using this approach, the determination of significance took into account how the VC may already have been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out, because the future condition of the VC reflects those cumulative effects. Thus, the shifting Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 16

266 baseline problem is avoided. In addition, this approach has the advantage of relying on the existing conditions of the components being assessed, which can be directly observed in field studies before and in monitoring after the environmental assessment, instead of more speculative re-construction of conditions at some historic point in time that would be required if significance were to be determined in terms of a degree of change from an arbitrary baseline in the past Differentiating between the cumulative effect and the contribution of the Project When reviewing the EIS and, ultimately, when making a decision in respect of the Project, statutory decision-makers must consider the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects. If measured in isolation (i.e., without taking into consideration the effects of other past or future projects and activities), the contribution of the Project may by itself be not significant. However, the effects of the Project in combination with other projects and activities that have been or will be carried out may be significant, particularly for those VCs that may already be significantly adversely affected by other projects and activities. Care must therefore be taken by the reader to understand not only the cumulative effect, but also the contribution of the Project to it. Therefore, where appropriate in the EIS, the assessment carefully distinguishes between the effects of the Project alone and the cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other projects and activities that have been or will be carried out to aid the reader in understanding this important distinction. 391 Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 17

267 References Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) Operational Policy Statement: Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, March Available at Accessed August Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Draft. December pp. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) A Reference Guide for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act: Determining Whether A Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects. 15pp. Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec. Hemmera Envirochem Inc History of Development at Roberts Bank An Overview. Report prepared for Vancouver Port Authority. November International Finance Corporation (IFC) Good Practice Handbook: Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets. 82pp. Appendices Appendix IR13-A Cumulative Effects Assessment Summary Table Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 18

268 APPENDIX IR13-A Cumulative Effects Assessment Summary Table

269 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

270 Appendix IR13-A Appendix IR13-A Cumulative Effects Assessment Summary Table Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Marine Vegetation (EIS Section 11.0) Information provided in 11.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Abiotic Factors for Eelgrass Spatial and Temporal Variation of Eelgrass Abiotic Factors for Intertidal Marsh Kelp Rockweed Information provided in 11.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Residual Effect Changes in Biofilm Assemblage Composition Information provided in 11.9 Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects subsections: Significance Determination No other future projects or activities are predicted to affect the VC cumulatively with the RBT2 Project. Information provided in 12.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Marine Invertebrates (EIS Section 12.0) 12.5 Existing Conditions (preamble) Infaunal and Epifaunal Communities Overview Bivalve Shellfish Overview Key Habitat Features Contamination Dungeness Crabs Overview Contamination Information provided in 12.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Context of Residual Effects Information provided in 12.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Residual Effect Characterisation of Productivity Loss Information provided in 12.9 Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects subsections: Significance Determination No other future projects or activities are predicted to affect the VC cumulatively with the RBT2 Project. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-1

271 Appendix IR13-A Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Information provided in 13.5 Existing Conditions subsections: 13.5 Existing Conditions (preamble) Pacific Salmon Chum Salmon Marine Fish (EIS Section 13.0) Chinook Salmon Reef Fish (preamble) Lingcod Forage Fish (preamble) Pacific Sand Lance Surf Smelt Pacific Herring Shiner Perch Flatfish English Sole Starry Flounder Demersal Fish Threespine Stickleback Pacific Staghorn Sculpin Information provided in 13.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Context of Residual Effects Information provided in 13.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Residual Effect Characterisation of Productivity Loss Information provided in 13.9 Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects subsections: Significance Determination Information provided in Cumulative Effects Assessment subsections: Effects of other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities Cumulative Interactions and Potential Cumulative Effects Characterisation of Residual Cumulative Effects and Context Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-2

272 Appendix IR13-A Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Information provided in 14.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Marine Mammals (EIS Section 14.0) Southern Resident Killer Whale Life Functions and Critical Habitat Features (esp. subsection on Critical Habitat Features) Past and Current Threats (SRKW) Threats (North Pacific Humpback Whale) Threats (Steller Sea Lion) Expected Conditions Information provided in 14.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Context of Residual Effects (SRKW) Information provided in 14.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Characterisation of Acoustic Disturbance from Operational Noise Information provided in 14.9 Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects subsections: Significance Determination Information provided in Cumulative Effects Assessment subsections: Cumulative Interactions and Potential Cumulative Effects Characterisation of Residual Cumulative Effects and Context Significance Determination for Residual Adverse Cumulative Effects Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-3

273 Appendix IR13-A Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Coastal Birds (EIS Section 15.0) Information provided in 15.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Overview Shorebirds Shorebird Diet Foraging Timing Waterfowl Overview Geese Herons Population Trends Predator-prey Interactions Human-caused Limiting Factors Diving Birds Piscivorous Species Seaduck Species Raptors Peregrine Falcon Barn Owl Bald Eagle Gulls and Terns Overview Glaucous-winged Gull Caspian Tern Passerines Barn Swallow Information provided in 15.9 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Context of Residual Effects Information provided in 15.9 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Residual Effect Characterisation of Loss of Productivity Information provided in Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects subsections: Significance Determination Information provided in Cumulative Effects Assessment subsections: Effects of other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities Cumulative Interactions and Potential Cumulative Effects Characterisation of Residual Cumulative Effects and Context Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-4

274 Appendix IR13-A Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Ongoing Productivity of Commercial, Recreational, and Aboriginal Fisheries (EIS Section 16.0) Information provided in 16.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Pacific Salmon Groundfish Forage Fish Dungeness Crab Groundfish Dungeness Crab Project predicted to have negligible effects on ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries. Not applicable, as the Project is not expected to measurably affect the VC. Labour Market (EIS Section 19.0) Economic Development (EIS Section 20.0) Project predicted to have positive effects on labour market. The Project will therefore not contribute to adverse cumulative effects. Project predicted to have positive effects on economic development. The Project will therefore not contribute to adverse cumulative effects. Marine Commercial Use (EIS Section 21.0) Information provided in 21.1 Component Overview and Regulatory Setting subsections: Marine Fish and Seafood Harvesting and Guided Sport Fishing 21.2 Selection of Marine Commercial Use Valued Component Information provided in 21.5 Existing Conditions subsections: 21.5 Existing Conditions Seafood Harvesting Marine Fish Harvesting Whale Watching Information provided in 21.9 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Characterisation of Seafood Harvesting Residual Effect #1 Changes in Area, Harvest and Revenue Information provided in Cumulative Effects Assessment subsections: Effects of Other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities Cumulative Interactions and Potential Cumulative Effects Characterisation of Residual Cumulative Effects and Context Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-5

275 Appendix IR13-A Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Local Government Finances (EIS Section 22.0) Project predicted to have positive effects on local government finances. The Project will therefore not contribute to adverse cumulative effects. Information provided in 23.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Services and Infrastructure (EIS Section 23.0) 23.5 Existing Conditions General Population Police Services in the Local Assessment Area Fire Services in the Local Assessment Area Ambulance Services in the Local Assessment Area Project predicted to have negligible effects on services and infrastructure. Not applicable as the Project is not expected to measurably affect the VC. Information provided in the following introductory subsections: 24.1 Component Overview and Regulatory setting Outdoor Recreation (EIS Section 24.0) 24.2 Selection of Outdoor Recreation Valued Component Information provided in 24.5 Existing Conditions subsections Recreational Boating Recreational Marine Fishing and Seafood Harvesting Project predicted to have negligible effects on outdoor recreation. Not applicable, as the Project is not expected to measurably affect the VC. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-6

276 Appendix IR13-A Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Visual Resources (EIS Section 25.0) Information provided in 25.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Regional Overview Project Setting and Prominent Visual Features Existing Daytime Visual Conditions Existing Nighttime Visual Conditions Expected Conditions Context of Residual Effects Information provided in 25.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Characterisation of Residual Effect #1 Change in Daytime Visual Resources Characterisation of Residual Effect #2 Change in Nighttime Visual Resources Information provided in Cumulative Effects Assessment subsections: Effects of Other Certain and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Activities Cumulative Interactions and Potential Cumulative Effects Significance Determination for Residual Adverse Cumulative Effects Land and Water Use (EIS Section 26.0) Information provided in 26.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Overview of Regional Assessment Area Local Assessment Area Land Ownership and Jurisdiction Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Information provided in 26.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Characterisation of Residual Effect #1 Changes in Access to Community Lease Lands No other future projects or activities are predicted to affect the VC cumulatively with the RBT2 Project. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-7

277 Appendix IR13-A Valued Component A - How the condition of the VC has been affected by other projects and activities that have been carried out B - How the Project will affect the VC C - How the condition of the VC will be further affected by other certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities Information provided in 27.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Human Health (EIS Section 27.0) General Health Measures Health Risks Related to Exposure to Existing Air Emissions Existing Health Conditions Related to Noise and Vibration Exposure to Shellfish Contamination Stress and Annoyance Food Security Expected Conditions Context of Residual Effects Information provided in 27.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Characterisation of Residual Effect #1 Exposure to Air Emissions Characterisation of Residual Effect #2 Exposure to Noise Information provided in Cumulative Effects Assessment subsection: Noise Information provided in 28.8 Characterisation of Residual Effects and Context subsections: Archaeological and Heritage Resources (EIS Section 28.0) Information provided in 28.5 Existing Conditions subsections: Physical Environment Ethnography Archaeological Potential Expected Conditions Characterisation of Residual Effect of Crushing or Degrading Potential Fish Trap Stakes Characterisation of Residual Effect of Reduced Access for Archaeological Study of Potential Fish Trap Stakes Characterisation of Residual Effect of Exposing Potential Fish Trap Stakes No other future projects or activities are predicted to affect the VC cumulatively with the RBT2 Project. Response to Information Request #13 (IR ) Page 13-A-8

278 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #14 Transboundary Effects Rationale The EIS Guidelines (10.1.2) require the EIS to include a stand-alone section that summarizes changes the Project may cause to the environment on federal lands or lands outside of British Columbia. Although Appendix 29-B and 29-C identify which intermediate and valued components would experience transboundary effects of the Project, the EIS does not include a description of the nature and characteristics of the transboundary aspects of the environmental effects. For example, Appendix 29-C indicates that the Project will have an effect on transboundary lands, but the transboundary nature of the residual effect to the productivity of diving birds is not clear. Section 15 identifies that the local and regional study areas for the coastal birds assessment both terminate at the United States border and the description of the future conditions with the Project on the potential productivity of diving birds is focused only on changes that are expected to occur within the local assessment area. Information Requested Provide a description of the nature and characteristics of the transboundary aspects of the environmental effects listed in Appendix 29-B and 29-C, namely for air quality, noise, light, surficial geology and marine sediment, marine water quality, underwater noise, marine mammals and coastal birds. Response Table IR14-1 summarises the nature and characteristics of transboundary changes to intermediate components caused by the Project. The first four columns of this table are the same as previously provided in EIS Appendix 29-B Changes to the Environment that would occur on Federal or Transboundary Lands (Intermediate Components); the fourth column indicated the potential for transboundary change, prior to implementation of mitigation. The fifth column provides the requested information, specifically a summary of Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 1

279 the nature and characteristics of predicted residual transboundary changes to the intermediate components (i.e., after implementation of mitigation), with reference to where more detailed information can be found in the EIS. As potential transboundary changes were indicated only for air quality, noise, light, surficial geology and marine sediment, marine water quality, and underwater noise, only those intermediate components are included in Table IR14-1. The reader should refer to EIS Appendix 29-B for information regarding the mitigation measures relevant to these intermediate components Table IR14-2 summarises the nature and characteristics of transboundary effects on valued components caused by the Project. The first four columns of this table are the same as previously provided in EIS Appendix 29-C Changes to the Environment that would occur on Federal or Transboundary Lands (Valued Components); the fourth column indicated the potential for transboundary effects, prior to implementation of mitigation. The fifth column provides the requested information, specifically a summary of the nature and characteristics of predicted residual transboundary effects on the valued components (i.e., after implementation of mitigation), with reference to where more detailed information can be found in the EIS. As potential transboundary effects were indicated only for marine mammals and coastal birds, only those valued components are included in Table IR14-2. Refer to EIS Appendix 29-C for information regarding the mitigation measures applied to the potential effects for these valued components, as well as a summary of incremental cumulative changes. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 2

280 27 Table IR14-1 Changes to the Environment on Transboundary Lands (Intermediate Components) Intermediate Component Project-related Change (Before Mitigation) On Federal Lands On Transboundary Lands Nature and Characteristic of Transboundary Residual Change Air Quality (EIS Section 9.2) Construction Increases in particulate matter (PM) are predicted over water in the vicinity of the construction works and near the B.C. Ferries terminal. No exceedances of criteria for PM, CO, NO 2, SO 2, or formaldehyde are predicted at locations on land, except potentially at the eastern end of the Roberts Bank causeway for PM 10 concentrations. During peak construction activity, air quality criteria may be exceeded for 1-h and 24-h average NO 2 concentrations in the immediate vicinity, and for PM, PM 10 and PM 2.5 concentrations over water near the Roberts Bank causeway and terminals. Operation PM, CO, NO 2, SO 2, and formaldehyde are not predicted to exceed criteria at locations on land. 1-h average NO 2 concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the Roberts Bank terminals are predicted to exceed air quality criteria. Compared to existing conditions, PM, CO, NO 2, SO 2, and formaldehyde are expected to decrease at locations on land, with the exception of localised increases for PM, CO, NO 2, and formaldehyde Compared to future conditions without the Project, all criteria air contaminants are predicted to increase at both land locations and over water, with the Yes Yes Construction As described in Section and Tables and , there are no exceedances of criteria for PM, CO, NO 2, SO 2, or formaldehyde predicted at the Point Roberts receptor location or for other U.S. overland or over water locations. Operation As shown in Table , the maximum predicted concentrations of CO, NO 2, SO 2, and formaldehyde will be lower at the Point Roberts receptor location in the future conditions with the Project case compared to existing conditions. As shown in Table , the maximum predicted PM concentration at the Point Roberts receptor location also will be lower in the future conditions with the Project case compared to existing conditions. As shown in Tables and , the addition of new Project-related emission sources are predicted to increase concentrations at the Point Roberts receptor location for all contaminants relative to the levels expected to be present in the future without the Project (i.e., expected conditions case). For the three comparisons stated above, all predicted maximum concentrations are well below regulatory criteria, or exceed regulatory criteria as levels are dominated by background air quality emissions from other sources. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 3

281 Intermediate Component Project-related Change (Before Mitigation) On Federal Lands On Transboundary Lands Nature and Characteristic of Transboundary Residual Change exception of NO 2, SO 2, and PM for some criteria averaging periods at the B.C. Ferries Terminal. A negligible effect on future ozone levels is expected. Greenhouse gases and black carbon emission concentrations are predicted to increase relative to expected future conditions without the Project. Compared to existing conditions, black carbon is expected to decrease due to equipment fleet turnover to newer engines that meet more stringent emission standards. Changes in ozone levels, greenhouse gases emission concentrations, and black carbon emission concentrations are, as stated in Column 2, expected to decrease in the future compared to existing conditions, and increase compared to expected conditions. Construction During peak periods of construction activity, perceptible increase in noise levels. Yes Yes Construction Increase in the five-year average L dn of less than 1.3 dba at upland locations. Increase in sound levels over water ranging from 0 to <12.9 dba, depending on setback distance from construction activities. Noise and Vibration (EIS Section 9.3) Operation Project operation is expected to result in incremental changes in average daily noise levels and low-frequency noise levels. Changes in average daily noise levels are not expected to be perceptible. Low-frequency noise will increase to a slightly higher, and potentially perceptible, degree. In addition, Project operation is estimated to approximately double the rates of occurrence of transient and impulsive noise events associated with material handling and this increase is expected to be perceptible. Yes Yes Operation As described in Table , an increase in L dn of 2 dba is predicted at U.S. upland location in Point Roberts. As shown in Figure and described in Section , sound levels over water are predicted to increase by <13.0 dba, depending on setback distance. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 4

282 Intermediate Component Project-related Change (Before Mitigation) On Federal Lands On Transboundary Lands Nature and Characteristic of Transboundary Residual Change Light (EIS Section 9.4) Construction and Operation Minimal increases in light trespass and sky glow levels Yes Yes As indicated in Table 9.4-9, the Project will slightly increase luminance at Point of Reception 4 (POR4) which includes Point Roberts, but no change in the light trespass classification is expected. As indicated in Table , the Project will slightly increase sky glow at the Point Roberts visual Point of Reception, but no change in sky glow classification is expected. Surficial Geology and Marine Sediment (EIS Section 9.6) Construction All changes are related to increases in sediment deposition following sediment re-suspension, and are anticipated to be minimal relative to the natural variation and dynamic environment at Roberts Bank. Deposition of fine sediments from construction activities including ITP use, dredging at the terminal dredge basin and tug basin, vibro-densification, and disposal-at-sea discharges are predicted to be a maximum of 1.7 mm, less than the lowest natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank (range is 2 to 30 mm/year). The spatial extents of sediment deposition from disposal at sea to -45 m CD range from 0.1 km 2 to 170 km 2 for sedimentladen water from fill material sourced from the Fraser River and dredge basin, respectively. The spatial extents of sediment deposition range from 26 km 2 for dredging at tug basin and surface disposal of material to 31 km 2 for dredging at the terminal dredge basin. Yes Yes Construction As shown in Figures 9.6-8, , and , sediment deposition (for dredge basin and ITP activities, ITP activities, DAS discharges of water containing dredge basin dredgeate and VEF materials, and tug basin dredging and dredgeate disposal, respectively), in U.S. waters east and south of the Project area are predicted to be less than 1.0 mm per year, which is less than the low range of the estimated natural sedimentation rate for Roberts Bank. As shown in Figure , DAS discharge of water containing ITP stored sands is not expected to result in sediment deposition in U.S. waters. Operation No transboundary change is predicted to result from Project operation. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 5

