Aquatic Effects Assessment: Vancouver Harbour Response ... · 10/11/2016 · File: 1912-001.01 Western Canada Marine Response Corporation 201 Kensington Ave. Burnaby, BC V5B 4B2

Aquatic Effects Assessment

Vancouver Harbour Response Base

2800 Commissioner Street Wharf

Prepared for: Western Canada Marine Response Corporation 201 Kensington Avenue Burnaby, BC V5C 5P2 Prepared by: Hemmera Envirochem Inc. 18

th Floor, 4730 Kingsway

Burnaby, BC V5H 0C6 File: 1912-001.01 September 2016

Hemmera Envirochem Inc.

18th

Floor, 4730 Kingsway

Burnaby, BC V5H 0C6

T: 604.669.0424

F: 604.669.0430

hemmera.com

September 30, 2016 File: 1912-001.01 Western Canada Marine Response Corporation 201 Kensington Ave. Burnaby, BC V5B 4B2

Attn: Jody Addah – Project Manager

Dear Jody,

Re: Aquatic Effects Assessment, Vancouver Harbour Response Base

Hemmera Envirochem Inc. is pleased to provide you with this final report.

We have appreciated the opportunity to work with you on this project and trust that this report meets your

requirements. Please feel free to contact the undersigned by phone or email regarding any questions or

further information that you may require.

Regards, Hemmera Envirochem Inc.

Robin Taylor, MRM, EP Environmental Manager 604.669.0424 (289) [email protected] Cc: Matt Mylemans, WCMRC

http://www.hemmera.com/

Western Canada Marine Response Corporation Hemmera Aquatic Effects Assessment - i - September 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................... 2

2.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 2

2.2 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT SITE ...................................................................... 2

2.3 DETAILED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT SITE ............................................... 4

2.3.1 Intertidal Zone ........................................................................................................ 4

2.3.2 Subtidal Zone ......................................................................................................... 6

2.4 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 7

2.4.1 Intertidal Zone ........................................................................................................ 7

2.4.2 Subtidal Zone ......................................................................................................... 9

2.5 SENSITIVE HABITAT AND MARINE ECOLOGY .......................................................................... 10

3.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................... 14

3.1 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT .......................................... 14

3.1.1 Changes to Habitat Quantity ................................................................................ 14

3.1.2 Changes to Habitat Quality .................................................................................. 15

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES............................................................................................................. 16

4.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION ....................... 16

4.2 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL FOR SERIOUS HARM TO FISH AND FISH

HABITAT .............................................................................................................................. 16

4.3 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF OVERWATER

STRUCTURES ON MARINE HABITAT ....................................................................................... 17

4.4 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES RELATING TO MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON

WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................. 17

5.0 DFO AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................... 18

6.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 19

7.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................................... 19

8.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................... 20

Western Canada Marine Response Corporation Hemmera Aquatic Effects Assessment - ii - September 2016

List of Figures

Figure 1 Commissioner Street Response Base - Aquatic Sampling Locations ................................ 3

Figure 2 Bull Kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) Occurrence within Study Site ..................................... 13

List of Photos

Photo 1 Intertidal zone a) west of the wharf, b) east of the wharf, and c) under the wharf. ............. 5

Photo 2 Subtidal substrate at the Commissioner Street survey site at approximately a) < 5 m CD,

b) 10 m CD, and c) 15 m CD. Note c) fine organic (stick and detritus) layer overtop

cobble substrate. ................................................................................................................. 6

Photo 3 Marine intertidal organism assemblages a) west of the existing wharf, b) east of the

existing wharf , and c) below the existing wharf at the study site. ...................................... 8

Photo 4 Subtidal macroalgae observed at the study site, including a) bull kelp, b) fringed sea

colander kelp and sea sorrel, c) unidentified brown algae, and d) sea lettuce. .................. 9

Photo 5 Subtidal marine organisms observed at the study site, including a) red rock crab,

b) leather star, c) northern feather duster worms, d) white-plumed anemones, and

e) sand star. ...................................................................................................................... 10

Photo 6 Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) beds observed at the study site east of the existing

wharf. Bull kelp was observed through much of the bay between the shallow subtidal and

~5 m CD, with the exception of under the existing wharf. ................................................ 12

List of Appendices

Appendix A Biophysical Observation Photos

Western Canada Marine Response Corporation Hemmera Aquatic Effects Assessment - 1 - September 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Hemmera was retained by Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) to conduct an

aquatic effects assessment as part of the development plan for the Vancouver Harbour Response Base

(the “Project”) located at 2800 Commissioner Street in Vancouver (the “Site”). WCMRC proposes to

convert the former Prince Rupert Fisherman’s Co-operative (wharf) located at the Site to the South Coast

Response Base (Project), as a means of increasing their operational spill response capacity in the

Vancouver area. Key features of the proposed Project for this assessment include parking for 20

vehicles, access ramp, shoreline protection and an offshore berthing facility. The offshore berthing facility

consists of a 3 m wide, 116 m long access float anchored by guide piles, mooring dolphin piles for

barges, and a 2.4 m wide pedestrian access gangway connecting to an existing dock structure.

