Marine Habitat Assessment for the Canadian Coast Guard

Marine Habitat Assessment for the Canadian Coast Guard Victoria

SAR Float

Camel Point, Victoria Harbour

January 2020

DRAFT

Prepared for: Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Coast Guard Don Storry, Project Engineer Suite 200 – 401 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3S4

Prepared by: Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 525 Head Street Victoria, BC V9A 5S1 Canada

Telephone: +1 250 383 4535 [email protected] www.archipelago.ca

www.archipelago.ca

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.archipelago.ca/

Marine Habitat Assessment Camel Point CCG Victoria SAR Float January 2020

ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. Page 2

Statement of Limitations Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. (Archipelago) prepared this report for the sole benefit of, and exclusive use by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – Canadian Coast Guard. The material in this report reflects Archipelago’s best judgment considering the information available at the time of preparing this report. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decision based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Archipelago 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.

Archipelago 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 Archipelago within the established scope, work schedule and budget. In preparing this report, Archipelago 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. Archipelago accepts no responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy in this report resulting from the information provided by those individuals.

Document History:

Version Date Author Distribution/Notes Draft 1.0 January 17, 2020 Gina Lemieux

Desiree Bulger Rachel Myers Jennifer Tyler

Internal review: Brian Emmett

Draft 2.0 January 21, 2020 Gina Lemieux Desiree Bulger

External review: Don Storry, DFO/CCG

Final January 29, 2020



Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

2 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Abutment ...................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Ramp ............................................................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Float .............................................................................................................................................. 9

2.4 Wave Fence ................................................................................................................................... 9

3 Desktop Review and Survey Methods ........................................................................... 11

3.1 Desktop Review ........................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Surveys ........................................................................................................................................ 12

3.2.1 Intertidal Foot Survey ............................................................................................................ 12

3.2.2 Subtidal Towed Video Survey ................................................................................................ 15

3.2.3 Dive Surveys .......................................................................................................................... 15

4 Results ......................................................................................................................... 18

4.1 Intertidal Foot Survey ................................................................................................................. 18

4.2 Subtidal Survey ........................................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 Physical Features ................................................................................................................... 19

4.2.2 Biological Features ................................................................................................................ 24

4.3 Phase 1 Abalone Survey .............................................................................................................. 33

4.4 Phase 2 Abalone Survey .............................................................................................................. 37

5 Marine Setting and Biophysical Characterization ........................................................... 38

5.1 Transitory Non-Listed and Listed Species ................................................................................... 44

5.2 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Abalone Surveys ........................................................................................ 45

6 Potential Project-Related Effects ................................................................................... 47

6.1 Shading of Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 47

6.2 Direct Physical Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 53

6.2.1 Barge Spud Placement .......................................................................................................... 53

6.2.2 Pile Placement ....................................................................................................................... 54

6.3 Pile Installation Underwater Noise ............................................................................................. 55

6.4 Lighting and Shading Effects on Fish ........................................................................................... 56



7 Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices .................................................. 58

8 Residual Effects Assessment and Summary ................................................................... 69

8.1 Shading of Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 71

8.2 Direct Physical Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 72

8.2.1 Barge Spud Placement .......................................................................................................... 72

8.2.2 Pile Placement ....................................................................................................................... 72

8.3 Pile Installation Underwater Noise ............................................................................................. 72

8.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 72

9 References ................................................................................................................... 74

Appendix A: Biophysical Transect Data ................................................................................ 77

Appendix B: Towed Video Physical and Biological Classification Categories .......................... 94

Appendix C: Phase 1 Abalone Survey Datasheets ................................................................. 98

Appendix D: Phase 2 Abalone Survey Datasheets ............................................................... 100



List of Figures

Figure 1. Project location and components at the Canadian Coast Guard Victoria - Camel Point. .............. 7