283 Intermediate Component Project-related Change (Before Mitigation) On Federal Lands On Transboundary Lands Nature and Characteristic of Transboundary Residual Change Localised and temporary re-distribution of sediments (scour and subsequent deposition) following terminal dyke construction and altered currents. Construction and Operation From altered coastal processes shoreward of the terminal: Deposition of fine sediments from increases in turbidity shoreward of the terminal on the tidal flats (changes expected to be negligible). Marine Water Quality (EIS Section 9.7) Construction All changes are related to TSS and turbidity due to sediment re-suspension, and are anticipated to be minimal relative to the natural variation and dynamic environment at Roberts Bank (highest observed TSS levels are 260 mg/l during freshet). Increases in total suspended solids (TSS) levels of greater than 5 mg/l (lowest federal guideline limit) above background conditions are predominantly in areas close to dredging sites, ITP, and disposalat-sea discharge sites, with the exception of disposal-at-sea to -45 m CD of sediment-laden water from fill material sourced from the dredge basin, with increases up to 20 mg/l along delta foreslope. The spatial extents of TSS increases greater than 5 mg/l range from 0.5 km 2 to 90.5 km 2 for sediment-laden water from fill material sourced from the Fraser River and dredge basin, respectively. Yes Yes Construction As described in Section , in waters south of the Canada-U.S.A. border, maximum increases in TSS levels of 10 mg/l to 20 mg/l are predicted to occur during a strong ebb tide with DAS discharge of sediment-laden water from dredge basin dredgeate. Since this activity is scheduled to occur during the months of April to October, background TSS levels will be influenced by the Fraser River freshet, and therefore this activity is not anticipated to change TSS levels above the natural range of conditions. As shown in Figures and increases in TSS are not predicted to exceed 5 mg/l at any time during dredging of the dredge basin and ITP activities, or for discharges of sediment-laden water containing ITP stored sands. As shown in Figures 9.7-9, TSS level exceeding 5 mg/l in U.S. waters is anticipated to occur less than 30% of the time that sediment-laden water containing dredge basin dredgeate and VEF materials discharges occur. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 6

284 Intermediate Component Project-related Change (Before Mitigation) On Federal Lands On Transboundary Lands Nature and Characteristic of Transboundary Residual Change As shown in Figures , TSS level exceeding 5 mg/l in U.S. waters is anticipated to occur less than 1% of the time that tug basin dredgeate discharges occur. Construction and Operation Changes in salinity from altered coastal processes are anticipated to be minimal relative to the natural variation and dynamic environment at Roberts Bank. Deflection of saline waters by the terminal during rising tide, leading to lower salinities shoreward of the terminal on the north side of the causeway and modification of the movement of the Fraser River plume, increasing turbidity, but within levels naturally experienced in this area. Changes are greatest during the freshet period. Yes No No transboundary changes predicted. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 7

285 Intermediate Component Project-related Change (Before Mitigation) On Federal Lands On Transboundary Lands Nature and Characteristic of Transboundary Residual Change Construction Underwater Noise (EIS Section 9.8) Construction Predicted noise levels range from 170 db re 1µPa less than 20 m from vibratory piling at the mooring dolphin to 120 db re 1µPa about 22 km from vibratory sheet piling at the west end of the caisson. Underwater noise levels may at times exceed current existing levels, but they are generally comparable. Operation Predicted underwater noise levels during the operation phase ranged from 170 db re 1 µpa less than 20 m from berthing to 117 db re 1 µpa approximately 29 km during berthing. Increases in underwater noise over existing conditions are predicted to occur for 3% of the year for container ship berthing and unberthing noise and 2% of the year for container ship approach and departure in the local assessment area. Yes Yes As shown in Table 9.8-4, predicted noise levels for the continuous construction scenarios from vibro-densification at the dredge basin, dredging at the dredge basin, and dredging at the ITP are expected to be 120 db re 1µPa or less at a distance greater than approximately 1,000 m from the activity location, which would apply to U.S. waters. As shown in Table 9.8-5, predicted noise levels for vibratory piling construction scenarios are expected to range from 120 to 130 db re 1µPa in U.S. waters. Underwater noise levels may at times exceed current existing levels during Project construction, but they are generally comparable. Operation As shown in Table 9.8-6, predicted noise levels from vessel berthing and approaching are expected to range from 120 to 140 db re 1µPa in U.S. waters. Underwater noise levels may at times exceed current existing levels during Project operation, but they are generally comparable. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 8

286 28 Table IR14-2 Changes to the Environment on Transboundary Lands (Valued Components) Valued Component Potential Effect (Before Mitigation) On Federal Lands On Transboundary Lands Nature and Characteristic of Transboundary Residual Effect Marine Mammals (EIS Section 14.0) Change in acoustic environment resulting in behavioural effects or acoustic masking for southern resident killer whale, North Pacific humpback whale, and Steller sea lion during construction and operation phases. Yes Yes Table provides predicted disturbance radii for lowand moderate-severity behavioural responses in SRKW during operation (container ship approach and berthing); these values apply to U.S. waters as well and indicate where transboundary behavioural effects on SRKW could occur. The predicted change to the acoustic environment and predicted behavioural responses and acoustic masking are not predicted to affect an individual SRKW s ability to forage in critical habitat when needed, and are therefore not predicted to result in population-level effects on SRKWs. Table characterises the residual effect on marine mammals; these characteristics apply also to any residual effect that may occur in U.S. waters. As stated in Sections and , respectively, residual effects on humpback whales or Steller sea lion populations are considered unlikely. As stated in Sections and , residual effects to these species are considered to be not significant. These conclusions also apply to U.S. waters. Physical disturbance from vessel strikes for southern resident killer whale and North Pacific humpback whale during construction and operation phases. Yes Yes As indicated in Table 14-21, no residual effects on marine mammals are predicted to result following implementation of mitigation for this potential effect; therefore, no residual transboundary effects are predicted. Coastal Birds (EIS Section 15.0) Productivity loss for coastal bird subcomponents during construction and operation phases. Yes Yes No residual effects of the Project are predicted to occur on lands outside of B.C. (transboundary). Potential transboundary cumulative effects on diving bird productivity were considered, but were found to be negligible. Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 9

287 References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #14 (IR ) Page 10

288 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #15 Intermodal Yard Locations Rationale The EIS Guidelines (section 8) require the proponent to identify the alternative means to carry out the Project, and to identify the effects of each technically and economically feasible alternative means. In EIS section , Port Metro Vancouver reports that there are two technically and economically feasible intermodal yard (IY) locations: an IY on land adjacent to Deltaport Way off of the causeway, and an IY on the marine terminal. The potential environmental effects of these feasible alternatives must be identified at a level of detail that allows the alternatives to be compared. The lists of valued components that could be affected by the alternatives on page 5-17 of the EIS do not provide the appropriate level of detail. Justification for the selection of the preferred alternative must also be provided in terms of the potential environmental effects, technical and economic feasibility, and any other factors that are applied such as community preference, as appropriate. Information Requested Provide a description of the potential environmental effects of the technically and economically feasible alternative means of the intermodal yard location. Compare the alternatives to identify the preferred alternative based on the relative consideration of potential environmental effects, and technical and economic feasibility of the alternatives. Explain any additional criteria that were used in the identification of the preferred alternative such as public preference or perception. Response EIS Section Technical Feasibility Criteria notes that the description of alternative means of delivering additional container capacity identifies projects outside of PMV jurisdiction; however, those projects were not considered technically feasible for PMV to undertake since it has no control of projects outside of its jurisdiction. This approach was applied to the consideration of alternative locations for the intermodal yard (IY) and EIS Section Intermodal Yard Locations should have stated that a land-based IY option may be technically and economically feasible for a third party, but is not a technically Response to Information Request #15 (IR ) Page 1

289 feasible option for PMV. EIS Table 5-8 correctly notes that the IY configuration on the RBT2 terminal is the only option assessed because there are no other technically or economically feasible options The EIS therefore does provide a description of the potential environmental effects of the technically and economically feasible alternative for the intermodal yard location, namely on the marine terminal. References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #15 (IR ) Page 2

290 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #16 Short Sea Shipping Rationale The EIS Guidelines (7.1) require the EIS to describe the Project, including the marine terminal and all associated infrastructure. Provision for a potential future short-sea-shipping barge terminal (berth and terminal operational offices) is described in EIS Appendix 4-A, Basis of Design and section 5, Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project, but it is not included in the description of the Project. It is understood that the Port Metro Vancouver technical/supporting studies may include physical activities that are not, or are no longer considered in the definition of the Project for the purpose of the environmental assessment. Information Requested Confirm whether the short-sea-shipping facilities and activities described in Appendix 4-A and section 5 of the EIS are part of the proposed Project. If part of the proposed Project, provide the required information as per the EIS Guidelines (7.1) for this component and its associated activities. Response 1 2 Short-sea-shipping facilities and activities are not part of the RBT2 Project, nor are they part of a planned future project RBT2 was designed to not preclude a short-sea-shipping berth modification due to continued stakeholder interest in alternative modes of transportation of goods in the Lower Mainland, which may make the short-sea-shipping mode of operation viable sometime in the future. EIS Appendix 4-A Basis of Design identifies several items that needed to be considered in the current preliminary design submitted in the EIS, and detail design if the Project is approved, in order not to restrict such a potential future modification For example, buildings and operational infrastructure on the west side of the terminal were positioned and designed to not preclude a short-sea-shipping berth. Similarly, the west end Longshore Break Room was designed to accommodate a future second level if a short-seashipping operation office is ever required. Response to Information Request #16 (IR ) Page 1

291 As discussed in EIS Section 5.0 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project, the tug basin was not considered to be located at the west side of the RBT2 terminal, as this would preclude any alternative potential future operations in this location If a short-sea-shipping facility at Roberts Bank is considered in the future it would likely require regulatory approval, which would involve an environmental review. References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #16 (IR ) Page 2

292 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #17 Cleanup and On-site Grounds Reclamation Rationale The EIS Guidelines (7.2) require the proponent to provide information on the decommissioning of any construction-related temporary facilities and post-construction cleanup and on-site grounds reclamation. The terms cleanup (except in relation to accidents or malfunctions) and reclamation in reference to on-site grounds are not used in the EIS which made it difficult for reviewers to locate information on these activities in the documentation. Information Requested Verify that all of the post-construction cleanup and on-site grounds reclamation activities that are anticipated to be required for the Project are identified in the EIS. Provide a short summary of the post-construction cleanup and on-site grounds reclamation activities and include reference to the EIS sections where these activities are discussed. Response 1 2 EIS Section Decommissioning of Temporary Construction Infrastructure identifies the post-construction clean-up required The RBT2 Project to a large degree will be constructed using marine-based equipment to develop the new terminal and widened causeway land mass. Once the land mass is completed, the marine-based equipment will move away from the Project site, requiring no further clean-up. Construction infrastructure used in this land development, such as the temporary barge ramps, the intermediate transfer pit, the intermediate transfer pit pipelines, the disposal at sea pipelines, and temporary causeway aggregate storage, will require removal, disposal, re-instatement to pre-existing conditions, surveying, or surface development as the case may be for the individual items stated in EIS Section Response to Information Request #17 (IR ) Page 1

293 Laydown areas, office trailers and facilities, construction equipment parking, and other construction-related infrastructure are all anticipated to be located on the developed land. This land will have surface operation infrastructure installed and placed into operation in a phased manner from the east to the west side of the terminal. Therefore, there will be ample space for construction infrastructure within the Container Yard area prior to full terminal operation, thus requiring no further clean-up or reclamation when the Project construction is complete, aside from moving any temporary construction trailers, materials, and mobile equipment off from the site, and repairing any disturbed Container Yard areas with the proper pavement material required for the area. References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #17 (IR ) Page 2

294 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #18 Groundwater Rationale The EIS Guidelines (9.1.4) require a delineation and characterization of groundwater areas/sources including the locations of groundwater discharge and recharge areas and a description of groundwater flow patterns and rates, including seasonal changes in groundwater flow. The EIS (section ) presents a limited discussion regarding delineation and characterization of groundwater areas/sources. The EIS describes the processes and general water bodies involved in the discharge and recharge of groundwater, without providing actual locations. The EIS also discusses the patterns of groundwater flow; however, there is no information on the rates of flow, including seasonal changes. Information Requested Provide delineation and characterization of groundwater areas/sources including the locations of groundwater discharge and recharge areas. Provide a description of groundwater flow patterns and the accompanying flow rates, including seasonal changes in groundwater flow. Response The delineation and characterisation of groundwater areas and sources, and a description of groundwater flow patterns and rates, including seasonal changes, is contained within Appendix IR18-A. Available information found in published reports and scientific studies describes the Fraser River aquifers as being comprised of subsurface flow originating from precipitation in the upland areas and travelling through the various geological units within local, intermediate, and regional flow nets. Groundwater flow within the sediments of the Fraser River delta is understood based on limited deep borehole and Cone Penetration Tests, field measurements, and numerical modelling. Based on the information in Appendix IR18-A, it is concluded that changes to the causeway and the construction of RBT2 are unlikely to change groundwater flow patterns except perhaps in the area immediately local to the Project. Response to Information Request #18 (IR ) Page 1

295 References None Appendices Appendix IR18-A Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Response to Information Request #18 (IR ) Page 2

296 APPENDIX IR18-A Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta

297 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

298 APPENDIX IR #18-A ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 PROJECT SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER INTERACTIONS IN THE FRASER RIVER DELTA REPORT Prepared for: Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place, Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 Prepared by: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. 30 Gostick Place, North Vancouver, BC V7 M 3G3 18 September 2015 NHC Ref. No

299 Prepared by: Charlene Menezes, P.Geo. Geomorphologist Derek Ray, P.Geo. Principal DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. is accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of Port Metro Vancouver and their authorized representatives for specific application to the Project in Vancouver, BC. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any parties other than Port Metro Vancouver.

300 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION TECHNICAL RESPONSE Introduction Fraser Delta Aquifers WORKS CITED... 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Geological section through Roberts Bank in the vicinity of Deltaport, from Christian et al. (1998). Boundaries are schematic and are based on limited deep borehole and CPT sounding information supported by high-resolution reflection profiles Conceptual groundwater flow along an east-west profile across the Fraser delta, Fraser Lowland, and Coast Mountains, illustrating local, intermediate, and regional groundwater flow systems, from Ricketts (1998)... 4 Conductivity-depth sections for the Roberts Bank area, along a transect parallel to and immediately seaward of the Roberts Bank shoreline between Brunswick Marsh and the Inter-causeway Area (see Figure 4 for transect location). From Hunter et al. (1996)... 5 Location of section shown in Figure 3 and boreholes and sampling locations referenced elsewhere in the text Estimated contours of depth to saline groundwater using available regional groundwater chemical data, from Neilson-Welch (1999) Appendix IR #18-A Project Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report II

301 1 INTRODUCTION At the request of Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (NHC) has prepared this Technical Response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency s Information Request #18 as part of the completeness of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Project. This Technical Response provides: a delineation and characterization of groundwater areas/sources including the locations of groundwater discharge and recharge areas; and a description of groundwater flow patterns and the accompanying flow rates, including seasonal changes in groundwater flow. This report summarizes existing information describing the Fraser River delta groundwater system based on published papers and unpublished technical reports. 2 TECHNICAL RESPONSE 2.1 Introduction Groundwater is found within the pore spaces and fractures in soil, sediments, and rock beneath the earth surface. The hydraulic conductivity of the material determines the speed with which water moves through the geologic unit. Materials with higher hydraulic conductivity are referred to as aquifers while low hydraulic conductivity is a property of an aquitard, which effectively impedes the flow of groundwater. Groundwater moves through an aquifer driven by the hydraulic gradient between areas of high head (water height) to areas of lower head. Typically, the recharge area for an aquifer is at a higher topographic elevation and the discharge zone is at the lowest topographic zone. Conceptually, groundwater flow nets, which are somewhat analogous to the concept of the surfacewater watershed, can be considered at various scales: local flow, intermediate flow, and regional flow, which relate both to the lateral extent of the interaction as well as the depth below surface (local flow occurs at shallower depths than intermediate and regional flow). Local groundwater transport regimes generally reflect a higher degree of smaller-scale spatial variability in stratigraphy of the unconsolidated zone, shallow bedrock fractures, locally anomalous conditions, transmissivity and conductivity, and the magnitude of local recharge. Conversely, groundwater transport at a regional scale reflects a spatial averaging of localized spatial variability, such that there is less variation around the central tendency for various relevant aquifer properties. Appendix IR #18-A Project 1 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