The existing concrete pile supported dock structure will be retained as access for the proposed float. The

overall site plan is included in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this Aquatic Effects Assessment (Study) were to:

Classify the marine environment near the Commissioner Street wharf through intertidal and

subtidal video surveys;

Assess potential for any adverse effects of the proposed Project on the marine environment;

Identify mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any potentially adverse effects;

Identify any residual adverse effects that may remain following adoption of recommended

mitigation measures and determine whether they would likely be significant or result in Serious

Harm to fish; and,

Make recommendations around environmental monitoring of construction activities with the

potential for residual adverse effects on the marine environment.


2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT

2.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY

The following description of the existing environment was derived from visual observations and drop

camera video observations taken during a June 20, 2016 site assessment and a desktop review of

existing literature available for the site and surrounding areas. The site assessment included visual

observations of intertidal areas during a moderately low tide of +0.9 m above Chart Datum (CD) at

11:30am (PDT) and drop camera video recordings of nearshore subtidal areas immediately offshore of

the existing wharf. The subtidal survey comprised multiple video transects, which were conducted in a

direction parallel with the shoreline at approximately 8, 12, and 15 m CD (Figure 1). Transect

methodology was adapted from Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) working draft Marine Foreshore

Environmental Assessment Procedure document (DFO 2004). Post field video analysis included

characterizing intertidal and subtidal substrates1 and identifying marine life present in the video to the

species level. Figure 1 illustrates the study site location within Burrard Inlet, the subtidal video transect

lines, and 48 sites where still photos were taken from the video recordings for further analysis. Still photos

from the video recordings have been included in Appendix A.

2.2 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT SITE

The wharf is located along the south shore of Burrard Inlet immediately west of the Ironworkers Memorial

Bridge (Figure 1). The site is located on Port of Vancouver property and must be accessed through an

abandoned parking lot accessible from Commissioner Street. An estimated 70% of the site is currently

paved (the site entrance and parking lot), with the remainder of the upland area consisting of compacted

soil, loose gravel and vegetated areas. The upland portion of the site is located at the base of a hill, is

comprised generally of foreshore fill, and gradually slopes to the northeast. A concrete dock on concrete

piles (the old Prince Rupert Fisherman’s Cooperative Association Building) extends over the intertidal and

shallow subtidal zones.

The existing wharf is situated in a small bay, approximately 250 m wide. Land use around the bay

includes both industrial and recreational. A small spit to the west is used as for storage of shipping

containers. To the east, a paved lot provides parking for transport trucks. Further east, New Brighton Park

provides public beach access to Burrard Inlet (Figure 1).

1 Substrate classifications used throughout this report are defined as follows (Wentworth 1922): Sand (0.0625 – 2.0 mm),

granule (2.0 – 4.0 mm), pebble (4.0 – 64.0 mm), cobble (64.0 – 265 mm), and boulder (256.0 – 4096 mm).

Path: O:\!1900\1912\001\01\map\Fig1__1912_001_01_SamplingLocations_160715.mxd

P rod uction Date : Jul 18, 2016P age S ize : 11" x 17"

1912-001.01 Figure 1

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N

1. This m ap is not inte nd e d to be a “stand-alone ” d oc um e nt, but a visual aidof the information c ontaine d within the re fe re nc e d R e port. It is inte nd e d tobe use d in c onjunc tion with the sc ope of se rvic e s and lim itations d e scribe dthe re in.

- Ae rial Im age : City of Vanc ouve r 2015 Orthophoto Im age ry- Inse t Base m ap: ES R I World Light Gray Canvas Base

1 23

456

8

9

10

11

12

131415

1617

18

1920

2122

23

24

252627282930

31 3233343536,37,38 39 40414243

44

4546

47

48

7

We ste rn Canada MarineR e sponse Corporation

Note s

S ourc e s

Aquatic Sampling Locations

2800 Com m issione r S tre e tAq uatic Biophysical S urve y

Vanc ouve rHarbour

Ironworkers Memorial Bridge

Hastings S t.