Figure 2. Biophysical survey transects (intertidal and dive surveys) and towed underwater video survey

transects. ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3. Phase 1 and Phase 2 abalone dive survey area and transects. .................................................... 17

Figure 4. Substrate (left) and sediment class (right) observations from the towed video survey. ............ 21

Figure 5. Percent cover of boulder (left) and cobble (right) observations from the towed video survey. 22

Figure 6. Percent cover of pebble (left) and anthropogenic debris (right) observations from the towed

video survey. ............................................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 7. Percent cover of bladed kelp, Japanese wireweed (left) and green algae (right) observations

from the towed video survey. ..................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 8. Percent cover of red algae (left) and diatom (right) observations from the towed video survey.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 9. Eelgrass (left) and invertebrates (right) observations from the towed video survey. ................. 28

Figure 10. Suitable abalone habitat area delineated from Phase 1 abalone survey results. ..................... 34

Figure 11. Eelgrass perimeters and cover in 2018 (left) and 2012 (right) (Archipelago 2013). .................. 40

Figure 12.Comparison between eelgrass bed surveyed in 2012 and 2018. ............................................... 41

Figure 13. Cumulative herring spawn for Section 193 Victoria Harbour from 1931 to 1972 around the

project area.. ............................................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 14. Critical habitat for southern and northern resident killer whales (Ford et. al 2017). ............... 45

Figure 15. Eelgrass bed delineated in 2018. The main eelgrass bed is estimated at 965 m2 without 3 m

buffer and 1,543 m2 with 3 m buffer.. ........................................................................................................ 50

List of Photo Plates

Photo Plate 1. Photographic documentation of the towed video survey. ................................................. 29

Photo Plate 2. Photographic documentation of biophysical dive survey. .................................................. 30

Photo Plate 3. Photographic documentation of the Phase 1 abalone survey. ........................................... 35

List of Tables

Table 1 Summary of intertidal and dive survey transects. ......................................................................... 13

Table 2. Summary of marine habitat types and overlapping project component footprint areas. ........... 48

Table 3. Summary of estimated area of the abutment, ramp, float, wave fence and vessels overlapping

with attached and drift bladed kelps and mixed red/green algae and wireweed. .................................... 51

Table 4. Summary of project component overlap with marine habitat features related to shading effects.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Table 5. Criteria for the characterization of residual effects for the proposed abutment, ramp, float, and

wave fence. ................................................................................................................................................. 69

Table 6. Summary of potential project-related effects, mitigation measures and BMPs, and resultant

residual effects associated with the proposed abutment, ramp, float, and wave fence. .......................... 70



1 Introduction The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) is undertaking a project to construct a wave-protected float on the south side of the CCG Victoria base at Camel Point in Victoria Harbour (Figure 1). The new float will provide moorage for lifeboat and Search and Rescue (SAR) vessels and will include an abutment, elevated ramp, float and wave fence (wave attenuator) for protection.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Canadian Coast Guard) contracted Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. (Archipelago) to:

1. Conduct intertidal and subtidal towed underwater video and dive surveys to characterize and map the marine biophysical features within the project footprint and surrounding area;

2. Identify sensitive or valued habitats or species, including listed species;

3. Conduct a Phase 1 abalone dive survey to establish and delineate the area of Northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) habitat present in the project area and a Phase 2 abalone dive survey to assess the abalone density at the site; and

4. Identify potential environmental constraints and impacts resulting from the project location and design, as well as from construction and operation.

The results of the above are summarized in this report as a marine habitat assessment for the project. The report will be submitted as supporting documentation to the Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Project Review application.



Figure 1. Project location and components at the Canadian Coast Guard Victoria - Camel Point.

D-Jetty



2 Project Description The following project description is based on the project design drawings and specifications with the most recent November 29, 2019 revisions. The project components consist of an abutment, elevated ramp, float and wave fence. Key details of each project component are summarized below. Specific details can be found in the above noted project design information package, which is provided as a separate document to this report.