302 The movement of water between open river channels and adjacent sediments is termed hyporheic flow and is generally considered by most researchers to be distinct from the groundwater system (Boulton et al. 1998). The lateral extent of the hyporheic zone varies with factors such as river discharge, the characteristics of adjacent sediments, depth to impermeable layers, and valley gradient. Where a groundwater system is present, mixing occurs within the sediments between the hyporheic water and ground water, making the boundary of the hyporheic zone difficult to define. The hyporheic zone of the Fraser River has not been established; however, the floodplain of the Flathead River in Montana was found to have a hyporheic corridor that extended up to the 3 km from the channel (Stanford et al. 1994) so it is possible that hyporheic flow in the lower Fraser delta could be quite extensive. Groundwater flow dynamics in the Fraser delta have been mainly studied at a regional scale. Groundwater movements in the sediments underlying Roberts Bank are part of an extensive geologic system that extends over the Fraser River delta and surrounding uplands. Precipitation is the principal source of recharge to the Fraser delta aquifer throughout the Fraser Lowland (the Fraser valley west of Hope) and this is true at a local and regional scale in the Lower Mainland as well. 2.2 Fraser Delta Aquifers The subsurface geology of Roberts Bank has been defined using limited deep-borehole and Cone Penetration Test (CPT) sounding information by Christian et al. (1998). Additional stratigraphic information for Roberts Bank is available in geotechnical reports completed by Golder Associates in support of the conceptual design of the RBT2 project (Golder 2011). The following major stratigraphic units (from shallower to deeper delta zones) occur at Roberts Bank, as illustrated in Figure 1: 1) floodplain sands/silts near the surface; 2) interbedded silts and sands; 3) prodelta silts; 4) Pleistocene sand-gravel (glacial till); and 5) Tertiary bedrock basement. The thickness of these layers, some of which are discontinuous, varies across Roberts Bank. Golder (2011) provides the thickness of the various layers using a simplified sedimentary model similar to that which is presented in Figure 1: Granular Soils depth from 0 m to m Fine-grained (cohesive) soils depth from m to m Till-like soils below depth from m From a groundwater flow perspective, sand units give rise to aquifers due to their high hydraulic conductivity, whereas finer silt/clay units have a much lower conductivity and are considered aquitards. The interbedded silts and sands unit is regarded as a shallow sheet-sand aquifer that is also unconfined in nature. The deeper Pleistocene sand-gravels form a confined aquifer. Appendix IR #18-A Project 2 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

303 Figure 1: Geological section through Roberts Bank in the vicinity of Deltaport, from Christian et al. (1998). Boundaries are schematic and are based on limited deep borehole and CPT sounding information supported by high-resolution reflection profiles. Ricketts (1998) developed a conceptual model of groundwater flow across the Fraser delta (Figure 2), based on assumed influences of local, intermediate and regional dynamics. This conceptual model suggests that groundwater recharge to the Fraser delta aquifers is fed by direct precipitation on the delta plain or adjacent uplands, including the Burrard, Surrey, White Rock and Tsawwassen uplands. The recharge rate to the Fraser delta from precipitation was estimated to be 130 mm/year after subtracting surface runoff and evapotranspiration from precipitation amounts, with rates as high as 250 mm/year east of New Westminster. Variations in recharge due to seasonal changes in precipitation would not necessarily be expected to translate to variations in aquifer discharge rates given the slow rate of movement through the groundwater system and the large storage component. Local flow, intermediate flow, and regional flow systems are assumed to be present. It is the local flow that migrates down through the shallow surficial deposits and then migrates laterally through the more permeable sheet sand units that occupy the upper ca. 10 m to 50 m of the delta underlying the shallow intertidal mudflat areas. Recharge to the deeper Pleistocene aquifers is mostly from topography-driven flow from the high uplands to the lower delta plain. Appendix IR #18-A Project 3 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

304 Figure 2: Conceptual groundwater flow along an east-west profile across the Fraser delta, Fraser Lowland, and Coast Mountains, illustrating local, intermediate, and regional groundwater flow systems, from Ricketts (1998). The local groundwater flow systems discharge at the Fraser River or at the delta front, whereas regional and intermediate flow systems supply submarine seepage at the delta front, via the Pleistocene sand and gravel layer. Groundwater modelling based on recharge rates and hydraulic conductivities of subsurface layers by Ricketts (1998) indicates that hydraulic gradients in the sheet-sand aquifer have low values, between 0.1 and 0.25 m/km, parallel to hydraulic divides, which separate the individual flow nets, that generally run northeast to southwest across the delta plain. An upward component to groundwater flow below the tidal flats from the deeper sand and silt units was identified based on equipotential gradients; however, saltwater intrusion and the effects of density-dependent flow were not accounted for in this model (Neilson-Welch 1999). Generally, if the topographic gradient is insufficient, such as in a tidal flat environment, the seaward flow of groundwater will be counteracted by a landward migration of the salt wedge. In areas where there is saltwater intrusion into the sand aquifer, local density-dependent flow regimes develop: saline groundwater in the sand migrates toward the wedge toe and then circulates back toward the river/ocean under the influence of river-ward /seaward freshwater gradients (Neilson-Welch 1999). Appendix IR #18-A Project 4 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

305 Electrical conductivity profiles measured in boreholes that span the extent of the Roberts Bank tidal flats from the dyke to the terminal (see Figure 4) showed a mixing of seawater (salt wedge) and seawardflowing groundwater (Ricketts 1998). As a rule of thumb for the Fraser delta, conductivities below 200 ms/m indicate low-salinity porewater, conductivities between 200 and 600 ms/m are related to brackish porewater, and those above 600 ms/m to seawater salinity within the pore spaces (Hunter et al. 1994). Further electrical conductivity measurements collected in June 1995 allowed Hunter (1996) to plot a conductivity cross-section parallel to and seaward of the shoreline at Roberts Bank (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Although the measurement period corresponds to the freshet season with its higher Fraser River freshwater input, it suggests the presence of a strong near-surface gradient that precludes the low salinity 100 ms/m contour over much of the middle portion of the upper tidal flats. Figure 3: Conductivity-depth sections for the Roberts Bank area, along a transect parallel to and immediately seaward of the Roberts Bank shoreline between Brunswick Marsh and the Inter-causeway Area (see Figure 4 for transect location). From Hunter et al. (1996). Appendix IR #18-A Project 5 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

306 Figure 4: Location of section shown in Figure 3 and boreholes and sampling locations referenced elsewhere in the text. Simpson and Hutcheon (1995) completed groundwater analyses for major ions, including chloride, as part of a geochemical study of the Fraser delta. At two sampling locations on the tidal flats, they found that the approximate depth to saline groundwater was 0 m. Based on available electrical conductivity and chemical data, the estimated contours of depth to saline groundwater were interpreted (Figure 4). Of note is that Brunswick Marsh is one of four locations near the mouth of the Fraser River where saline groundwater was not present at the depths investigated. Here, the discharge of freshwater to the Strait of Georgia may inhibit saltwater intrusion. Appendix IR #18-A Project 6 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

307 Figure 5: Estimated contours of depth to saline groundwater using available regional groundwater chemical data, from Neilson-Welch (1999). Seasonal changes play a role: the combination of the effects of tides and river discharge leads to a complex pattern of salinity variations at the interface between the fresh groundwater and saline sea water entering the underlying aquifer (Neilson-Welch and Smith 2001). Conversely, it is known that high river levels during the freshet may cause water to enter the Fraser delta aquifer and mix with denser saline water adjacent to the river channel (Neilson-Welch and Smith 2001), although this conceptually would be understood by others (for example Boulton et al. 1998) to be hyporheic exchange rather than true groundwater inputs. Water table elevations in local flow systems also respond rapidly to seasonal variations in precipitation, causing as much as a 4 m change in elevation between wet and dry seasons (Halstead 1986). The magnitude of groundwater flux to the tidal flat surface has not been quantified. Neilson-Welch and Smith (2001) reportedly found it difficult to quantify the magnitude of groundwater flow in the wedge from piezometers due to low hydraulic gradients. It is expected that the contribution of freshwater Appendix IR #18-A Project 7 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

308 seepage would be small, particularly when tidal exchange has been factored, and would vary very little on a seasonal basis. Recently, Dr. Tomohiro Kuwae of Japan s Port and Airport Research Group, has initiated research into near-surface groundwater fluxes at Roberts Bank in an effort to further the understanding of interactions with various biofilm communities (Kuwae 2015) but to date no results have been published. The Roberts Bank causeway would be expected to have little to no influence on the groundwater system for two reasons: i) it is aligned approximately parallel to the assumed direction of groundwater flow, and ii) the changes to the surficial sediments related to this feature penetrate to relatively shallow depths. The Deltaport terminal also has a relatively shallow depth of influence in the sediments, although greater than the causeway, but its relative importance is diminished because it is located in the discharge zone near the edge of the delta foreslope. Following this logic, changes to the causeway and the construction of RBT2 are unlikely to change groundwater flow patterns except perhaps in the area immediately local to the Project. 3 WORKS CITED Boulton, A. J., S. Findlay, P. Marmonier, E. H. Stanley, and H. M. Valett The functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: Christian, H. A., D. C. Mosher, J. V. Barrie, J. A. Hunter, and J. L. Luternauer Seabed slope instability on the Fraser River delta. Pages in. Geology and Natural Hazards of the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia,. (ed.) J.J. Clague, J.L. Luternauer, and D.C. Mosher. Geologic Survey of Canada, Bulletin 525. Golder Roberts Bank Seismic Evaluation - Final Report (Version 2.0). Report prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. for Port Metro Vancouver. Halstead, E. C Ground water supply - Fraser Lowland, British Columbia. Scientific Series No. 145, Environment Canada, Inland Waters Directorate. Hunter, J. A., J. L. Luternauer, and P. J. Kurfurst Regional electromagnetic soundings with the Geonics EM-34 conductivity meter in the southern Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada. Hunter, J. A., J. L. Luternauer, M. C. Roberts, P. A. Monahan, and M. Douma Borehole geophysical logs, Fraser River delta (92G), British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada. Kuwae, T Pers. Comm. Neilson-Welch, L Saline water intrusion from the Fraser River estuary: A hydrogeological investigation using field chemical data and a density-dependent groundwater flow model. University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. Appendix IR #18-A Project 8 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

309 Neilson-Welch, L., and L. Smith Saline water intrusion adjacent to the Fraser River, Richmond, British Columbia. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 38: Ricketts, B. D Groundwater flow beneath the Fraser River delta, British Columbia; a preliminary model. Pages in. Geology and Natural Hazards of the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. (ed.) J.J. Clague, J.L. Luternauer, and D.C. Mosher. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 525. Simpson, G., and I. Hutcheon Pore-water chemistry and diagenesis of the modern Fraser River Delta. Journal of Sedimentary Research A65: Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, and B. K. Ellis Ecology of the alluvial aquifers of the Flathead River, Montana. Pages in. Groundwater Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego. Appendix IR #18-A Project 9 Summary of Groundwater Interactions in the Fraser River Delta Final Report

310 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #19 British Columbia and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Objectives Rationale The EIS Guidelines (13.1.1) require that, in reaching conclusions on the significance of adverse environmental effects, the proponent use the existence of environmental standards, guidelines or objectives for assessing the impact, and (consider) the implications of any currently proposed revisions. On October 21, 2014 British Columbia established interim Provincial objectives for 1-hr NO 2 and 1-hr SO 2. Port Metro Vancouver indicated that those objectives have not been incorporated into the assessment of air quality in EIS section 9.2 or subsequently in the determination of significance of air quality impacts to Human Health in EIS section 27 or Potential or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests, including Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes in EIS section 32. The EIS also indicates that, under the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards, new NO 2 and SO 2 criteria are expected to be established in the timeframe but does not discuss the implications of these proposed standards. Information Requested Provide an analysis of the Project s 1-hr NO 2 and 1-hr SO 2 emissions according to the methodology and objectives provided in the October 2014 British Columbia Interim Air Quality Objectives. Discuss how any changes to the existing analysis would affect the predicted significance of the Project s effects on Human Health and Potential or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests, including Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes. Provide a discussion regarding the implications of the currently proposed revisions to the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards criteria for NO 2 and SO 2 for the relevant predictions within the EIS. Response to Information Request #19 (IR ) Page 1

311 Response This response is provided in two parts. The first part provides the analysis of 1-hour (h) NO 2 and 1-h SO 2 emissions using provincial interim objectives and associated statistical methods, and a discussion of the implication of these results to the assessment of human health and potential or established Aboriginal and treaty rights and related interests, including current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. The second part responds to the implications of pending revisions to the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards criteria for NO 2 and SO Analysis of 1-hour NO 2 and 1-hour SO 2 Emissions Using Provincial Interim Objectives and Associated Statistical Methods An analysis of the Project s 1-h NO 2 and 1-h SO 2 emissions according to the October 2014 British Columbia Interim Air Quality Objectives is provided in Appendix IR19-A. Appendix IR19-A also provides a human health risk assessment based on updated NO 2 and SO 2 emissions predictions During RBT2 construction, the highest risk quotient values for NO 2 and respiratory irritants (primarily NO 2 ) were predicted at locations over water near RBT2 and Westshore Terminals. Acute exposure to NO 2 and respiratory irritants could be of moderate consequence to the health of individuals spending time in these areas. It is anticipated, however, that public exposure at over-water locations will be limited due to construction activities and shipping traffic, as well as navigational closures for commercial and recreational fishing During RBT2 operation, despite the conservatism of the exposure assessment, the results indicate that the operation of RBT2 is not expected to result in adverse health effects within the local study area, including at the predicted maximum points of impingement over water and over land Considering the conclusions of the Human Health Risk Assessment based on Provincial Interim NO 2 and SO 2 Objectives and associated air quality estimation methods (Appendix IR19-A), the residual effect to human health related to changes in air quality is expected to be not significant, as previously concluded in EIS Section Human Health, Significance Determination, Air Emissions, based on the following significance definition: An RQ (risk quotient) of greater than one (1) may signify an adverse effect depending on the degree of uncertainty and conservativism in the estimate, as well as the characteristics of the possible health consequences. Although some of the revised risk Response to Information Request #19 (IR ) Page 2

312 quotient predictions exceed 1 based on the h NO 2 and 1-h SO 2 interim objectives, the conservativism incorporated in the estimates, described in Appendix IR19-A, is considered to over-estimate 1-h NO 2 and 1-h SO 2 concentrations, and therefore the risk quotient values are also over-estimated The predicted significance of effects on potential or established Aboriginal and treaty rights and related interests, including current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes related to air quality is also expected to remain unchanged from the conclusions provided in EIS Section Potential Effect 4: Changes in Quality of Current Use Experience. The assessment determined that air emissions were not a contributing factor to the indicator of Quality of Current Use Experience, and therefore a potential effect was not anticipated. Therefore, considering the results of the air quality and human health risk assessment analyses in Appendix IR19-A, this conclusion remains the same Proposed Revisions to NO 2 and SO 2 Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria As stated in EIS Section 9.2 Air Quality, PMV is aware that there are pending revisions to the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) criteria for NO 2 and SO 2. PMV is not privy to the ongoing consultations. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment website 1 provides no background information on the possible numerical values or form that the proposed revisions to the CAAQS criteria for NO 2 and SO 2 might take. A discussion regarding the implications of these revisions would be speculative given these information limitations and any such information, therefore, would be of limited value to the air quality assessment provided in EIS Section 9.2. References None Appendices Appendix IR19-A Air Quality and Human Health Risk Assessments Based on Provincial Interim NO 2 and SO 2 Objectives 1 Response to Information Request #19 (IR ) Page 3

313 APPENDIX IR19-A Air Quality and Human Health Risk Assessments Based on Provincial Interim NO 2 and SO 2 Objectives

314 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

315 ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 TECHNICAL REPORT Appendix19-A Air Quality and Human Health Risk Assessments Based on Provincial Interim NO 2 and SO 2 Objectives in Support of EIS Information Request 19 Prepared for: PORT METRO VANCOUVER 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 Prepared by: ARCADIS Canada Inc West Broadway, Suite 303 Vancouver, BC V6H 1H2 And Hemmera Envirochem Inc. 18 th Floor, 4730 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 0C6 October 2015

316 Port Metro Vancouver - i - ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... IV REPORT OVERVIEW... 1 PART 1 AIR QUALITY INTRODUCTION INTERIM NO 2 AND SO 2 AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION PHASE Anticipated Changes in Air Quality, NO 2 and SO Graphical Comparison RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OPERATION PHASE Anticipated Changes in Air Quality, NO 2 and SO Graphical Comparisons RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CUMULATIVE CHANGES Anticipated Changes in Air Quality, NO 2 and SO PART 2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT HHRA INTRODUCTION REVISED RISK CHARACTERIZATON ACUTE INHALATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ACUTE INHALATION HAZARD ASSESSMENT RISK CHARACTERISATION RESULTS Construction Emission Scenario Existing Emission Conditions Expected Air Quality Conditions (without Project) Future Air Quality Conditions with Project Operation HHRA DISCUSSION CONSTRUCTION SCENARIO OPERATION SCENARIOS HHRA CONCLUSIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGN-OFF REFERENCES ARCADIS CORPORATE UPDATE AND STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS... 47