Dollarton HwyLow Le ve l R d

Nanaimo St

2800Com m issione rS t.

0 250 500 750Me te rs

Le ge nd

1:1,0000 10 20 30

Me tre s

S am pling P ointTranse c t

Com m issione r S tre e t


2.3 DETAILED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT SITE

2.3.1 Intertidal Zone

The study site is characterized by a moderately steep sloping intertidal zone with highly disturbed

vegetation in the immediate backshore. West of the wharf, the high to mid intertidal zone is typified by the

presence of boulder sized rip rap, which transitions to a mixture of finer substrates (sand and pebbles) in

the low intertidal zone. On the far west end of the bay, rip rap is present from the high intertidal through to

the subtidal zone (Photo 1). East of the wharf, the rip rap shoreline exhibits a much steeper slope,

continuing through the intertidal zone to the subtidal zone where it is underlain by a mixture of pebble and

cobble substrates. A small sand and gravel beach is present on the east end of the bay. This area

exhibits a more gradual slope into the subtidal zone (Photo 1). The shoreline below the wharf is steep

and characterized by a mixture of rip rap and cobble (Photo 1). Much of the rip rap along the shoreline

comprises large pieces of recycled concrete (Photo 3).


Photo 1 Intertidal zone a) west of the wharf, b) east of the wharf, and c) under the wharf.

A

B

C


2.3.2 Subtidal Zone

Subtidal substrates within the study area exhibited little variation with depth. Along the perimeter of the

existing wharf, between 0 m CD to 7.5 m CD, substrates were typically pebbles mixed with sand and shell

fragments (Photo 2a). Small boulders were also present to the east of the wharf. Further offshore,

substrates transition to a pebble/cobble mixture with slightly less sand and shell fragments (between 10 to

15 m CD) (Photo 2b). Patches of surficial organic matter comprised of detritus and small woody debris

were observed north of the water at approximately 15 m CD depths (Photo 2c).

Photo 2 Subtidal substrate at the Commissioner Street survey site at approximately a) < 5 m CD, b) 10 m CD, and c) 15 m CD. Note c) fine organic (stick and detritus) layer overtop cobble substrate.

A A

B B

C


2.4 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

2.4.1 Intertidal Zone

The high intertidal zone sustained little macroalgae and invertebrate coverage. The mid intertidal

exhibited highest microalgae coverage, with a mixture of brown (Fucus sp.) and green algae (sea lettuce,

Ulva lactuca) and a combined coverage of nearly 100% in most areas along the shoreline. The highest

density of invertebrates was also observed within this range and was dominated by acorn barnacles

(Balanus glandula) (Photo 3). West of the wharf, the low intertidal zone exhibited little algae and

invertebrate coverage. Substrates in this area consisted largely of sand and pebbles, neither of which

provide ideal surfaces for attachment of sessile invertebrates or macroalgae. East of the wharf, the low

intertidal zone was dominated by rockweed, sea lettuce, and acorn barnacles (Photo 3). Higher areal

coverage to the east is due to the presence of larger substrates (rip rap) from the high intertidal zone

through to the subtidal zone for much of this portion of shoreline (Photo 3). Below the wharf, much of the

intertidal substrate was bare of macroalgae, likely in response to low light conditions. Acorn barnacles

were observed at moderate coverage classes (Photo 3). Incidental observations during the site

assessment included two Northwestern crows (Corvus caurinus), a bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), and a variety of unidentified gulls (Larus sp.).


Photo 3 Marine intertidal organism assemblages a) west of the existing wharf, b) east of the existing wharf , and c) below the existing wharf at the study site.

A

B

C


2.4.2 Subtidal Zone

The subtidal zone slopes gradually from the steep intertidal shoreline, giving rise to an assortment of

invertebrate and algae. Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) was the most prominent subtidal macroaglae

species observed, where it dominates the shallow subtidal zone (< 5 m CD) around much of the bay. Bull

kelp was not observed below or north of the wharf. Interspersed throughout the kelp beds, particularly

adjacent to the existing wharf, various brown and green algae species were also observed, namely sea

lettuce (Ulva lactuca), fringed sea colander kelp (Agarum fimbriatum), and sea sorrel (Desmarestia

aculeata) (Photo 4). Macroalgae species observed would provide canopy and understory habitat for

marine fish and invertebrate species.

Photo 4 Subtidal macroalgae observed at the study site, including a) bull kelp, b) fringed sea colander kelp and sea sorrel, c) unidentified brown algae, and d) sea lettuce.