Project works are proposed to start in April 2020 and end in November 2020. Within this eight month period, six months of pile installation is anticipated, as it involves drilling piles into bedrock and installing concrete rock sockets; however, project dates and duration will be dependent on the selected contractor’s methodology. Key equipment and machinery that will be used on site includes: pile driving/crane barge, material supply barge, support tugs, mobile concrete batching plant, concrete delivery/mixing trucks, lifting crane for handling of steel piles and sheet pile panels on the ground.

2.1 Abutment

The abutment will extend from approximately +4.6 m chart datum (CD) (higher high water mark large tide = +3.4 m CD) to approximately +1.0 m CD, and will support the landward end of the ramp. The abutment is mainly elevated with the exception of four steel piles in the intertidal zone (between approximately +2 m and +1 m CD) and a concrete foundation at approximately +4.6 m CD, which is above the higher high water mark. Dimensions will be approximately 11.6 m by 4.6 m with a total footprint of 61.5 m2, of which 41.5 m2 is below and 20 m2 is above the higher high water mark (large tide). The following materials and installation processes will be implemented during project works:

• Steel piles, reinforcement cage and concrete materials will be delivered on land using trucks, trailers and cranes.

• Four steel piles (hollow with a diameter of 610 mm and thickness of 19 mm) will be installed and filled with reinforced concrete.

• Cut-off elevation of all four piles will be +3.1 m CD.

• Superstructure will be installed on top of the piles and begin at +3.0 m CD.

The process for installation of the abutment piles will be as follows:

• Position the steel pile at correct coordinate.

• Lower and install the pile up to rock level with vibratory hammer.

• Insert the pile by 2 m into rock using rotary and vibratory hammer.

• Core the rock socket of 460 mm diameter to designed depth.

• Lower the reinforcement cage.

• Pour the infill concrete by tremie to top of the pile.

The process for installation of the abutment superstructure will be as follows:



• Prepare a base and formwork for the superstructure.

• Lay and tie reinforcement bars.

• Pour concrete and cure.

2.2 Ramp

The steel ramp will extend from the abutment to the float between approximately +1.0 m and -2.5 m CD and will be elevated above the water. The ramp consists of a painted frame and galvanized grating with 50 by 100 mm spacing. The overall dimensions will be approximately 24 m by 4.6 m (i.e. includes portions that overlap with abutment and float), while the direct overwater portion of the ramp will be approximately 20.7 m by 4.6 m with a footprint of 94.3 m2. The following materials and installation processes will be implemented during project works:

• The ramp is pre-fabricated and will be delivered by land or water.

• The ramp will be installed with a crane.

The ramp is a vehicle ramp that may be used by Emergency vehicle(s), as well as CCG pick-up trucks and/or ATVs for delivering equipment to the lifeboats and SAR vessels.

2.3 Float

The float will be located between approximately -2.5 m and -3.5 m CD and will connect to the ramp. It consists of two modules poured as one monolithic concrete pour. The concrete float is a standard float designed and constructed for previous installations by CCG and Small Craft Commercial Harbours. Dimensions will be approximately 26 m by 17 m without fenders (footprint 448 m2) and 28 m by 18.7 m with fenders (footprint 476 m2). The following materials and installation processes will be implemented during project works:

• Steel piles will be delivered by water using supply barges and crane barge.

• Three hollow steel piles (610 mm diameter x 25 mm thickness) will be installed. No anchors are anticipated.

• The float will be fitted with 23 floating fenders.

The process for installation of the float piles will be as follows:




The float is pre-fabricated and will be towed to the project site by tug.

2.4 Wave Fence

The float will be sheltered by a wave fence (wave attenuator) to reduce wave action in the moorage area. The wave fence will extend from below -3 m to approximately -5.5 m CD. It will



be comprised of three sheet pile panel walls, 16 vertical piles and 16 batter piles. The total wave fence footprint is estimated at 97.7 m2, which includes:

• Three sheet pile panel walls: 32.1 m2 (106.9 m by 0.3 m).