317 Port Metro Vancouver - ii - ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 List of Tables Table 2-1 Air Quality EIS Study Criteria and 2014 Provincial Interim Objectives for NO 2 and SO Table 2-2 Predicted Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) of NO 2 and SO 2 for Average Day Construction Scenario plus Expected Conditions... 6 Table 2-3 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of NO 2 and SO 2 under Existing Conditions 10 Table 2-4 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of NO 2 and SO 2 under Expected Conditions Table 2-5 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of NO 2 and SO 2 under Future Conditions 12 Table 2-6 Table 2-7 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of 1-hour Average NO 2 for Cumulative Change Assessment of Future Conditions Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of 1-hour Average SO 2 for Cumulative Change Assessment of Future Conditions Table 4-1 Receptor Lifestyles and Locations Table 4-2 Summary of Acute Inhalation Exposure Limits Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Predicted 1-hour NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) and Acute RQs Construction Scenario Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 - Construction Scenario Table 4-5 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Construction Scenario Table 4-6 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Construction Scenario Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for NO 2 Existing Conditions Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Existing Conditions Table 4-9 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Existing Conditions Table 4-10 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Existing Conditions Table 4-11 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for NO 2 Expected Conditions... 33

318 Port Metro Vancouver - iii - ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-12 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 - Expected Conditions Table 4-13 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Expected Conditions Table 4-14 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Expected Conditions Table 4-15 Table 4-16 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for NO 2 Future Conditions with Project Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 - Future Conditions with Project Table 4-17 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Future Conditions with Project Table 4-18 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Future Conditions with Project Table 5-1 Predicted Risk Quotients for MPOI Over Water Table 5-2 Predicted Risk Quotients for MPOI Over Land List of In-Text Figures Figure 2-1 Location of Discrete Receptors... 4 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Maximum and 98 th Percentile 1-hour Average NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) for Average Day Construction plus Expected Conditions... 7 Maximum 1-hour Average NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions Maximum 1-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions Interim Objective 98 th Percentile 1-hour Average NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions Interim Objective 99 th Percentile 1-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions... 17

319 Port Metro Vancouver - iv - ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS List of Acronyms AAQO Ambient Air Quality Objectives ARCADIS ARCADIS Canada Inc. AQ HHRA Air Quality Human Health Risk Assessment B.C. British Columbia CAAQS Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards CWS aq Canada-wide Standards for air quality ECA Emission Control Area GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District LSA local study area MAL maximum acceptable level MDL maximum desirable level MOE Ministry of the Environment MPOI Maximum Point of Impingement MV Metro Vancouver NAAQO National Ambient Air Quality Objectives OLM Ozone Limiting Method PMV Port Metro Vancouver Project Project (the Project interchangeable with RBT2) RBT2 Project (RBT2 interchangeable with the Project) RQ Risk Quotient Study Air Quality Study related to the Project WHO World Health Organization Contaminants CAC criteria air contaminant NO nitric oxide NO 2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides O 3 SO 2 ground-level ozone sulphur dioxide Symbols, Measurements, and Abbreviations h hour µg/m 3 micrograms per cubic metre

320 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 REPORT OVERVIEW This report is provided to support PMV s response to EIS Information Request #19 - British Columbia and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Objective. Specifically, it provides updated analyses and results for Project (RBT2 or the Project) EIS Section 9.2 Air Quality and supporting Appendix 9.2-A: Air Quality Study, which informs updates to the air quality human health risk assessment (AQ HHRA) presented in EIS Appendix 27-A. The updates reflect new British Columbia (B.C.) Ministry of Environment (MOE) interim air quality objectives for 1-hour (1-h) average nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) objectives. The air quality analysis is presented in Part 1, followed by an analysis of the implications for the AQ HHRA in Part 2. This report supports the response to EIS IR #19, in which the implications of this analysis for the EIS assessments of human health and current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes are described. PART 1 AIR QUALITY 1.0 INTRODUCTION EIS Section 9.2 Air Quality presents a summary of existing conditions, expected future changes in air quality due to the proposed changes in container handling capacity at existing Roberts Bank terminals, future conditions with Project construction and operations, and predicted changes associated with other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities. The Air Quality Study Technical Report (Study), which contains detailed information on air quality assessment methods and analyses to support the assessment provided in EIS Section 9.2, is provided in EIS Appendix 9.2-A. The Study was completed using B.C. Ministry of Environment Ambient Air Quality Objectives prior to the issuance of new interim objectives for 1-h average NO 2 and SO 2 objectives in late This report provides an assessment of the changes in air quality relative to the 2014 interim objectives, and provides the results presented in the EIS for comparison purposes.

321 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October INTERIM NO 2 AND SO 2 AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES The B.C. MOE formally adopted new interim objectives for NO 2 and SO 2 in October 2014; however, the new objectives were not publicly disseminated until December 22, Consequently, these interim objectives were not incorporated into the analyses presented in the Study (provided in EIS Appendix 9.2-A), which was completed prior to their issuance. This section provides a comparison of the results presented in the EIS to updated results based on the 2014 interim objectives. The National Ambient Air Quality Objectives (NAAQO), B.C. Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAQO) and Metro Vancouver (MV) AAQO for NO 2 and SO 2, inclusive of the 2014 interim objectives for NO 2 and SO 2, as well as the MV interim objective for SO 2, are listed in Table 2-1. As noted in EIS Section 9.2.4, the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) will have new criteria for NO 2 and SO 2 in the time frame. As described in the EIS, the most stringent objectives/standards from amongst the B.C. AAQO, Canada-wide Standards for air quality (CWS aq ), and CAAQS at the time that the Study was completed were used, as presented in the Study Criteria column in Table 2-1. The MV AAQO for SO 2, which is more stringent than the federal/provincial objectives/standards, is also listed in the tables of predicted concentrations for comparison purposes. It should be noted that although both the B.C. AAQO and the MV AAQO for SO 2 are defined as 75 parts per billion (ppb), the B.C. MOE and MV use slightly different conversion rates for converting from ppb concentrations to micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m 3 ), resulting in a B.C. AAQO of 200 µg/m 3 and a MV AAQO of 196 µg/m 3. Table 2-1 Air Quality EIS Study Criteria and 2014 Provincial Interim Objectives for NO 2 and SO 2 CAC a Avg. Period EIS Study Criteria (µg/m 3 ) NAAQO b MDL MAL Air Quality Criteria (µg/m 3 ) Level A Level B B.C. AAQO Level C AQO / Goal Interim c MV AAQO NO 2 1-h see NAAQO d 188 e 200 SO 2 1-h f 196 g Notes: µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic metre a. CAC = criteria air contaminant; b. MDL = maximum desirable level and MAL = maximum acceptable level c. Interim AAQO as adopted by B.C. MOE October 24, 2014; originally posted on B.C. MOE web site December 22, 2014 d. B.C. AAQO cite these NAAQO criteria as applicable to B.C. criteria e. Interim objective based on the 98 th percentile over one year f. Interim objective based on the 99 th percentile over one year g. Interim AAQO based on maximum (100 th percentile) adopted by Metro Vancouver Board of Directors, May 15, 2015

322 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 The updated results of 1-h averaged NO 2 and SO 2 concentrations presented in this report, and compared to the 2014 interim objectives, are based on the 98 th and 99 th percentiles calculated following the Dispersion Modelling Guidance for 1-hour NO 2 and SO 2 Interim Ambient Air Quality Objectives, issued by B.C. MOE on April 7, The results for the 100 th percentile (maximum) 1-h averaged SO 2 concentrations suitable for comparison with the MV proposed objective were presented in the EIS, and are provided herein for comparison purposes. This analysis used the same dispersion modelling methodology presented in the EIS (see Section 9.2.5). As per the EIS, in addition to the gridded receptors that were used in the assessment, 18 representative discrete receptors were also included (as shown in Figure 2-1) to assist in the discussion of the results.

323 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Figure 2-1 Location of Discrete Receptors August 2-1 Note: GVRD = Greater Vancouver Regional District

324 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - CONSTRUCTION PHASE The following section presents the results of the analysis of construction phase emissions relative to the 2014 interim objectives for NO 2 and SO Anticipated Changes in Air Quality, NO 2 and SO 2 Predicted maximum NO 2 and SO 2 concentrations are presented in Table 2-2 for average day construction plus emissions from existing marine terminal operations (including Westshore Terminals, Deltaport Terminal, and BC Ferries Terminal) under expected conditions. For discrete receptor locations, as well as for the maximum predicted over-water and on land concentrations, the EIS result columns provide results presented in the EIS and the results for interim objectives columns provide updated results based on the 2014 interim objectives. A review of the results shows that there are no exceedances for NO 2 and SO 2 predicted at discrete receptor locations or over land for the maximum, and the 98 th percentile 1-h NO 2 and 99 th percentile 1-h SO 2 concentrations when compared to criteria. Based on the 98 th and 99 th percentiles calculated following the B.C. guidance (B.C. MOE 2015) for NO 2 and SO 2, respectively, predicted concentrations used for comparison with the interim objectives are lower than using the 100 th percentile (maximum) concentrations presented in the EIS (Section 9.2). However, the more stringent interim objectives result in a larger area where the objectives may be exceeded in the immediate vicinity of the marine terminals at Roberts Bank, as described below.

325 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 2-2 Predicted Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) of NO 2 and SO 2 for Average Day Construction Scenario plus Expected Conditions Predicted 1-h Average Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) Maximum 100 th Percentile EIS Results Results for Interim Objectives NO 2 SO 2 NO 2 SO 2 Maximum 100 th 98 th Percentile Percentile 99 th Percentile Criteria MV AAQO Background Concentration Discrete Receptor a Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital B.C. Ferries Terminal Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T Max Over-water a Max Overland a Max Overland % of Criteria 48% 4% 91% 7% (including background) Notes: For MV AAQO, - means that there are no interim objectives for NO 2 or SO 2. a. Predicted concentrations presented for discrete receptors and maximum concentration locations are representative of emissions from the Deltaport, Westshore and BC Ferries terminals and associated road and rail transportation sources and do not include the background concentrations. Background concentrations are representative of all other emission sources in the area such as residential/commercial heating, restaurants, residential wood burning and barbeques, landscaping equipment, local road traffic and ships in the Strait of Georgia and on the Fraser River Graphical Comparison Predicted maximum and 98 th Figure 2-2 for comparion purposes. percentile 1-h average NO 2 concentrations are illustrated in

326 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Figure 2-2 Maximum and 98 th Percentile 1-hour Average NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) for Average Day Construction plus Expected Conditions

327 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OPERATION PHASE The following provides a comparison between the air dispersion modelling results as presented in the EIS relative to the criteria at the time that the EIS and supporting Study were prepared (i.e., study criteria), and in relation to the new interim NO 2 and SO 2 objectives adopted by the B.C. MOE in It should be emphasized that the emission scenarios for existing conditions (2010), expected conditions (without RBT2) (2025) and future conditions with RBT2 (2025) represent hypothetical worst-case emission scenarios, based on a number of conservative assumptions, as described in the EIS. As such, they should not be interpreted to represent typical air quality concentrations that may be expected under most operation phase scenarios for the marine terminals at Roberts Bank Anticipated Changes in Air Quality, NO 2 and SO 2 Predicted concentrations for NO 2 and SO 2 under existing conditions, expected conditions, and future conditions are shown in Table 2-3 to Table 2-5, respectively. For discrete receptor locations, as well as for the maximum predicted over-water and on land concentrations, the EIS result columns provide results presented in the EIS and the results for interim objectives columns provide updated results based on the 2014 interim objectives. Based on results presented in the EIS and comparisons to study criteria, it was concluded that: There are no instances of exceedances of the study criteria overland and in populated areas under any averaging period or horizon year for NO 2 and SO 2, and only a marginal exceedance of the NO 2 study criterion at the B.C. Ferries Terminal in 2010 (existing conditions); SO 2 concentrations are well below applicable criteria under all operating conditions (existing, expected, and future conditions). SO 2 maximum predicted concentrations decrease in expected and future cases relative to 2010 due to fuel sulphur changes related to the North American Emission Control Area (ECA); and NO 2 decreases for both expected conditions and future conditions with RBT2 relative to existing conditions, but NO 2 is predicted to increase under future conditions relative to expected conditions.

328 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 A comparison of updated results including RBT2 (based on the 98 th and 99 th percentiles calculated following the B.C. guidance (B.C. MOE 2015)) to the 2014 interim objectives shows the following: There are a few exceedances (2%) of the 1-h average 2014 interim objective for NO 2 over land under future conditions, but concentrations are much lower than existing conditions; There are predicted exceedances of the 1-h average B.C. MOE interim objective for SO 2 (0.07%) and NO 2 (0.2%) at the B.C. Ferries Terminal for existing conditions; however, it should be noted that the interim objectives were not in place in the existing conditions representative year of 2010; Because the 2014 interim objectives for NO 2 and SO 2 are compared with the 98 th and 99 th percentile predicted concentrations, respectively, rather than maximum (100 th percentile) concentrations, the predicted concentrations used to determine achievement of the interim objectives are lower than the maximum predicted concentrations previously used in the EIS for comparison with the initial study criteria which were based on the older objectives; The 2014 interim SO 2 objective would be achieved at all grid locations, including receptor locations, in 2025, but would have been exceeded for existing conditions in the area around the Roberts Bank and the B.C. Ferries terminals if the interim objective had been in effect in 2010; The 2014 interim NO 2 objective would be met at all discrete receptor locations, but not all grid locations, for both expected conditions and future conditions in This objective would have been exceeded for existing conditions in the area around the Roberts Bank and the BC Ferries terminals if the interim objective had been in effect in 2010; The 2014 interim NO 2 objective could potentially be exceeded in the immediate vicinity of the Deltaport and Westshore terminals under expected conditions due to operations at these two terminals, as well as in the immediate vicinity of the Roberts Bank causeway under future conditions with RBT2 due to road and rail traffic associated with all three terminals. However, the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) used to estimate the NO 2 concentration is known to overestimate maximum NO 2 concentrations by a factor of 1.7 to 2.0 (Podrez 2015). Therefore, the predicted exceedance may simply be an artifact of the assessment methodology and there may be no actual exceedance of the objective for future conditions.

329 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 2-3 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of NO 2 and SO 2 under Existing Conditions Predicted Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) EIS Results Results for Interim Objectives 1-h NO 2 1-h SO 2 1-h NO 2 1-h SO 2 Maximum 100 th Percentile Maximum 100 th Percentile 98 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Criteria MV AAQO Background Concentration Discrete Receptor a Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital B.C. Ferries Terminal Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T Max Over-water a Max Overland a Max Overland % of Criteria (including background) 49% 45% 95% 74% Note: a. Predicted concentrations presented for discrete receptors and maximum concentration locations are representative of emissions from the Deltaport, Westshore and BC Ferries terminals and associated road and rail transportation sources and do not include the background concentrations. Background concentrations are representative of all other emission sources in the area such as residential/commercial heating, restaurants, residential wood burning and barbeques, landscaping equipment, local road traffic and ships in the Strait of Georgia and on the Fraser River.

330 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 2-4 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of NO 2 and SO 2 under Expected Conditions Predicted 1-h Average Concentrations (µg/m 3 ) EIS Results Results for Interim Objectives NO 2 SO 2 NO 2 SO 2 Maximum 100 th Percentile Maximum 100 th Percentile 98 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Criteria MV AAQO Background Concentration Discrete Receptor a Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital B.C. Ferries Terminal Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T Max Over-water a Max Overland a Max Overland % of Criteria (including background) 42% 4% 85% 8% Note: a. Predicted concentrations presented for discrete receptors and maximum concentration locations are representative of emissions from the Deltaport, Westshore and BC Ferries terminals and associated road and rail transportation sources and do not include the background concentrations. Background concentrations are representative of all other emission sources in the area such as residential/commercial heating, restaurants, residential wood burning and barbeques, landscaping equipment, local road traffic and ships in the Strait of Georgia and on the Fraser River.

331 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 2-5 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of NO 2 and SO 2 under Future Conditions Predicted 1-h Average Concentrations (μg/m³) EIS Results Results for Interim Objectives NO 2 SO 2 NO 2 SO 2 Maximum 100 th Percentile Maximum 100 th Percentile 98 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Criteria MV AAQO Background Concentration Discrete Receptor a Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital B.C. Ferries Terminal Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T Max Over-water a Max Overland a Max Overland % of Criteria (including background) 73% 5% 136% 9% Note: a. Predicted concentrations presented for discrete receptors and maximum concentration locations are representative of emissions from the RBT2, Deltaport, Westshore and BC Ferries terminals and associated road and rail transportation sources and do not include the background concentrations. Background concentrations are representative of all other emission sources in the area such as residential/commercial heating, restaurants, residential wood burning and barbeques, landscaping equipment, local road traffic and ships in the Strait of Georgia and on the Fraser River.