Invertebrates observed in the subtidal zone were associated with hard substrates or artificial structures

such as the wharf pilings. Red rock crab (Cancer productus) were the most common marine invertebrate

observed in the shallow subtidal zone (< 10 m CD), often in association with seaweeds (Photo 5). Two

sea star species (Dermasterias imbricate and Luidia foliolata) were observed adjacent to the wharf

(Photo 5). A cluster of 5-6 white-plumed anemones (Metridium farcimen) were observed attached to a

pile on the north side of the wharf (Photo 5). A cluster of northern feather duster worms (Eudistylia

vancouveri) were observed adjacent to the wharf, along its north face (Photo 5). Incidental observations

in the subtidal zone included an unidentified sculpin (Family Cottidae), several unidentified fish species,

and multiple moon jellyfish (Aurelia labiate) and sea gooseberries (Pleurobrachia bachei).


Photo 5 Subtidal marine organisms observed at the study site, including a) red rock crab, b) leather star, c) northern feather duster worms, d) white-plumed anemones, and e) sand star.

2.5 SENSITIVE HABITAT AND MARINE ECOLOGY

Sensitive habitat observed at the study site included a community of bull kelp that dominated the shallow

subtidal zone along much of the shoreline (Photo 6; Figure 2). Bull kelp is a large, canopy-forming

species characterized by large air bladders or pneumatocysts. It is common in nearshore habitats

throughout BC and provides a complex habitat structure for fish that can support commercial,

recreational, and aboriginal (CRA) fisheries, such as salmon, rockfish, and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus),

as well as invertebrates, marine mammals, and marine birds (Berry et al. 2001). Bull kelp influences

the coastal environment by modifying hydrodynamics and contributing to secondary productivity

(DFO et al. 2012).


Habitat conditions in Burrard Inlet are not ideal for red rock crabs, although they are encountered

occasionally (DFO 2010, Golder 2007). Subtidal surveys conducted at seven locations in Burrard Inlet

captured three red rock crab occurrences, all at a single site near the mouth of the Indian Arm (Enkon

Environmental 2015). A separate survey documented a red rock crab occurrence at a location east of

Port Moody Narrow (Nautilus Environmental 2009). Rocky substrates and bull kelp likely provide

important habitat for red rock crabs within the study area. Though none were document during the survey,

Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) are common in Burrard Inlet year-round (DFO 2014).

Flatfish, including commercially important species such as halibut, flounder, place, and sole, are widely

distributed along the western coast of North America (Kramer et al. 1995, McCain et al. 2005) and are

important predators in marine and estuarine ecosystems. Starry flounder is among the most common

flatfish species in Burrard Inlet (Enkon Environmental Limited 2015), where they prefer muddy and sandy

substrates (Eschmeyer et al. 1983, Kramer et al. 1995). Trawl surveys conducted throughout the Inlet in

2005 and 2012 identified starry flounder in both the Outer, Inner, and Central Harbours, as well as in the

Port Moody Arm, with highest densities in the Outer Harbour (Enkon Environmental Limited 2015,

Nautilus Environmental 2007). Though flatfish were not observed during this survey, fine grained

substrates within the study area would be suitable for flatfish foraging or refuge.

The Capilano and Seymour watersheds provide important habitat for four of the five species of Pacific

salmon, including chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), pink (O. gorbuscha), and

chum (O. keta), as well as steelhead (O. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (O. clarkii) (Metro Vancouver 2014).

Adult salmon have been documented as far east as Port Moody Arm, using creeks such as Mossom and

Noons (Greenbank et al. 2001). Of the Pacific salmon documented in Port Moody Arm, chum are the

most abundant and have been documented extensively in Mossom Creek (Greenbank et al. 2001).

Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and Cutthroat trout have also been documented in Port Moody Arm and

its tributaries, but in lesser numbers (Greenbank et al. 2001). Juvenile salmonids would be expected to

utilize nearshore marine habitats near the Project site, including bull kelp beds and rocky shorelines for

rearing and during outmigration.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/aquatic-aquatique/red-rock-crab-tourteau-rouge-pac-eng.htm


Photo 6 Bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) beds observed at the study site east of the existing wharf. Bull kelp was observed through much of the bay between the shallow subtidal and ~5 m CD, with the exception of under the existing wharf.

Path: O:\!1900\1912\001\01\map\Fig2__1912_001_01_BullKelp.mxd

Production Date: Jul 18, 2016Pa ge Size: 11" x 17"

1912-001.01 Figure 2

N AD 1983 UTM Zon e 10N

1. This m ap is n ot in ten ded to b e a “sta n d-a lon e” docum en t, b ut a visua l a idof the in form ation con ta in ed within the referen ced Report. It is in ten ded tob e used in con jun ction with the scope of services a n d lim itation s describ edtherein .

- Aeria l Im a ge: City of V a n couver 2015 O rthophoto Im a gery- In set Basem ap: ESRI W orld Light Gra y Ca n va s Base- Referen ce M a p: M offatt & N ichol, GN -100 Revision F

W estern Ca n a da M a rin eRespon se Corporation

N otes

Sources

Bull Kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) Occurrence within Study Site

2800 Com m ission er StreetAquatic Biophysica l Survey

V a n couverHarb our

Ironworkers Memorial Bridge

Hastin gs St.

Dollarton HwyLow Level Rd

Nanaimo St

2800Com m ission erSt.

0 250 500 750M eters

Legen d

1:7000 5 10 15

M etres

Bull Kelp(Nereocystis luetkeana)


3.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

3.1 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Physical characteristics of the marine environment can be adversely affected by overwater structures

such as docks and floats. The modification of bottom substrates through removal of existing overwater

structures and the installation of new overwater structures has the potential to result in serious harm to

fish and fish habitat through a reduction of available habitat (e.g., converting soft substrate to hard

substrate), and changes to overall habitat quality (e.g., light penetration, noise generation, and water

quality). Specifically, potential impacts of the proposed Project on fish and fish habitat within the study

area include:

1. Avoidance of near shore habitat by marine fish including out-migrating juvenile Pacific salmon

due to an increase in overwater structures;

2. Avoidance of near shore habitat by marine fish including out-migrating juvenile salmon due to an

increase in underwater noise levels associated with both construction and operational activities.

Extreme underwater noise levels, typically associated with pulsed events such as pile driving,

have the potential to result in physical injury or mortality of fish.

3. Increased mobilization and movement of fine marine bottom sediments during construction

activities, resulting in increased turbidity and potentially impacting marine fish or smothering

sessile invertebrates;

4. Increased level of contaminants entering the marine environment from both in-water and land-

based Project activities (e.g., increase vessel traffic near the wharf and an increase in

impermeable surface area upland of the study site); and

5. Direct mortality as a result of project related increases in underwater noise during the Project’s

construction phase.

3.1.1 Changes to Habitat Quantity

WCMRC proposes to construct a new operational spill response base off the north face of an existing

wharf at Commissioner Street. Proposed new structures would include an off-shore berthing facility,

including an access float and a pedestrian access gangway connecting to the existing dock structure.

Both structures would reduce penetration of natural light to the seafloor, and potentially impair primary

production and the growth of habitat forming subtidal species such as bull kelp and other macroalgae. In

turn, overwater structures may illicit avoidance behaviours for nearshore habitat using fishes, in particular

out-migrating juvenile salmon, potentially displacing them further from the shore and increasing risk of

predation.


Bull kelp was noted as the primary habitat forming species, dominating much of the shallow subtidal zone

(< 5 m CD) within the proposed Project site (Figure 2). However, bull kelp was absent below and along

the north face of the existing wharf – the location of the proposed floating structures. Other high value fish

habitat was not observed on the north side of the existing wharf. It is anticipated that the proposed project

will not result in the permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.

It should be noted that the installation of new piles, as part of the proposed Project, is likely to result in a

long-term increase in habitat value at this site. New piles will provide additional surfaces for attachment of

sessile invertebrates (sea stars, anemones, feather worms, etc.) and macroalgae, which will in turn

provide additional habitat for marine fish. Furthermore, the addition of a small amount of rock riprap may

increase habitat value of the shoreline adjacent to the proposed Project.

3.1.2 Changes to Habitat Quality

The construction phase of the proposed Project will include the installation of guide piles along the access

float as well as mooring dolphin piles. The installation of piles may cause temporary physical disturbance

and noise from construction activities, such as pile driving. Effects to fish can include auditory tissue

damage or temporary hearing loss if exposed to low levels of sound for relatively long periods of time or

exposed to high levels of sound for shorter periods during pile driving operations. Indirect effects of

hearing loss in fish may result in reduced fitness, which may increase vulnerability to predation and in

turn, reduced predation success, communication or sensing the physical environment. Direct effects to

fish may also include mortality in extreme cases, if increases in underwater noise are not properly

mitigated.