332 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October Graphical Comparisons Isopleths, or contour plots showing lines of equal contaminant concentration, are provided within this section to illustrate the predicted concentrations (including background concentrations) within the local study area (LSA) for existing, expected, and future conditions. Concentrations above criteria levels are shaded in yellow. It is important to note that the hourly isopleths presented indicate the highest concentrations for the specific hour in the year that results in the maximum concentration at each receptor. For example, a maximum concentration in the southern part of the LSA requires the wind to be blowing from the north, and therefore, is a different condition and occurs at a different time than that required to create a maximum concentration in the eastern part of the LSA. These contour plots should not be interpreted as an aggregate plume that covers the LSA, but as an indicator of the maximum concentrations that could occur on a once-per-year basis in a given location. For detailed interpretation of the contour plots, see EIS Appendix 9.2-A Section 4.4. Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the maximum 1-h average concentrations of NO 2 and SO 2, respectively, and are presented here for comparison purposes (same figures as EIS Figures and ). Figure 2-5 to Figure 2-6 provide 98 th percentile NO 2 and 99 th percentile SO 2 predicted 1-h average concentrations, respectively, for existing, expected and future conditions. The predicted 98 th percentile 1-h average NO 2 concentration plots (Figure 2-5) shows that there is a decrease in predicted concentrations for both expected conditions and future conditions relative to existing conditions. The highest concentrations occur within close proximity to the Project. There is a slight increase in predicted concentrations for future conditions compared to expected conditions and there are a few exceedances of the B.C. MOE interim NO 2 objective at the end of causeway in overland locations. However, the method (i.e., OLM) used to calculate the NO 2 concentration is known to overestimate maximum NO 2 concentrations by a factor of 1.7 to 2.0 (Podrez 2015). Therefore, the predicted exceedance of the 2014 interim objective may be an artifact of the assessment methodology and there may be no exceedance of the objective in the LSA. Figure 2-6 shows a marked decrease in predicted SO 2 concentrations for both expected and future conditions relative to existing conditions.

333 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Figure 2-3 Maximum 1-hour Average NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions

334 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Figure 2-4 Maximum 1-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions

335 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Figure 2-5 Interim Objective 98 th Percentile 1-hour Average NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions

336 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Figure 2-6 Interim Objective 99 th Percentile 1-hour Average SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) under Existing, Expected and Future Conditions

337 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EISInformation Response Appendix 19-A October RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CUMULATIVE CHANGES This section presents the evaluation for cumulative changes resulting from the Project and other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities, including rail yards beyond the Project area boundaries but close enough to affect ambient air concentrations in the LSA, as well as ships underway in the Strait of Georgia or along the South Arm of the Fraser River, as discussed in the EIS Anticipated Changes in Air Quality, NO 2 and SO 2 The effect on air quality due to combined activities associated with rail yards were considered in the EIS both incrementally and as a cumulative change in addition to the existing Roberts Bank terminals and B.C. Ferries Terminal activities in conjunction with RBT2 in 2025 (i.e., future conditions). Results from an analysis of ships underway in the Strait of Georgia and along the South Arm of the Fraser River were provided for comparative purposes, but were not added to the cumulative change column because 88% of the emissions from existing ships underway were already captured in the background air quality and adding the results from the ships underway analysis would have the effect of double-counting the emissions from existing ship activities in the Strait of Georgia. Predicted 1-h averaged concentrations for NO 2 and SO 2 for future conditions with the Project, ships underway, combined rail activity, and cumulative concentrations are presented in Table 2-6 and Table 2-7. A review of the results shows that there are no exceedances of objectives for NO 2 and SO 2 for cumulative concentrations predicted at discrete receptor locations for the maximum, 98 th percentile, and 99 th percentile concentrations (as applicable) when compared to the applicable criteria. Cumulative concentrations including background concentrations are provided for both cases as a percentage of the applicable criteria. The cumulative change results show that the 2014 interim objectives for NO 2 and SO 2 reduce the predicted concentrations as a result of considering 98 th and 99 th percentiles, respectively, rather than maximum concentrations.

338 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 2-6 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of 1-hour Average NO 2 for Cumulative Change Assessment of Future Conditions EIS Results Results for Interim Objective Future Conditions Maximum 1-h Average NO 2 a Ships Underway b Combined Rail Activity c Cumulative Concentration (Future Conditions + Rail Yards) d Cumulative Concentration as % of Criteria (incl. background) Future Conditions 98 th Percentile 1-h Average NO 2 Ships Underway b Combined Rail Activity c Cumulative Concentration (Future Conditions + Rail Yards) d Cumulative Concentration as % of Criteria (incl. background) Criteria MV AAQO Background Concentration Discrete Receptors a Ladner % % Farmer % % Tsawwassen First Nations % % Farmer % % Farmer % % Tsawwassen Beach Campsite % % Beach Grove % % Boundary Bay % % Tsawwassen % % Point Roberts % % Point Roberts % % Delta Hospital % % B.C. Ferries Terminal % % Reifel Bird Sanctuary % % Boundary Bay GVRD Park % % English Bluffs Beach % % South Arm Marsh % % Air Quality Station T % % Notes: a. Predicted maximum concentrations for discrete receptors are incremental and do not include background concentrations. b. To avoid double-counting of emissions from ships underway (i.e., 88% of ship emissions are included in background air quality for existing conditions due to current ship activity levels), this column is not included in the cumulative change total. c. Combined rail activity includes the yards and main rail lines located within the LSA beyond the Project area boundary. d. Cumulative concentrations includes future conditions with the Project and combined rail activity. Cumulative concentrations are not necessarily the same as the sum of the individual activities, as these NO2 concentrations likely occur at different hours.

339 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 2-7 Predicted Concentrations (μg/m³) of 1-hour Average SO 2 for Cumulative Change Assessment of Future Conditions EIS Results Results for Interim Objective Future Conditions Maximum 1-h AverageSO 2 Ships Underway b Combined Rail Activity c Cumulative Concentration (Future Conditions + Rail Yards) d Cumulative Concentration as % of Criteria (incl. background) Future Conditions Ships Underway b 99 th Percentile 1-h Average SO 2 Combined Rail Activity c Cumulative Concentration (Future Conditions + Rail Yards) d Cumulative Concentration as % of Criteria (incl. background) Criteria MV AAQO Background Concentration Discrete Receptors a Ladner % % Farmer % % Tsawwassen First Nations % % Farmer % % Farmer % % Tsawwassen Beach Campsite % % Beach Grove % % Boundary Bay % % Tsawwassen % % Point Roberts % % Point Roberts % % Delta Hospital % % B.C. Ferries Terminal % % Reifel Bird Sanctuary % % Boundary Bay GVRD Park % % English Bluffs Beach % % South Arm Marsh % % Air Quality Station T % % Notes: a. Predicted maximum concentrations for discrete receptors are incremental and do not include background concentrations. b. To avoid double-counting of emissions from ships underway (i.e., 88% of ship emissions are included in background air quality for existing conditions due to current ship activity levels), this column is not included in the cumulative change total. c. Combined rail activity includes the yards and main rail lines located within the LSA beyond the Project area boundary. d. Cumulative concentrations includes future conditions with the Project and combined rail activity. Cumulative concentrations are not necessarily the same as the sum of the individual activities, as these SO 2 concentrations likely occur at different hours.

340 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 PART 2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 3.0 HHRA INTRODUCTION The air quality human health risk assessment (AQ HHRA) evaluated the potential for adverse effects on human health as a result of predicted changes in air quality due to the proposed increase in emissions from terminal activities at Roberts Bank. The HHRA AQ Study relied on the results of air dispersion modelling of Project emissions to characterise air quality, as described in the EIS and herein in Part 1. The air quality data in the AQ HHRA for acute 1-h exposure to NO 2 and SO 2 were based on 98 th and 99 th percentile values, respectively. Part 1 presents revised 98 th and 99 th percentile values for 1-h average NO 2 and SO 2 concentrations based on 2014 B.C. interim objectives This section provides a re-assessment of the potential health risks associated with acute exposure to NO 2, SO 2, and the respiratory irritant group (which includes NO 2 and SO 2 ) based on the upper-limit estimation approaches defined in the 2014 interim objectives for NO 2 and SO 2.

341 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October REVISED RISK CHARACTERIZATON 4.1 ACUTE INHALATION EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The AQ HHRA considered both measured (ambient air data) and predicted (modelled) air concentrations to evaluate acute inhalation exposure to NO 2 and SO 2. Acute ambient air concentrations of NO 2 and SO 2 were identified from monitoring stations in the LSA. Modelled air concentrations were predicted for 18 discrete human receptor locations, encompassing various land uses and lifestyles in the LSA, as illustrated in Figure 2-1 and summarised in Table 4-1. In addition to these 18 discrete locations, maximum points of impingement (MPOI) representing the highest predicted concentrations in air over land and over water were evaluated for acute inhalation exposures. Table 4-1 Receptor Lifestyles and Locations Receptor Lifestyle Locations Receptor ID Canadian Residents U.S. Residents Farmers Tsawwassen First Nations (TFN) Recreationists Ladner Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Delta Hospital Air Quality Monitoring Station T39 (Tsawwassen) Point Roberts #1 Point Roberts #2 Farmer #1 Farmer #2 Farmer #3 Tsawwassen First Nation Community Tsawwassen Beach Campsite BC Ferries Terminal Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluff Beach South Arm Marsh R1 R7 R8 R9 R12 R18 R10 R11 R2 R4 R5 R3 R6 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17

342 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October ACUTE INHALATION HAZARD ASSESSMENT A summary of the exposure limits selected for the assessment of acute inhalation exposures to NO 2 and SO 2 is provided in Table 4-2. Since chemical exposures do not occur in isolation, the AQ HHRA considered the health endpoints of all chemicals in Project emissions and identified the potential for additive interactions, including respiratory irritation following acute inhalation exposure to NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. Details of the key studies recommended by all agencies in the development of acute inhalation exposure limits were provided in Appendix A of the AQ HHRA (EIS Appendix 27-C). Table 4-2 Summary of Acute Inhalation Exposure Limits Chemical Averaging Time Acute Inhalation Exposure Limit (µg/m 3 ) Health Endpoint Agency NO 2 1 hour 188 Respiratory irritation US EPA NAAQS SO 2 10 min 1 hour Change in pulmonary function Respiratory irritation WHO US EPA NAAQS Acetaldehyde 1 hour 470 Respiratory irritation OEHHA Naphthalene 1 hour 2,000 Eye and respiratory irritation ACGIH 4.3 RISK CHARACTERISATION RESULTS As described in the AQ HHRA, risk characterisation involved the comparison of predicted receptor exposure to the exposure limit for each chemical identified in Project emissions. This comparison is described by a risk quotient (RQ) value. In the case of acute inhalation exposures, receptor exposures and exposure limits were described as air concentrations (i.e., µg chemical/m 3 air) and RQ values were determined using the equation below: Risk Quotient (RQ) = Receptor exposure (µg/m 3 ) Exposure limit (µg/m 3 ) Consistent with the AQ HHRA, this report evaluated respiratory effects from combined exposure to NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene by summing the RQ values predicted for each chemical to determine a RQ value for the respiratory irritant group.

343 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 An RQ value less than or equal to 1 indicates that exposure is at or below the exposure limit and no adverse health effects are predicted. An RQ value greater than 1 indicates that predicted exposure exceeds the exposure limit and there is the potential for adverse health effects. For RQ values that only slightly exceed 1, actual health risks may or may not be unacceptably high depending on how the RQ is influenced by various types of uncertainty (and conservatism) in the estimation of exposures and/or effects thresholds. For this HHRA, in those instances where an RQ > 1 was calculated, a more detailed evaluation of data inputs and context is provided (i.e., in Section 5.1 for the construction phase and Section 5.2 for operation phase), toward the final development of conclusions about health risk potential. This is consistent with guidance by various agencies on the conduct of HHRAs (AHW 2011) Construction Emission Scenario The RQs predicted for NO 2, SO 2 and the respiratory irritant group as a result of construction emissions are summarised below in Table 4-3 to Table 4-6. The air concentrations and RQs previously determined in the AQ HHRA are included for comparison. These concentrations and RQs are based on the emissions scenario for an average day of construction, which included expected future emissions from existing marine terminals.

344 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-3 Predicted 1-hour NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m³) and Acute RQs Construction Scenario Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 98 th Percentile 98 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 44.7 n/a 44.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1 hour predictions in a 24-hperiod over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1 hour prediction in a 24-h period over a year.

345 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-4 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 - Construction Scenario Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 h SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 h SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 99 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 7.7 n/a 7.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1 hour predictions in a 24-h period over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1 hour prediction in a 24-h period over a year.

346 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-5 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Construction Scenario EIS Updated Discrete Receptor Estimated 10 minute SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Estimated 10 minute a SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 99 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 12.7 n/a 12.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Calculated from 1-h data using a conversion factor of 1.65 (Ontario Air Dispersion Modeling Guideline, 2009). b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations.

347 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-6 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Construction Scenario Discrete Receptor EIS Risk Quotient b Updated Risk Quotient c Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Notes: Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Combined risk quotients for NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. b. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on all 1-h predictions in a 24-h period over a year. c. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on maximum 1-hour prediction in a 24-h period over a year Existing Emission Conditions The RBT2 Air Quality Study (EIS Appendix 9.2-A) used air quality monitoring data and meteorological conditions for the year 2010 as being generally representative of existing conditions. The RQs predicted for NO 2, SO 2 and the respiratory irritant group as a result of existing emissions are summarised below in Table 4-7 to Table The air concentrations and RQs previously determined in the AQ HHRA are included for comparison. These concentrations and RQs are based on the existing emissions scenario, which included emissions from the Deltaport Terminal, Westshore Terminals, and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminals. Emission sources included ships, cargo handling equipment, rail locomotives, and on-road vehicles.

348 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-7 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for NO 2 Existing Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 98 th Percentile 98 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 44.7 n/a 44.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1-hour predictions in a 24-h period over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1-h prediction in a 24-h period over a year.

349 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-8 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Existing Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 hr SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 hr SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 99 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 7.7 n/a 7.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1-h predictions in a 24-h period over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1-h prediction in a 24-h period over a year.

350 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-9 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Existing Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS Estimated 10 min SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated Estimated 10 min SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 99 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 12.7 n/a 12.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Calculated from 1-h data using a conversion factor of 1.65 (Ontario Air Dispersion Modeling Guideline, 2009). b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations.

351 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-10 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Existing Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS Risk Quotient b Updated Risk Quotient c Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Notes: Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Combined risk quotients for NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. b. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on all 1-h predictions in a 24-h period over a year. c. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on maximum 1-h prediction in a 24-h period over a year Expected Air Quality Conditions (without Project) RBT2 EIS Section 9.2 (and Appendix 9.2-A) and updates as discussed above in Part 1, provide predictions of air quality in the year The RQs predicted for NO 2, SO 2 and the respiratory irritant group as a result of expected emissions without the Project are summarised below in Table 4-11 to Table The air concentrations and RQ values previously determined in the AQ HHRA are included for comparison. The expected emissions scenario is a future prediction of emissions from the Deltaport, Westshore, and Tsawwassen Ferry Terminals, including emissions from ships, cargo handling equipment, rail locomotives, and on-road vehicles.

352 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-11 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for NO 2 Expected Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 98 th Percentile 98 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 44.7 n/a 44.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1-h predictions in a 24-h period over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1-h prediction in a 24-h period over a year.

353 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-12 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 - Expected Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 hr SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 hr SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 99 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 7.7 n/a 7.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1-h predictions in a 24-h period over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1-h prediction in a 24-h period over a year.

354 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-13 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Expected Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS Estimated 10 minute SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated Estimated 10 minute SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 99 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 12.7 n/a 12.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Calculated from 1-h data using a conversion factor of 1.65 (Ontario Air Dispersion Modeling Guideline, 2009). b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations.

355 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-14 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Expected Conditions Discrete Receptor EIS Risk Quotient b Updated Risk Quotient c Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Notes: Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Combined risk quotients for NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene b. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on all 1-h predictions in a 24-h period over a year. c. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on maximum 1-h prediction in a 24-h period over a year Future Air Quality Conditions with Project Operation The RQs predicted for NO 2, SO 2 and the respiratory irritant group as a result of future emissions with Project operation are summarised below in Table 4-15 to Table The air concentrations and RQ values previously determined in the AQ HHRA are included for comparison. The future emissions scenario is similar to the expected scenario with the inclusion of emissions from Project operation.

356 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-15 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for NO 2 Future Conditions with Project Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 hr NO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 98 th Percentile 98 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRDPark English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 44.7 n/a 44.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1-hour predictions in a 24-h period over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1-h prediction in a 24-h period over a year.

357 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-16 Predicted 1-hour Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 - Future Conditions with Project Discrete Receptor EIS a Modelled 1 hr SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated c Modelled 1 hr SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b 99 th Percentile 99 th Percentile Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 7.7 n/a 7.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Considered all 1-hour predictions in a 24-hour period over a year. b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations. c. Considered maximum 1-hour prediction in a 24-hour period over a year.

358 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-17 Predicted 10-Minute a Concentrations and Acute RQs for SO 2 Future Conditions with Project Discrete Receptor EIS Estimated 10 min SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) EIS Risk Quotient b Updated Estimated 10 min SO 2 Concentrations (μg/m 3 ) Updated Risk Quotient b Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen Nations First Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Campsite Beach Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Ambient Concentration 12.7 n/a 12.7 n/a Notes: n/a - not applicable; Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Calculated from 1-hour data using a conversion factor of 1.65 (Ontario Air Dispersion Modeling Guideline, 2009). b. Based on modelled concentration plus ambient air concentration, except at over-water locations.

359 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 4-18 Predicted Acute RQs for Respiratory Irritants a Future Conditions with Project Discrete Receptor EIS Risk Quotient b Updated Risk Quotient c Ladner Farmer Tsawwassen First Nations Farmer Farmer Tsawwassen Beach Campsite Beach Grove Boundary Bay Tsawwassen Point Roberts Point Roberts Delta Hospital Reifel Bird Sanctuary Boundary Bay GVRD Park English Bluffs Beach South Arm Marsh Air Quality Station T MPOI - land B.C. Ferries Terminal MPOI - water Notes: Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Combined risk quotients for NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene b. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on all 1-hour predictions in a 24-hour period over a year. c. RQs for NO 2 and SO 2 based on maximum 1-hour prediction in a 24-hour period over a year.