During pile driving, fine bottom sediments will likely be mobilized into the water column. While this may

affect the sessile organisms colonizing the area through impeded feeding, reduced light penetration, and

even smothering, effects will be temporary and of very small scale. The sensitive bull kelp habitat

identified along the shallow subtidal zone within the bay is not expected to be affected by construction

works.

The proposed Project has the potential to result in an increased influx of contaminants into the marine

environment during its operational phase. The proposed increase in backshore paved areas from

compacted soil to asphalt, including vehicle parking areas, would increase impermeable surfaces

adjacent to the marine environment. This would increase the potential for storm water to discharge

directly to the marine environment, carrying any of the contaminants which may have collected on the

hard surface from parked vehicles or day to day upland operations. Daily vessel and other marine

operations would increase the potential for spills and leaks directly into the aquatic environment.


4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES

The proposed recommendations presented here are intended to address and mitigate potential adverse

effects of the proposed Project on marine fish habitat at Commissioner Street.

4.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

All construction, operation and maintenance activities in water or on intertidal areas should be

timed to occur within reduced risk work windows to avoid or limit possible adverse effects on

protected species and forage fish during sensitive life history stages (e.g., reproduction,

migration).

▫ Summer work window: N/A

▫ Winter work window: August 16 - February 28

A number of available Best Practices and Operational Statements are available and should be

observed to guide works that may affect fish habitat (see Section 4.2).

4.2 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL FOR SERIOUS HARM TO FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Adhere to the “Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations – BC Marine

and Pile Driving Contractors Association” (BC Marine and Pile Driving Association Contractors

2003).

▫ If pile driving does occur, environmental monitoring of underwater noise levels should be

undertaken to ensure levels potentially harmful to fish or marine mammals are not occurring.

▫ If pile driving does occur, a marine mammal observer should be employed to observe for the

presence of marine mammals and to ensure work stoppages for pile driving when marine

mammals are within a 1km radius of pile driving operations.

▫ According to Best Management Practices (BMPs), an exclusion device such as protective

netting or geotextile material suspended in the water column around the pile driving area may

be required to prevent access to fish and other marine fauna.

▫ Installation of a bubble curtain around pile driving activities may also be required if maximum

thresholds are exceeded.

All machinery working in the nearshore must be free of contaminants and be in good working

order and a spill kit should be maintained on site.

Appropriate sediment control measures, including use of silt curtains if necessary, should be in

place during pile driving activities.

If these mitigation measures are implemented it is unlikely that residual adverse effects (effects remaining

after mitigation), relating to increases in underwater noise or turbidity, will result from general construction

and operation of the Project.


4.3 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF OVERWATER STRUCTURES ON MARINE HABITAT

Floating structures should not rest on bottom substrate.

The portions of piers, elevated docks and walk ways that are over nearshore or littoral areas

should incorporate the use of grating or reflective panels to maximize light penetration to the

bottom.

With the adoption of the mitigation measures laid out here this project is not likely to result in adverse

residual effects to marine and fish habitat from overwater structures.

4.4 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES RELATING TO MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY

Materials used in the construction and operation of marina development should not result in

contaminant or debris entering the water.

BMPs will be employed during the proposed Project’s design and operational phase to reduce the

risk of contaminated water runoff from paved areas into the surrounding marine environment.

Practices include installing oil water separators in the parking area and designing parking lot

grading to direct water away from the shoreline.

BMPs will be employed during the proposed Project’s operational phase to reduce the risk of

spills/leaks from vessels and secondary equipment. Practices include:

▫ All machinery containing fuel shall be within secondary containment as well as fuel containers

such as jerry cans;

▫ Refueling shall be conducted with absorbent pads on hand and done in such a way that

contaminants do not enter any drainage, groundwater or water bodies;

▫ A Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan shall be developed; and

▫ All vessels and equipment shall be kept clean and in working order to reduce risk of spills and

leaks into the marine environment.

Any concrete work should follow the “Guide to the Code of Practice for the BC Concrete and

Concrete Products Industry – Version 6”, particularly Chapter 7 – Authorized Discharge: Effluent

and Surface and Marine Water Quality (Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. 1993).

If these mitigation measures are implemented the Project is not likely to result in adverse residual effects

to water quality.


5.0 DFO AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS

Under the Fisheries Act, proponents are responsible for avoiding and mitigating serious harm to fish that

are part of or support commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries:

35. (1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to

fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a

fishery (DFO 2012).

Serious harm to fish is defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction

of, fish habitat”. Only when proponents are unable to completely avoid or mitigate serious harm to

fish will projects require authorization under section 35 (2) of the Fisheries Act in order for the

project to proceed (DFO 2012).

The Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013) defines serious harm to fish as:

The death of a fish;

A permanent alteration to fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration or intensity that limits or

diminishes the ability of fish to use such habitats as spawning grounds, or as nursey, rearing, or

food supply areas, or a mitigation corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of

their life processes;

The destruction of fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration, or intensity that fish can no longer

reply upon such habitats for use as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply

areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one of more of their life

processes.

Construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in residual Serious Harm to

fish provided that the recommended mitigation measures are applied. Therefore, a Fisheries Act

Authorization is not required for the Project.


6.0 CONCLUSION

Modification of existing wharf structures and construction of new overwater structures will cause

temporary and small scale disruptions to fish habitat at the Project Site. Bull kelp beds were the only

sensitive habitat observed at the site and Project design will mitigate any potential effects to bull kelp fish

habitat. With implementation of the mitigation measures described herein, no residual adverse effects

from the proposed Project are likely to result. Serious Harm to fish that are part of a commercial,

recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fishery, or fish that support such a fishery is not expected with

implementation of the mitigation measures described herein. A Fisheries Act Authorization (FAA) is not

required for the project.

7.0 CLOSURE

This Work was performed in accordance with Professional Services Agreement between Hemmera

Envirochem Inc. (Hemmera) and Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC or “Client”),

dated March 21st, 2016 (Contract). This Report has been prepared by Hemmera, based on fieldwork

conducted by Hemmera, for sole benefit and use by WCMRC and VFPA. In performing this Work,

Hemmera has relied in good faith on information provided by others, and has assumed that the

information provided by those individuals is both complete and accurate. This Work was performed to

current industry standard practice for similar environmental work, within the relevant jurisdiction and same

locale. The findings presented herein should be considered within the context of the scope of work and

project terms of reference; further, the findings are time sensitive and are considered valid only at the

time the Report was produced. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are

based upon the applicable guidelines, regulations, and legislation existing at the time the Report was

produced; any changes in the regulatory regime may alter the conclusions and/or recommendations.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to have assisted you with this project and if there are any

questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned by phone at 604.669.0424.

Report prepared by: Report peer reviewed by: Hemmera Envirochem Inc. Hemmera Envirochem Inc.

Jeremy Corbin, B.Sc., MMM Scott Northrup, R.P.Bio., P.Biol. Marine Biologist Senior Marine Biologist


8.0 LITERATURE CITED

Berry, H., A. Sewell, and B. Van Wagenen. 2001. Temporal trends in the areal extent of canopy-forming

kelp beds along the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Washington’s outer coast. Puget Sound Research

conference 2001 abstract. Available at

http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/people/carr/publications/Nereo-

lit/Nereo%20grey%20lit%20PDFs/Berry%202001.pdf.

Enkon Environmental Limited. 2015. Burrard Inlet Ambient Monitoring Program - 2012 Biota Monitoring.

Final Report prepared for Metro Vancouver.

Eschmeyer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Hamann. 1983. A Field Guide to Pacific Coast Fishes of North

America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Fisheries and Oceans Canda. 2004. Marine Foreshore Environmental Assessment Procedure. Page 4.

Nanaimo, B.C.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010. Aquatic Species - Details for Red Rock Crab. Available at

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/aquatic-aquatique/red-rock-crab-tourteau-rouge-pac-

eng.htm.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2014. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, Crab

by Trap January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan,

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Available at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-

gp/mplans/2014/crab-crabe-2014-eng.pdf.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment Canada (EC), and Canadian Transportation Agency

(CTA). 2012. Comprehensive Study Report pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Act for the proposed Fairview Terminal Phase II Expansion Project in Prince Rupert, British

Columbia. Proposed by Prince Rupert Port Authority and Canadian National Railway Company

(CN); Prepared by DFO, EC, and CTA. Available at http://legacy.rupertport.com/media/fairview-

terminal-phase-ii-comprehensive-study-report-en.pdf.

Golder Associates Ltd. 2007. Burrard Inlet Shoreline Inventory 2007 Canexus Ltd. Chloro-alkali Plant,

North Vancouver, BC. Prepared for Canexus Chemicals Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.

Greenbank, J.D., S.L. Rendek, and I.K. Birtwell. 2001. Salmonid migration in tributaries of Port Moody

Arm, Burrard Inlet, BC. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2557: 47 p.


Kramer, D. E., W. H. Barss, B. C. Paust, and B. E. Bracken. 1995. Northeast Pacific Flatfishes. Marine

Advisory Bulletin 47, Alaska Sea Grant College Program and Alaska Fisheries Development

Foundation.