360 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October HHRA DISCUSSION Overall, higher RQs were predicted for acute exposure to NO 2, SO 2 and the respiratory irritant group as a result of the revised estimates (as prescribed in the 2014 BC interim air quality objectives) for 1-h concentrations of NO 2 and SO 2. However, most of the RQs were predicted to be below 1 (i.e., for all of the discrete receptor locations), indicating that no adverse health effects would be expected for the majority of scenarios and receptor locations evaluated. The scenarios and receptor locations where RQ values were predicted to equal or exceed 1 as a result of RBT2 construction or operation are examined further in the sections below. 5.1 CONSTRUCTION SCENARIO For the average day construction emissions scenario, RQs greater than 1 were predicted at the maximum point of impingement (MPOI) over water location. This is consistent with the results of the previous AQ HHRA, although the revised 1-h 98 th percentile values resulted in approximately two-fold higher RQs for 1-h exposure to NO 2 (i.e., RQ of 3.0 vs 1.5) and combined 1-h exposure to the respiratory irritant group (i.e., RQ of 3.3 vs 1.6) at this location. The spatial extent over which 98 th percentile 1-h NO 2 concentrations during construction are predicted to be greater than the acute exposure limit (188 µg/m 3 ) includes a region in and around the planned RBT2 terminal and existing Westshore Terminals (as illustrated in Figure 2-6). Inhalation exposures of members of the public within this region will be unlikely. Access will be restricted for commercial and recreational fishing vessels, due to a proposed navigational closure area in the immediate vicinity of the terminals during construction (Section 21.7 of the RBT2 EIS). For other vessels, use of this area is unlikely given the close proximity to the existing terminals, as well as the construction activities in these waters. 5.2 OPERATION SCENARIOS The RQs predicted for NO 2 and the respiratory irritant group under future conditions (with and without the Project) were above 1 at the MPOI over water and the MPOI over land. The results for these locations are summarised in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2, respectively.

361 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 5-1 Predicted Risk Quotients for MPOI Over Water Chemical Averaging Time Existing Conditions Estimated Risk Quotients (RQ) Expected (without Project) Future with Project Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 2.3 (1.4) 1.2 (0.57) 1.2 (0.75) Respiratory Irritants a 1 hour 5.3 (1.9) 1.4 (0.62) Notes: EIS results in ( ); Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Combined risk quotients for NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. 1.4 (0.81) The results in Table 5-1 show that the Project is predicted to result in a marginal increase (~2%) in RQs when compared to the expected scenario (i.e., without the Project). The RQ results at this location reflect an improvement in air quality under the expected and future scenarios when compared to existing conditions. The highest NO 2 concentration predicted for the future with Project scenario occurs on the water and within close proximity to the terminals, as illustrated in Figure 2-5. Inhalation exposures of members of the public within this region will be unlikely here. Access will be restricted for commercial and recreational fishing vessels, due to a proposed navigational closure area in the immediate vicinity of the terminals during the operation phase (EIS Section 21.7). For other vessels, use of this area is unlikely given the close proximity to the existing terminals, as well as shipping traffic in these waters. As described in the EIS Appendix 27-A, conservative assumptions in the dispersion modelling of air emissions were such that predicted short-term inhalation exposures were likely overestimated. For example, under existing (2010) conditions, the modelled (predicted) 1-h air concentrations of NO 2 and SO 2 for the Lower Fraser Valley air quality monitoring station in Tsawwassen (T39) were more than two-fold higher than the maximum ambient (observed) 1-h NO 2 and SO 2 concentrations measured at the T39 station between 2010 and 2012.The predicted RQs for NO 2 and respiratory irritants (primarily the result of NO 2 ) at the MPOI over water are below 2, which suggests that health risks will be acceptably low. Overall, these results indicate that the operation of the Project is not expected to adversely affect the health of members of the public based on inhalation exposures to Project operational emissions of NO 2 or other respiratory irritants.

362 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October 2015 Table 5-2 Predicted Risk Quotients for MPOI Over Land Estimated Risk Quotients (RQ) Chemical Averaging Time Existing Conditions Expected Conditions (without Project) Future Conditions with Project Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0.95 (0.68) 0.85 (0.45) 1.4 (0.83) Respiratory Irritants 2 1 hour 1.7 (0.93) 1.2 (0.57) Notes: EIS results in ( ); Bold text indicates RQ >1 a. Combined risk quotients for NO 2, SO 2, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene. 1.5 (0.91) The results in Table 5-1 show that the Project is predicted to result in an increase in RQs when compared to the expected scenario (i.e., without the Project). The highest over land NO 2 concentration (future conditions with Project scenario) was predicted to occur at the end of the Deltaport causeway, as illustrated in Figure 2-5. The increase in predicted NO 2 concentrations resulted in RQs greater than 1 for NO 2 and respiratory irritants at the MPOI over land. This location would be affected by road and rail traffic emissions associated with RBT2, Westshore, and Deltaport operations. Public exposure at the end of the causeway is anticipated to be limited due to the activities occurring at this location. The predicted RQs for NO 2 and respiratory irritants (primarily the result of NO 2 ) at the MPOI over land are below 2, which suggests that the actual realized exposures would reflect RQs less than 1. (considering the two-fold overestimation associated with air dispersion modelling). Overall, adverse health effects are not anticipated from the predicted changes to air quality as a result of Project operation.

363 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October HHRA CONCLUSIONS The highest RQs for NO 2 and respiratory irritants (primarily NO 2 ) were predicted during construction at the site of the RBT2 Project, Westshore terminals, and surrounding water. Acute exposure to NO 2 and respiratory irritants could be of moderate consequence to the health of individuals spending time in these areas. However, it is anticipated that public exposure in these waters will be limited due to construction activities and shipping traffic and navigational closures for commercial and recreational fishing. Despite the conservativeness of the exposure assessment, there were very few locations where RQ values would exceed 1, assuming emissions from RBT2 under normal operations was considered (i.e., future with Project scenario). Overall, the results indicate that the operation of RBT2 is not expected to result in adverse health effects within the LSA, including the predicted MPOI over water and MPOI over land locations.

364 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October PROFESSIONAL SIGN-OFF Major authors and reviewers of this technical data report are listed below, along with their signatures. Part 1 of Appendix 19-A prepared by: ARCADIS CANADA INC. Bohdan Hrebenyk, M.Sc. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST Jennifer Kirkaldy, B.A.Sc. (Ch.E.) MANAGER ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES Part 2 of Appendix 19-A prepared by: Hemmera Envirochem Inc. Doug Bright, Ph.D, R.P.Bio., P.Biol. PRACTICE LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT Colleen Purtill, P.Biol., DABT SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST

365 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October REFERENCES British Columbia Ministry of Environment Guidance on Application of Provincial Interim Air Quality Objectives for NO 2 and SO 2. October British Columbia Ministry of Environment Dispersion Modelling Guidance for 1-hour NO 2 and SO 2 Interim Ambient Air Quality Objectives. April Ontario Ministry of the Environment Air Dispersion Modelling Guideline for Ontario, Version 2.0. Guideline A-11. March Accessed July Metro Vancouver Interim Sulphur Dioxide Objective Intentions Paper. November Podrez, M An update to the ambient ratio method for the 1-h NO 2 air quality standards dispersion modeling. Atmospheric Environment 103:

366 Port Metro Vancouver ARCADIS and Hemmera RBT2 EIS Information Response Appendix 19-A October ARCADIS CORPORATE UPDATE AND STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ARCADIS Canada has been active in Canada for 20+ years, and formally established ARCADIS Canada Inc. (ARCADIS) in 2005 based out of Calgary, Alberta. ARCADIS further enhanced its Canadian presence and capabilities through the acquisition of SENES Consultants Limited (SENES) and its affiliated company Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (DCS) in 2013, as well as Franz Environmental (FRANZ) in As of April 1, 2015, ARCADIS Canada, SENES, DCS and FRANZ were amalgamated as ARCADIS Canada Inc. The Air Quality Study portion of this report (Sections 2.0 through 4.0) was prepared by ARCADIS, for the sole benefit and exclusive use of Port Metro Vancouver. The material in it reflects ARCADIS best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparing this Report. Any use that a third party makes of this Report, or any reliance on or decision made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. ARCADIS accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this Report. ARCADIS has performed the work as described above and made the findings and conclusions set out in this Report in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession practicing under similar conditions at the time the work was performed. This Report represents a reasonable review of the information available to ARCADIS within the established Scope, work schedule and budgetary constraints. It is possible that additional information could alter numbers presented in this report and changes to methodologies used in the determination of the results, however, it is unlikely that any of these alterations would change the fundamental conclusions of the report. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon applicable legislation existing at the time the Report was drafted. Any changes in the legislation may alter the conclusions and/or recommendations contained in the Report. Regulatory implications discussed in this Report were based on the applicable legislation existing at the time this Report was written. In preparing this Report, ARCADIS has relied in good faith on information provided by others as noted in this Report, and has assumed that the information provided by those individuals is both factual and accurate. ARCADIS accepts no responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy in this Report resulting from the information provided by those individuals.

367 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #20 Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Quality Objectives Rationale The EIS (pg ) reports that the Government of British Columbia has delegated the Greater Vancouver Regional District (or Metro Vancouver) as the single agency under which provincial and municipal air pollution control activities would be integrated in the Greater Vancouver urban area. The EIS also further states that regional objectives and standards are considered for comparison purposes only, but does not provide a rationale for this consideration. Information Requested Provide clarification on how the Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Quality Objectives were applied in the assessment of air quality effects and the determination of the significance of effects on Human Health and Potential or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests, including Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes. Response As presented in EIS Section Air Quality, Applicable Standards and Criteria for Compounds of Potential Concern and EIS Table 9.2-4, study criteria were selected based on the most stringent criteria from federal and provincial objectives or standards. EIS Table also provides Metro Vancouver's Ambient Air Quality Objectives. For tables provided in EIS Section 9.2 Air Quality (and in supporting appendices) that present results for contaminants of potential concern, both the study criteria as well as Metro Vancouver objectives are provided for comparison purposes A comparison of predicted results to Metro Vancouver objectives indicates that all objectives would be met, with the exception of a hypothetical exceedance of the 1-hour average NO 2 objective at the east end of the Roberts Bank causeway (which also exceeds study criteria). The exceedance is considered to be an artifact of the NO 2 estimation methodology which, as explained in the EIS Appendix 9.2-A Technical Report Air Response to Information Request #20 (IR ) Page 1

368 Quality Study: Main Report and Appendix C, over predicts maximum NO 2 concentrations by up to a factor of 2.0. Consequently, it is unlikely that the Metro Vancouver objective, or the study criteria, would be exceeded at this location The analysis and conclusions for the human health risk assessment (EIS Appendix 27-A Air Quality HHRA Technical Report), as well as the significance determination for effects on human health related to air quality (EIS Section 27.9 Human Health, Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects), did not rely on comparisons of predicted exposures to provincial or Metro Vancouver ambient air quality objectives. As summarised in EIS Sections Human Health, Desktop and Field Studies and Human Health, Secondary Sources, potential health risks were characterised by comparing credible worst-case exposure levels to the respective health effects thresholds, as formally defined by authoritative health agencies such as Health Canada, B.C. Ministry of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health Organization. The same approach using acceptable levels of health risk from contaminant exposures was applied with respect to the significance determination for air quality health-related effects on potential or established Aboriginal and treaty rights and related interests, including Current Use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. References None Appendices None Response to Information Request #20 (IR ) Page 2

369 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #21 Sulphur Oxides Rationale The EIS Guidelines (9.1.2) require the EIS, as a minimum, to report the ambient air quality at the Project site and within the airshed likely to be affected by the Project in terms of the following contaminants: total suspended particulates, PM 2.5, PM 10, CO, SO x, toxic VOCs (as defined by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act), NO x, ground-level ozone, black carbon and any other identified mobile-source air toxins (i.e. acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, etc.). The EIS contains information and analysis only for sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) rather than for all sulphur oxides (SO x ). Information Requested Provide information on sulphur oxides, other than sulphur dioxide, at the Project site and within the airshed likely to be affected by the Project. Response Sulphur oxide (SO x ) emissions were considered under existing, expected, and future conditions within the local study area, defined in EIS Section Air Quality, Study Area. EIS Section 9.2 Air Quality provides sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) concentrations for 1-hour (h), 24-h, and annual periods. Sulphur trioxide (SO 3 ) and sulphate (SO 4 ) have been included in the EIS for 24-h and annual periods as particulate matter (PM) concentrations. It is relevant to note that approximately 98% of the sulphur emitted from a diesel engine is emitted as SO 2 (Kozak, M. and J. Merkis 2005); therefore, EIS Section 9.2 focused on the results for SOx emissions as SO 2, for which there are ambient air quality criteria at the regional, provincial, and national level. The remaining portion of SO 2 emitted by diesel engines can be oxidized to form SO 3, which quickly combines with water vapour during the combustion process and makes up one of the components of PM exhaust emissions. In addition, a portion of SO 3 will combine with hydrocarbons and metals Response to Information Request #21 (IR ) Page 1

370 in the engine exhaust to form SO 4, which make up another component of the PM emissions 1. As such, all three species of SOx in engine exhaust emissions have been included in the EIS (i.e., gaseous SO 2 emissions; SO 3 and SO 4 included in PM emissions), and the assessment of SOx is considered to have been undertaken as stipulated in the Updated EIS Guidelines. References Kozak, M., and J. Merkisz The Mechanics of Fuel Sulphur Influence on Exhaust Emissions from Diesel Engines. TEKA Kom. Energ. Roln. 2005, 5: Appendices None 1 The PM emission factors incorporate SO 3 and SO 4 emissions. Response to Information Request #21 (IR ) Page 2

371 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #22 Wetlands Identification and Characterization Rationale The EIS Guidelines (9.1.6) require the proponent to provide the locations and extent of wetlands likely to be affected by Project activities according to their location, size, type (wetland class and form), species composition, and ecological function. The EIS contains information about types of marine vegetation potentially affected by the Project, although not all wetlands are discretely identified. Provincially listed estuarine wetland communities located at Roberts Bank are also provided in a table, without identifying which of these would be affected or providing further characterization. Section 17.4 of the EIS further states that a wetland ecological function assessment meeting the requirements of the EIS Guidelines will be completed in the future, but the status of when this analysis will be available is unclear. Information Requested Provide a consolidated description of the location, size, type, species composition, and ecological functions of wetlands potentially affected by the Project. Response 1 This response to the information requested on wetland function is presented as follows: A summary of EIS conclusions and commitments on effects to wetlands and wetland function; An overview of how wetlands are defined under the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation; and A consolidated description of the location, size, type, species composition, and ecological functions of wetlands potentially affected by the Project. Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 1

372 Summary of EIS conclusions and commitments on effects to wetlands and wetland function An assessment of marine habitat types was conducted and an offsetting framework to adequately mitigate Project-related effects to productivity has been developed. Based on this assessment and the offsetting framework, PMV believes that wetland functions at Roberts Bank will not be compromised As described in EIS Section 17.4 Wetland Assessment, as part of the development of the Offsetting Plan, PMV has initiated discussions and will continue to work with the Canadian Wildlife Service to complete a wetland ecological functions assessment to confirm that the requirements for wetland compensation have been met, based on the habitat assessments completed as part of the EIS An overview of how wetlands are defined under the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation defines a wetland as Land that is saturated with water long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by poorly drained soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and various kinds of biological activity which are adapted to a wet environment. Wetlands include bogs, fens, marshes, swamps and shallow waters (usually 2 m deep or less) as defined in the Canadian Wetland Classification System (CWCS) (NWWG 1997). The CWCS represents a national synthesis of the best available information on wetlands and provides a hierarchical framework for wetland classification and characterisation Based on the above, intertidal marsh is the only habitat type that meets the definition of a wetland under the CWCS within the local assessment area (LAA) A consolidated description of the location, size, type, species composition, and ecological functions of wetlands potentially affected by the Project As indicated above, intertidal marsh is the only habitat type that meets the definition of a wetland under the CWCS within the LAA; therefore, the remainder of this response focuses solely on intertidal marsh at Roberts Bank and represents the current understanding of likely functions affected by the Project, without prejudice to the outcomes of the wetland ecological functions assessment. Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 2