McCain, B. B., S. D. Miller, and W. W. L. Cheung. 2005. Life History, Geographical Distribution, and

Habitat Associations of 82 West Coast Groundfish Species: a Literature Review. Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish

Fishery, Appendix B, Part 2, Groundfish Life History Descriptions, Pacific Fishery Management

Council, Portland, OR.

Metro Vancouver. 2014. Annual Update on Fisheries Initiatives in the Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam

Watersheds. Available at

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/WaterPublications/AnnualUpdateOnFisheriesInitia

tives-CapilanoSeymourAndCoquitlam.pdf.

Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd. 1993. Ready Mix Concrete Industry – Environmental Code of Practice.

Prepared by Envirochem Special Projects Inc. for Conservation and Protection, Environment

Canada, North Vancouver, BC. Available at http://www.bcrmca.ca/media/9326.pdf.

Nautilus Environmental. 2009. Metro Vancouver Ambient Burrard Inlet Monitoring Program Fish Health

Survey - 2007 Monitoring Program. Final Report prepared for Metro Vancouver.

Wentworth, C. K. 1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. The Journal of

Geology, 30(5), 377-392.

ATTACHMENT 1

Drawing GN-100

EPLAN 16178(POSTING PLAN LMP29013)

COMMISIONER STREET

(PRIVATE ROAD)

SRW PLAN 13285

-12.50

-10.00

-7.50

-5.00

-2.50

0.00

2.50

5.00

-8.00

-8.50

GN-100

PR

OP

OS

ED

OV

ER

ALL

SIT

E P

LAN

WC

MR

CR

ES

PO

NS

E B

AS

E P

LAN

NIN

G

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

21 3 4 5

21 3 4 5

ATTACHMENT 2

Drawing S-200

-12.50

-10.00

-7.50

-5.00

-8.00

-8.50

S-200

GE

NE

RA

L A

RR

AN

GE

ME

NT

WC

MR

CR

ES

PO

NS

E B

AS

E P

LAN

NIN

G

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

21 3 4 5

21 3 4 5

APPENDIX A

Biophysical Observation Photos

Commissioner Street Wharf APPENDIX A Hemmera Aquatic Effects Assessment – Appendix A - 1 - September 2016

Photo 1

Photo 2


Photo 3

Photo 4


Photo 5

Photo 6


Photo 7

Photo 8


Photo 9

Photo 10


Photo 11

Photo 12


Photo 13

Photo 15


Photo 14

Photo 16


Photo 17

Photo 19


Photo 18

Photo 20


Photo 21

Photo 23


Photo 22

Photo 24


Photo 25

Photo 26


Photo 27

Photo 28


Photo 29

Photo 30


Photo 31

Photo 32


Photo 33

Photo 34


Photo 35

Photo 36


Photo 37

Photo 38


Photo 39

Photo 40


Photo 41

Photo 42


Photo 43

Photo 44


Photo 45

Photo 46


Photo 47

Photo 48

Aquatic Effects Assessment: Vancouver Harbour Response Base 2800 Commissioner Street WharfTable of Contents1.0 Introduction1.1 Study Objectives

2.0 Description of the Aquatic Environment2.1 Study Methodology2.2 General Characteristics of Project Site2.3 Detailed Physical Characteristics of the Project Site2.3.1 Intertidal Zone2.3.2 Subtidal Zone

2.4 Biological Characteristics2.4.1 Intertidal Zone2.4.2 Subtidal Zone

2.5 Sensitive Habitat and Marine Ecology

3.0 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project3.1 Effects of Proposed Project in the Marine Environment3.1.1 Changes to Habitat Quantity3.1.2 Changes to Habitat Quality

4.0 Mitigation Measures4.1 Recommended Strategies for General Construction and Operation4.2 Recommended Strategies to Mitigate Potential for Serious Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat4.3 Recommended Strategies to Mitigate Potential Adverse Effects of Overwater Structures on Marine Habitat4.4 Recommended Strategies Relating to Mitigation of Potential Adverse Effects on Water Quality

5.0 DFO Authorization Requirements6.0 Conclusion7.0 Closure8.0 Literature Cited

ATTACHMENT 1: Drawing GN-100ATTACHMENT 2: Drawing S-200APPENDIX A: Biophysical Observation Photos

Documents

Aquatic Effects Assessment: Vancouver Harbour Response ... · 10/11/2016 · File: 1912-001.01 Western Canada Marine Response Corporation 201 Kensington Ave. Burnaby, BC V5B 4B2