373 Location The shoreline of Roberts Bank contains intertidal marsh habitat that stretches along the Ladner dyke from the B.C. Ferries Terminal causeway to Brunswick Point. The majority of the intertidal marsh exists as a relatively thin, fringing band immediately adjacent to the dyke and occurs between +3.2 m and +4.8 m chart datum (G.L. Williams & Associates Ltd. 2009) Refer to Figure IR22-1 (figures provided in Appendix IR22-A) for a depiction of intertidal marsh distribution at Roberts Bank Size Hyperspectral data collected on July 31, 2012 were used in combination with data from quadrat surveys to map the distribution of intertidal marsh at Roberts Bank (Figure IR22-1; Hemmera 2014a). The area of intertidal marsh was hectares (ha) at Brunswick Point, 34.6 ha on the north side of Roberts Bank causeway and along the Ladner dyke, and 24.0 ha in the inter-causeway area, for a total of ha at Roberts Bank overall. Note that there is considerable temporal variation (i.e., seasonal, inter-annual) in the areal extent of intertidal marsh, and that these values represent a snapshot from the summer of Type Marsh is the only CWCS wetland class that occurs within the LAA, in the form of tidal marsh (herein referred to as intertidal marsh ). Intertidal marshes at Roberts Bank consist of hummocky, vegetated topography incised by meandering tidal creeks and ponds (G.L. Williams & Associates Ltd. 2009). The marshes grow vertically in response to the deposition of silt, clay, and organic material that tends to accumulate within this lowerenergy environment. Tidal flow is an important process in delivering sediments, nutrients, and water supply to the marsh (Bromberg-Gedan et al. 2009) Nutrient availability is typically high, giving rise to the characteristic high productivity of vascular plants within intertidal marshes; however, only a small fraction of the produced biomass accumulates in the marsh with the majority relocated to other areas through tidal activity (Sousa et al. 2010). Decomposition of plant material and nutrient cycling relies on microbial communities, and can produce significant quantities of gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 3

374 Intertidal marshes are exposed to air at low tide and flooded with salt water at high tide by daily tidal action and, depending on the flow regime of tidal and river water, can be divided into two types: salt or brackish (G.L. Williams & Associates Ltd. 2009). At Roberts Bank, brackish marshes are more common in areas closer to Canoe Passage due to freshwater inputs from the Fraser River. At Brunswick Point, salinity levels range from 1 to 5 practical salinity units (psu), and near 15 psu along the Ladner dyke on the north side of the Roberts Bank causeway. In contrast, salt marsh is found in the inter-causeway area, as the causeway blocks the intrusion of freshwater, with salinities averaging closer to 30 psu. Differences in the mixing of fresh and salt water influence marsh communities and species composition, as discussed below Species Composition At least 20 intertidal marsh species have been recorded at Roberts Bank (Table IR22-1; Hemmera 2014a). Species composition, while known to vary with a number of factors such as elevation, is mostly driven by salinity. For example, the brackish intertidal marsh at Brunswick Point consists of a distinct assemblage of species relative to the Ladner dyke / Roberts Bank causeway and inter-causeway areas, reflecting the strong influence of freshwater Fraser River discharge through Canoe Passage. Here, the intertidal marsh community is dominated by sedges (e.g., Lyngbye s sedge, Carex lyngbyei), arrowgrasses (e.g., seacoast arrowgrass, Triglochin maritima), bulrushes (e.g., softstem bulrush, Schoenoplectus tabernaemontaini), and cattails (e.g., common cattail, Typha latifolia) In contrast, intertidal salt marshes are comprised of halophytes, or salt tolerant species; in the inter-causeway area, where marine water influence is high, dominant species include American glasswort (or pickleweed; Sarcocornia pacifica) and seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) (G.L. Williams & Associates Ltd. 2009). Due to the presence of a salinity gradient, the ranges of some plant species may occur in both intertidal marsh types; such is the case for the brackish marsh along the Ladner dyke / Roberts Bank causeway, where saline species such as American glasswort and seashore saltgrass overlap with more brackish species such as seacoast bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) In general, brackish marshes support higher species diversity than salt marshes (G.L. Williams & Associates Ltd. 2009); accordingly, species diversity is highest at Brunswick Point, followed by the Ladner dyke / Roberts Bank causeway and, lastly, the inter-causeway area. Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 4

375 Eight provincially-listed (at-risk) estuarine wetland communities were mapped in the LAA using high-resolution orthophotography, and classified using Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) standards and the classification system defined in Wetlands of British Columbia, A Guide to Identification (MacKenzie and Moran 2004) (see Table IR22-2 and Figure IR22-2). The provincial classification system was used to complement the CWCS because it provides greater granularity around common wetland ecosystems that occur in B.C. All of the wetland polygons in the study area are classified as having Red-listed wetland communities, with the exception of polygon 6, which was Blue-listed. Although other Bluelisted wetlands do occur in the study area, they are smaller in size and fully incorporated in polygons dominated by Red-listed wetlands. In these cases, the higher Red-listing applies. Wetlands Potentially Affected by the Project The EIS outlined mechanisms by which the Project might affect wetland (i.e., intertidal marsh) productivity at Roberts Bank, including i) direct loss or mortality, ii) changes in water quality (salinity), and iii) changes to sedimentation and coastal processes. With respect to direct loss, as shown in Figure IR22-2, TEM polygons 2, 3, 12, and 14 overlap with the Project footprint, which correspond to tufted hairgrass - Douglas aster (Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis - Symphyotrichum subspicatum), Lyngbye s sedge and herbaceous vegetation (Carex lyngbyei), and American glasswort - sea-milkwort (Sarcocornia pacifica - Glaux maritime) marsh wetland communities, respectively. The Project is expected to directly affect 12.3 ha of intertidal marsh wetland habitat due to causeway widening (Figures IR22-1 and IR22-2) 1, which corresponds to approximately 1.1 tonne (t) of biomass. The EIS concluded that this direct loss is negligible and will be far outweighed by gains in biomass due to the Project on the north side of the Roberts Bank causeway. The predicted increase in productivity is attributed to improved growing conditions resulting from decreased salinity in the high intertidal zone and an increase in sediment deposition in the low to mid intertidal zone. Lower salinities generally increase productivity of intertidal marsh plants (Crain et al. 2004, Woo and Takekawa 2012), while increased sediment deposition behind the terminal s north side will increase the elevation of the tidal flats over time, thereby increasing existing marsh productivity (as opposed to increased areal marsh expansion). 1 It should be noted that the areal extent of intertidal marsh habitat in these two figures do not perfectly align. This is ascribed to temporal variation, as the hyperspectral and quadrat surveys were performed in 2012 while the TEM mapping was completed in Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 5

376 Ecological Function Hydrological Intertidal marshes perform many hydrological functions, such as water flow moderation, shoreline protection, climate regulation, and water quality treatment (Hanson et al. 2008), which can be important for maintenance of human and ecological systems, protection of infrastructure, and enhancement of social values Intertidal marshes at Roberts Bank receive the majority of their water from high tide events rather than from terrestrial runoff. The capacity of water retention by these intertidal marshes is low due to the small volume difference between the maximum high-water and normal water level. At Roberts Bank, because intertidal marshes occur at sea level, they provide low value in protecting downstream infrastructure Intertidal marshes also reduce wave energy, capture sediment, and enhance cohesion of nearshore sediment. Ultimately, sea dykes at Roberts Bank protect agricultural and residential land; however, marsh within the LAA protects the dykes and reduces storm surge and wave heights Intertidal marshes can increase the physical, chemical, and biological quality of water. They dissipate water current velocity, which causes suspended sediments to settle out. This allows more light to penetrate through the water column and increases photosynthesis of neighbouring benthic macroalgae and eelgrass. Marshes also increase water quality by removing excess nutrients from the water column, which limits the possibility of unnatural phytoplankton blooms and eutrophication (LePage 2011) Based on the EIS conclusion of no residual adverse effect to intertidal marsh (due to small footprint of direct loss and the predicted increase in productivity with the Project), no adverse effects to the hydrological function of intertidal marshes within the LAA are anticipated. In addition, intertidal marsh habitat is proposed to be created as part of the onsite offsetting for the Project, as outlined in EIS Section 17.0 Mitigation for Marine Biophysical Valued Components Biogeochemical Biogeochemical function refers to the biological, geological, and chemical processes and reactions that govern the composition of the natural environment as it relates to the recycling of chemicals between plants, animals, and the earth s sediments, and to the flow Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 6

377 of energy through an ecosystem. Intertidal marshes are considered important sources, sinks, and/or transformers of biologically important nutrients in the coastal landscape (Tobias and Neubauer 2009), and biogeochemical functions include nutrient and organic carbon cycling and export, retention of particulates, as well as carbon sequestration and storage (Hanson et al. 2008) Intertidal marshes play an important role in the carbon cycle. Vegetation serves as a dominant source of new carbon to intertidal marshes, and the majority of the carbon fixed by marsh plants is atmospheric carbon dioxide (Tobias and Neubauer 2009); in this way, high productivity of biomass provides significant sequestration of atmospheric carbon in plant tissues. A large fraction of marsh primary production is decomposed by microbial communities and either exported from the system or cycled internally (Tobias and Neubauer 2009). Decomposition often creates anoxic soil conditions, and produces gaseous emissions such as methane or carbon dioxide Intertidal marshes also play a role in nitrogen cycling, and the balance between nitrogen fixation and denitrification largely controls the net nitrogen flux. Nitrogen fixation, the process by which some bacteria fix nitrogen gas (N 2 ) into a biologically available form (NH 3 ), typically acts as a source of new nitrogen to stimulate plant growth and fuel marsh primary production (Heffner 2013). This productivity can also be dispersed by currents to adjacent habitats, supplementing those food webs (Bergamino and Richoux 2015). On the other hand, denitrification, a microbial-mediated process by which nitrate is converted to N 2 gas, is typically high in intertidal marsh sediments compared to other marine sediments and is an important mechanism for nitrogen removal (Hopkinson and Giblin 2008). The potential for intertidal marshes to intercept and remove anthropogenic nitrogen via gaseous losses and burial is important, as marshes may act as buffers to the eutrophication (i.e., high nutrient loading) of nearby coastal waters (Fisher and Acreman 2004) For reasons similar to those outlined for hydrological functions above, no adverse effects to the biogeochemical function of intertidal marshes within the LAA are anticipated Habitat Habitat function refers to the manner in which a wetland contributes to biological productivity and diversity. Generally, the habitat functions of intertidal marsh wetlands are high, and the importance of Fraser River estuary marshes has been well documented (Butler and Cannings 1989, Boyd 1995). Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 7

378 Intertidal marshes within the LAA are used by a variety of fish species at differing life stages; for example, marsh is used as rearing habitat by juvenile salmon (Dunford 1975, Levy et al. 1979, Levy and Northcote 1981) and as spawning habitat by anadromous threespine stickleback (Wootton 1984). Marshes enhance feeding opportunities, providing both detritus and habitat to marine invertebrates, which act as the food supply for higher trophic levels, including salmon (Levings et al. 1991). The structural complexity of marsh habitat also provides fish refuge from predation (Levings and Nishimura 1996, Rountree and Able 2007) Intertidal marshes also support a diverse assemblage of migratory and resident bird species (Boyd 1995). A variety of terrestrial and coastal waterbirds were observed using the marshes at Roberts Bank (Hemmera 2014b). Common terrestrial species included marsh wren, red-winged blackbirds, barn swallows, and song sparrows. Great blue heron, which are listed as Special Concern under the Species at Risk Act and Blue-listed provincially, are also common at the marsh edges but occur in relatively low numbers, while American bittern and Wilson s snipe use the Brunswick Point marshes as breeding habitat. Snow geese occur in the greatest numbers at Roberts Bank but generally use the marsh edges; in low-elevation marshes, snow geese grub bulrush rhizomes in the autumn months, and forage on emergent sedges in mid- to high-marshes in the early spring (Boyd 1995). Additionally, thousands of Pacific dunlin are known to roost in the Brunswick Point marsh during the winter For reasons similar to those outlined for hydrological functions above, no adverse effects to the habitat function of intertidal marshes within the LAA are anticipated. Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 8

379 217 Table IR22-1 List of Intertidal Marsh Plant Species Documented at Roberts Bank Family Common Name Latin Name Asteraceae Nodding beggarticks Bidens cernua Cyperaceae Seacoast bulrush Bolboschoenus maritimus Poaceae Bluejoint grass Calamagrostis canadensis Cyperaceae Lyngbye's sedge Carex lyngbyei Asteraceae Brass buttons Cotula coronopifolia Poaceae Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia cespitosa Poaceae Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Poaceae Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Plantaginaceae Seaside plantain Plantago maritima Amaranthaceae Pickleweed (or sea asparagus) Sarcocornia pacifica Cyperaceae Softstem bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Cyperaceae Three-square bulrush Schoenoplectus pungens Asteraceae Aster spp. Senecio spp. Poaceae English cordgrass Spartina anglica Caryophyllaceae Sandspurry Spergularia canadensis Juncaginaceae Arrowgrass Triglochin maritima Typhaceae Common cattail Typha latifolia Rubiaceae Cleavers Galium aparine Polygonaceae Western dock Rumex occidentalis Alismataceae Wapato/Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia Apiaceae Douglas water hemlock Cicuta douglasii Rosaceae Silverweed Potentilla anserina Poaceae Dunegrass Leymus mollis Onagraceae Fireweed Chamerion angustifolium Asteraceae Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Lythraceae Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Lamiaceae Hemp-nettle Galeopsis tetrahit Convolvulceae Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Balsaminaceae Common touch-me-not Impatiens noli-tangere Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 9

380 218 Table IR22-2 Listed Estuarine Wetland Communities Found in the Roberts Bank Study Area Scientific Name Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis - Hordeum brachyantherum Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. beringensis - Symphyotrichum subspicatum Sarcocornia pacifica - Glaux maritima Common Name B.C. List Biogeoclimatic Units Present in Study Area Area (ha) Tufted hairgrass - meadow barley Red CDFmm/Ed01 Polygons 7, 8, and Tufted hairgrass - Douglas' aster Red CDFmm/Ed02 Polygons 2 and American glasswort - sea-milkwort Red CDFmm/Em02 Polygons 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, and 29 Distichlis spicata var. spicata Seashore saltgrass Red CDFmm/Em03 Polygons 4, 5, and Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's sedge Red CDFmm/Em05 Polygons 1 and Eleocharis palustris Common spike-rush Blue CDFmm/Wm04 Polygon Typha latifolia Common cattail Blue CDFmm/Wm05 Polygon Schoenoplectus acutus Hard-stemmed bulrush Blue CDFmm/Wm06 Polygons 4 and Notes: The Conservation Data Centre s Red List contains communities considered to be extirpated, endangered, or threatened in B.C. Extirpated elements no longer exist in the wild in B.C., but occur elsewhere. Endangered elements face imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened elements are likely to become endangered if factors that limit their numbers and/or range are not reversed. The Conservation Data Centre s Blue List includes elements of Special Concern in B.C. These elements are sensitive to or at risk from human activities or natural events, but are not extirpated, endangered, or threatened Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 10

381 References Bergamino, L. and N. B. Richoux Spatial and Temporal Changes in Estuarine Food Web Structure: Differential Contributions of Marsh Grass Detritus. Estuaries and Coasts 38: Boyd, W. S Lesser Snow Geese (Anser c. caerulescens) and American Three-Square Bulrush (Scirpus americanus) on the Fraser and Skagit River Deltas. Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Bromberg-Gedan, K., Silliman, B. R., and M. D. Bertness Centuries of Human-Driven Change in Salt Marsh Ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science 1: Butler, R. W., and R. J. Cannings Distribution of Birds in the Intertidal Portion of the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. Technical Report No. 93. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific 7 Yukon Region, British Columbia. Crain, C., B. Silliman, S. Bertness, and M. Bertness Physical and Biotic Drivers of Plant Distribution Across Estuarine Salinity Gradients. Ecology 85: Dunford, W. E Space and Food Utilisation by Salmonids in Marsh Habitats of the Fraser River Estuary. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Zoology, Vancouver, B.C. Fisher, J., and M. C. Acreman Wetland Nutrient Removal: A Review of the Evidence. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 8: G. L. Williams & Associates Ltd T2 Environmental Baseline Monitoring Report Section 4: Shoreline Habitat 2008 Surveys. Hanson, A., L. Swanson, D. Ewing, G. Grabas, S. Meyer, L. Ross, M. Watmough, and J. Kirby Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No Atlantic Region. 59 pp. Heffner, L. R Responses of Nitrogen Cycling to Nutrient Enrichment in New England Salt Marshes over an Annual Cycle. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Rhode Island. Hemmera. 2014a. Technical Data Report: Marine Vegetation. Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc. for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 11

382 Hemmera. 2014b. Technical Data Report: Coastal Waterbird Distribution and Abundance. Prepared by Hemmera Envirochem Inc. for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Hopkinson, C., and A. E. Giblin Nitrogen Dynamics of Coastal Salt Marshes. In Nitrogen in the Marine Environment, ed. D. G. Capone, D. A. Bronk, M. R. Mulholland and E. J. Carpenter, Oxford: Elsevier. LePage, B. A Wetlands: Integrating Multidisciplinary Concepts. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York. Levings, C. D., K. Conlin, and B. Raymond Intertidal Habitats Used by Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Rearing in the North Arm of the Fraser River Estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22: Levings, C. D., and D. J. H. Nishimura Created and Restored Marshes in the Lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Canada Technical Report on Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2126:143. Levy, D. A., T. G. Northcote, and G. J. Birch Juvenile Salmon Utilisation of Tidal Channels in the Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia. Technical Report No. 23, Westwater Research Center, Vancouver, B.C. Levy, D. A., and T. G. Northcote The Distribution and Abundance of Juvenile Salmon in Marsh Habitats of the Fraser River Estuary. Technical Report No. 25, Westwater Research Center, Vancouver, B.C. MacKenzie, W. and Moran, J Wetlands of British Columbia: A Guide to Identification. Land Management Handbook No. 52. Research Branch B.C. Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C. 287 pp. National Wetlands Working Group (NWWG) The Canadian Wetland Classification System, Second Edition. Wetlands Research Centre, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON. Available at Doc_generale/Wetlands.pdf. Accessed August Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 12

383 Rountree, R. A., and K. W. Able Spatial and Temporal Habitat Use Patterns for Salt Marsh Nekton: Implications for Ecological Functions. Aquatic Ecology 41: Sousa, A. I., A. I. Lillebo, M. A. Pardal, and I. Cacador Productivity and Nutrient Cycling in Salt Marshes: Contribution to Ecosystem Health. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 87(4): Tobias, C.R., and S. C. Neubauer Salt Marsh Biogeochemistry An Overview. In: G. M. E. Perillo, E. Wolanski, D. R. Cahoon, M. M. Brinson (eds), Coastal Wetlands: An Integrated Ecosystem Approach. Elsevier, pp Woo, I., and J. Y. Takekawa Will Inundation and Salinity Levels Associated with Projected Sea Level Rise Reduce the Survival, Growth, and Reproductive Capacity of Sarcocornia pacifica (Pickleweed)? Aquatic Botany Wootton, R. J A Functional Biology of Sticklebacks. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Appendices Appendix IR22-A Figures Response to Information Request #22 (IR ) Page 13

384 APPENDIX IR22-A Figures

385 PORT METRO VANCOUVER Information Request Response This page is intentionally left blank

386 !( Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_22\mxd\22_1_IR_MarshDistribution_RB_ mxd Brunswick Point North of Roberts Bank causeway Roberts Bank Dyke Inter-causeway DELTAPORT TERMINAL ROBERTS BANK CAUSEWAY AND DELTAPORT WAY WESTSHORE TERMINALS!(!( B.C. FERRIES TERMINAL AND CAUSEWAY!( Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA INTERTIDAL MARSH (2012) DIVISION BETWEEN BRUNSWICK POINT AND NORTH OF ROBERTS BANK CAUSEWAY MARSHES EXISTING LANDMARK Kilometres 1:32,000 ± ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 INTERTIDAL MARSH DISTRIBUTION AT ROBERTS BANK DEPTH 0 (LLT) 10/13/2015 IR22-1 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

387 Path: O:\!1200-\1246\EIS_INFORMATION_REQUESTS\IR_22\mxd\22_2_IR_MarshTEM_RB_ mxd TEM Poly No. TEM Label 1 TEM Label 2 TEM Label 3 List 1 6MU 4Em05 Red 2 10Ed02 Red 3 10Em05 Red 4 5Em03 3Wm06 2MU Red 5 5Em03 3Wm06 2MU Red 6 10Wm04 Blue 7 8Wm05 2Ed01 Red 8 10Ed01 Red 9 6RS3a 4Ed01 Red 10 10Em02 Red 11 10RS2b Em02 Red 14 10Em02 Red 15 7Em02 3RS2b Red 16 10Em02 Red 17 6MU 4Em03 Red 18 10Ed02 Red 19 10MU Em02 Red 21 10Em02 Red 26 10Em02 Red 27 10Em02 Red 28 9MU 1Em02 Red 29 10Em02 Red Canoe Passage Brunswick Point 11 North of Roberts Bank causeway 9 15 Roberts Bank Dyke Inter-causeway!( 20 DELTAPORT TERMINAL ROBERTS BANK CAUSEWAY AND DELTAPORT WAY !( Legend BOUNDARY OF PROJECT AREA TEM - WETLAND MAPPING EXISTING LANDMARK Kilometres 1:25,000 ± ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 TEM MAPPING OF WETLAND (MARSH) COMMUNITIES AT ROBERTS BANK 10/13/2015 IR22-2 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

388 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #23 Implications of Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation Rationale The EIS Guidelines (6.2) require the proponent to identify government policies relevant to the Project and discuss their implications. Appendix 6-B of the EIS discusses relevant federal policies, plans and initiatives, but does not include information on the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Section 11 of the EIS mentions that this policy would apply to the Project but the implications of the Policy on the Project are not discussed. Information Requested Provide a discussion of the implications of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation to the Project. Response The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (the Wetland Policy) was inadvertently omitted from EIS Appendix 6-B Land Use and Resource Management Policies, Plans, and Initiatives of Relevance to. The policy represents the Government of Canada s commitment to promote the conservation of Canada s wetlands to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions, now and in the future (Government of Canada 1991). The key goal of the Wetland Policy commits all federal departments to the goal of no net loss of wetland functions (i) on federal lands and waters, (ii) in areas affected by the implementation of federal programs where the continuing loss or degradation of wetlands has reached critical levels, and (iii) where federal activities affect wetlands designated as ecologically or socio-economically important to a region. The Wetland Policy is relevant to the Project because the Project has the potential to impact wetlands that meet all three of these criteria; the goal of no net loss of wetland functions implies that potential adverse effects of the Project must be compensated. As described in EIS Section 17.4 Wetland Response to Information Request #23 (IR ) Page 1

389 Assessment, PMV will work with the Canadian Wildlife Service to complete a wetland ecological functions assessment to confirm that the requirements for wetland compensation have been met, based on the habitat assessments completed as part of the EIS. The conclusions identified in the wetland ecological functions will be used to confirm the need to develop a Wetland Compensation Plan. References Government of Canada Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation, Ottawa, Ontario. Available at Accessed August Appendices None Response to Information Request #23 (IR ) Page 2

390 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #24 Orange Sea Pens Rationale The EIS Guidelines (9.1.1) require that where little or no information is available, specific studies will be designed to gather further information on, among other matters, the interrelations of a species to the ecosystem. The EIS Guidelines (10.1.1) further require all conclusions to be substantiated, and predictions to be based on clearly stated assumptions. The EIS notes the ecological importance of orange sea pens for structural habitat complexity and as a prey species in supporting a large number of predators (EIS section , Appendix 12-A, p32). The EIS states that orange sea pens benefit fish and other macroinvertebrate species, such as Dungeness crab, and diving birds which have also shown a preference for sea pen coverage (EIS sections , ). The EIS does not explain the nature and importance of the interrelations between sea pens and those species that rely on them for high quality habitat. Port Metro Vancouver reports that the expected moderate loss of orange sea pen habitat and decrease in productivity may affect the availability of high-quality habitat for flatfish, demersal fish, and coastal birds. Although the EIS states that the potential for negative effects of sea pen habitat loss cannot be discounted (EIS sections , ), the EIS does not include a description of how the effect of this habitat loss is accounted for in the effects assessment. Information Requested Provide a description of the interrelations between orange sea pens and the marine invertebrates, demersal fish, flatfish species, and diving shorebirds that rely on this habitat. Clarify how the predicted effects to these species considered the anticipated loss of sea pen habitat. Response to Information Request #24 (IR ) Page 1

391 Response This response is provided in two parts, with the inter-relations between orange sea pens and other marine species described first, and the predicted effects to other marine species from the Project-related loss of orange sea pen habitat described second. Inter-relations Between Orange Sea Pens and Other Marine Species The inter-relationships between orange sea pens and other marine species were investigated as part of the RBT2 environmental assessment, as reported in two technical data reports (TDRs), which are referenced in the EIS and publicly available. The Orange Sea Pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) TDR (Hemmera and Archipelago 2014) includes: 1) a comprehensive literature review of orange sea pen biology and ecology; 2) an analysis of empirical data collected from site specific underwater video and SCUBA surveys; and 3) a local knowledge study, which interviewed select individuals, including academics, tourism operators, fishermen, and aquarists. The study described in the Marine Invertebrates, Marine Fish and Fish Habitat - Marine Benthic Subtidal Study TDR (Hemmera 2014) used a remotely operated vehicle to quantitatively characterise benthic invertebrates (including orange sea pens), fishes, and habitat between -5 and -40 m depth chart datum and examined the influence of physical characteristics on species densities. The Orange Sea Pens TDR describes the relationship between orange sea pens and four faunal groups (i.e., crustaceans, sea stars, anemones, and fish) that may use them as habitat, based on modelling that used logistic regression. Statistically significant correlations were noted for all four groups, suggesting that the likelihood of presence of each faunal group in continuous to dense sea pen habitat is higher than in areas of either few to patchy or absent sea pen habitat. However, these results are incongruent with those reported in the Marine Invertebrates, Marine Fish and Fish Habitat - Marine Benthic Subtidal Study TDR, which noted a weak negative relationship between orange sea pen density and total finfish density and no significant relationships between orange sea pen density and both Dungeness crabs and flatfish using pairwise statistical comparisons. Taken together, these results suggest that while orange sea pen beds appear to provide habitat used by a number species, there is not enough evidence to suggest a functional link between the habitat orange sea pens provide and demographic patterns of associated fish and macroinvertebrates. High densities of fishes in aggregations of orange sea pens do not necessarily indicate that orange sea pens provide a unique functional role; rather, they may simply have attributes similar to other important habitats, or may co-occur because of similar habitat preferences (Auster 2007). For example, fishes and structural fauna may co-occur in areas of high flows for enhanced prey delivery but have no direct association, as demonstrated by Tissot et al. (2006) with rockfishes (Sebastes sp.) in California and Koslow et al. (2000) with orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) in New Zealand. Response to Information Request #24 (IR ) Page 2

392 As noted in EIS Section Diving Birds, diving birds can be divided into two categories, largely based on feeding strategy and diet. Piscivorous birds, including western grebes, feed on fish, and seaducks, including scoters, primarily feed on marine invertebrates, such as bivalves and small crabs; sea pens are not known to comprise part of the diet of either group. Any relationship between diving birds and orange sea pens, therefore, is deemed coincidental or indirect, as the birds do not eat the orange sea pens or require their shelter, but may forage for invertebrates or fish within orange sea pen beds. However, diving bird foraging habitat at Roberts Bank is not limited only to areas of orange sea pens; documented foraging habitats at Roberts Bank are varied, and include subtidal sand, rock, kelp, Ulva, and eelgrass, as outlined in EIS Section Further, the distribution and abundance of invertebrates, demersal fish and flatfish, and diving birds within the local and regional assessment areas, and indeed throughout other coastal areas of B.C., includes areas where sea pens do not occur; this implies that while sea pens may enhance habitat in localised areas, they are not essential in supporting the ongoing productivity of fish, invertebrate, and diving bird populations. 52 For more information, refer to the Orange Sea Pens TDR Predicted Effects from Loss of Orange Sea Pen Habitat Within the EIS, the loss of sea pen habitat for marine invertebrates, demersal fish and flatfish, and diving birds was considered and accounted for qualitatively within the multiple lines of evidence approach (as summarised in EIS Tables 12-11, 13-12, and 15-11, respectively). Because the ecosystem model could not consider habitat associations, only trophic interactions and abiotic factors were considered (see EIS Section 10.3 Overview of Assessing Ecosystem Productivity). Part of the rationale considered in the weight of evidence was how the loss of subtidal sand habitat, including the loss of sea pen productivity therein, might affect habitat quality for other species. For example, for both flatfish and demersal fish, the ecosystem model predicted negligible changes in productivity (i.e., +1% and -5%, respectively); however, the overall conclusion for both sub-components, based on weight of evidence which considered sea pen productivity loss, suggested minor decreases in productivity, rather than negligible change. In this way, loss of sea pen productive potential was integrated into conclusions for changes in productivity for other valued components and sub-components. Response to Information Request #24 (IR ) Page 3

393 References Auster, P. J Linking Deep-water Corals and Fish Populations. Bulletin of Marine Science 81: Hemmera Technical Data Report: Marine Invertebrates, Marine Fish and Fish Habitat - Marine Benthic Subtidal Study. Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed July Hemmera and Archipelago Technical Data Report: Orange Sea Pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi). Prepared for Port Metro Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. Available at Accessed July Koslow, J., G. Boehlert, J. Gordon, R. Haedrich, P. Lorance, and N. Parin Continental Slope and Deep-sea Fisheries: Implications for a Fragile Ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57: Tissot, B. N., M. S. Love, K. York, and M. Amend Benthic Invertebrates that form Habitat on Deep Banks off Southern California, with Special Reference to Deep Sea Coral. Fishery Bulletin 104: Appendices None Response to Information Request #24 (IR ) Page 4

394 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Reference Number Information Request #25 Project Lighting Effects Rationale The EIS Guidelines (9.1.6) require that a characterization of the way existing artificial light and moon phase affect bird distributions at the Project site. The EIS describes how some species of birds are affected by light at the Project site, but does not provide an overall characterization of effects on bird distributions, nor does it describe the potential added effects of Project lighting on bird distributions. Information Requested Provide a characterization of the way existing artificial light and moon phase affect bird distributions at the Project site and discuss the potential added effects of Project lighting on bird distributions. Response This response is provided in three parts. The first part describes the general behaviour of birds to natural and artificial illumination, as documented in existing literature sources. To provide context, the second part summarises existing and predicted future illumination levels within the LAA, and provides some common light levels for comparison purposes. For each coastal bird sub-component, the final part of this response provides a characterisation of the way existing artificial light and moon phase affect bird distributions at the Project site and discusses the potential added effects of Project lighting on bird distributions Relationship between Bird Behaviour and Natural and Artificial Illumination Many species of birds use either moonlight or celestial light patterns for orientation or navigation (Rich and Longcore 2013). The amount of natural light (i.e., moonlight) can affect bird behaviours and alter activity patterns. For example, light emitted by a full moon can extend the duration of foraging time available to birds (Santos et al. 2010, Rich and Longcore 2013). As birds can find it difficult to differentiate between natural and artificial illumination, artificial lighting can increase effects, potentially affecting distribution in lit areas. Artificial illumination has been documented to mask celestial light patterns or be mistaken for natural light sources, which can result in disorientation from or attraction to Response to Information Request #25 (IR ) Page 1

395 artificial lighting (Jones and Francis 2003, Crawford 1981, Rich and Longcore 2013). The potential exists for mortalities from collisions with anthropogenic structures or exhaustion from continuous flying around a light source (Rodriguez and Rodriguez 2009, Rich and Longcore 2013). Such events are influenced by visibility, ambient light conditions, and lunar phase, with greater effects occurring under low cloud cover, overcast skies, and foggy or drizzly conditions (Rich and Longcore 2013). In general, attraction events to artificial illumination seem to occur more frequently during a new moon (i.e., 0-30% illuminated) (Crawford 1981, Verheijen 1981). Also, many of the large attraction events involving marine birds have involved young, newly fledged birds, where nesting colonies are in close proximity to an anthropogenic light source (Rodriguez and Rodriguez 2009, Rich and Longcore 2013) As described in EIS Section Coastal Birds, Potential Effect Changes in Productivity, the attraction of birds to artificial lighting at the existing Roberts Bank terminals and associated injuries or mortalities have not been documented during surveys and is not considered to be an issue of concern. As a result, this information request response does not consider large, mass attraction events described under some circumstances in the literature Description of Illumination and Sky Glow Levels for Existing Conditions and Future Conditions with the Project Port Metro Vancouver conducted a Light Assessment Study to characterise existing lighting conditions at the Roberts Bank terminals and model future changes with RBT2 (see EIS Section 9.4 Light). Changes in illuminance and sky glow were assessed at 12 Points of Reception (PORs) located around the Project terminal and surrounding region. A total of 941 fixtures are proposed for installation along the Roberts Bank causeway, in high-mast lighting at the terminal, and on 12 ship-to-shore gantry cranes. The purpose of the Light Assessment Study was to predict potential Project-caused changes to light trespass and sky glow at locations surrounding the Project site. As described in EIS Section 9.4, light trespass is the amount of light or illuminance that strays from its intended purpose onto neighbouring areas. Sky glow is the unwanted illumination of the night sky due to the scattering and reflection of light rays radiating in directions above the horizontal plane or reflecting from the ground and buildings by aerosols present in the night sky. Sky glow results in a loss of contrast, which reduces the number of visible stars, and produces a visible glow in the direction of, for example, an industrial site where a cluster of light sources may be present. Response to Information Request #25 (IR ) Page 2

396 Three PORs, referred to as POR6, POR7, and POR11 and locations shown on Figure IR25-1, were contained within the boundaries of the coastal bird local assessment area (LAA). POR7 was identified through consultation with Canadian Wildlife Service to assist in the assessment of effects of light on coastal birds. As context for the characterisation of nocturnal bird distributions and changes in distribution from additional light from the Project, Table IR25-1 presents illumination levels and sky glow associated with common sources Table IR25-1 Illumination and Sky Glow Levels Associated with Common Sources a Illuminance Source Illuminance Level (lux) Moonless overcast night sky c Moonless clear night sky c Full moon on a clear night c 0.27 Sky Glow Source Standard natural background (zero sky glow) Limit for astronomical site of international standing Limit for dark sky site for most astronomers Sky Glow (%) b Twilight d 10 Full moon night sky 3,000 Family living room e 50 Office lighting f Common densely populated area in North America Clear sky 30 minutes after sunset ,000 43,000 Overcast day e 1,000 Heavily overcast sky Full daylight (not direct sun) c 10,000-25,000 Clear daytime sky Notes: a. Information adapted from EIS Section 9.4 Light, Tables and b. Sky glow, defined as percent brightness above natural dark sky background. Information sources: c: Schlyter (2009); d: Burle Industries Inc. Tube Products (1974); e: Pears (1998); and f: U.S. Department of Labor (2010). Response to Information Request #25 (IR ) Page 3

397 Figure IR25-1 Points of Reception for Light Assessment Study within the Coastal Birds Local Assessment Area (adapted from EIS Appendix 9.4-A, Figure 1) Response to Information Request #25 (IR ) Page 4