• 16 vertical piles and 16 batter piles (ends): 14.6 m2 (0.456 m2/pile with 0.762 m diameter).

• 16 batter piles diagonal: 43.8 m2 (3.6 m by 0.762 m diameter).

• Optional formworks: 7.25 m2 (0.25 m2 X 29 formworks).

The portion of the wave fence footprint that touches the seabed is approximately 14.6 m2, based on the 32 vertical and batter pile ends, as the sheet pile panel walls do not extend to the seabed. The following materials and installation processes will be implemented during project works:

• Steel piles, sheet pile panels, reinforcement cage and ready mixed concrete will be delivered by water using supply barges and crane barge.

• 32 hollow steel piles (16 vertical pile and 16 batter piles; 762 mm diameter x 25 mm thickness) will be installed and filled with reinforced concrete.

• Three types of sheet piles (~314 mm width) will be installed against vertical piles to compose each wall.

The overall process for the installation of the wave fence will be as follows:

• Install batter pile and rough cut as close to vertical pile installation as possible.

• Install batter pile rock socket.

• Install vertical pile.

• Install vertical pile rock socket.

• Measure and accurately trim batter pile to correct level and allowable misalignment (50 mm) at top piece splice plate.

• Install prefabricated top connection piece, splice pile and weld to vertical pile.

• Assemble fabricated sheet pile panel and install.

The process for installation of the hollow steel piles will be as follows:




• Core the rock socket of 712 mm diameter to designed depth.

• Lower the reinforcement cage.

• Pour the infill concrete by tremie up to top of the pile.



The process for installation of the sheet pile panels will be as follows:

• Transport panels to installation location offshore (by floating or with the use of supply barge).

• Construct panels using numbers of AZ12-700 sheet piles and sacrificial steel members.

• Lift panels by floating erection crane and installed at correct position.

• Secure panels against the vertical piles by welding and bolting sheets to vertical piles.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has marina design recommendations, such as dock approaches (i.e. abutment and ramp) should be less than 1 to 1.5 m wide, and floats should be limited to 3 m wide and 8 m long (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1995; 2001). However, as previously identified, the project is proposing a vehicle ramp to accommodate emergency vehicle(s), as well as CCG pick-up trucks and/or ATVs for delivering equipment to the lifeboats and SAR vessels. As a result, the abutment and ramp (i.e. dock/float approach) are both 4.6 m wide (a standard width for a steel, vehicle ramp) to allow safe passage of vehicles and personnel on and off the float. The float is meant to accommodate two class types of lifeboat that range between 14.6 m and 19 m long therefore the float dimensions are greater than 3 m wide by 8 m long (18.7 m wide by ~28 m long (including fenders)) and as previously mentioned is a standard float design used in previous installations by CCG and Small Craft Commercial Harbours.

The materials, equipment, construction and installation methods and processes summarized above are indicative (i.e. based on best available information at this stage of the design process). They will depend and may vary upon the actual methodology of the selected contractor. Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be notified of any changes to the above, including any additional proposed project works, that are considered to have potential effects on fish and fish habitat that cannot be prevented through implementation of mitigation measures or best management practices (BMPs).

3 Desktop Review and Survey Methods The marine habitat assessment of the CCG Victoria SAR project was based on a desktop review and intertidal foot survey, subtidal towed video survey and subtidal dive survey data collected at the project site.

3.1 Desktop Review

A review of existing publicly available information was conducted for the project location and adjacent surrounding area. Information was assembled to characterize known marine habitat features, marine species known to use the area, and possible migratory, refuge or spawning concentration areas.

In addition, marine species at risk or of potential conservation concern possibly occurring within the project location or vicinity were considered. The Committee on Endangered Species in Canada (COSEWIC) identifies species of potential conservation concern in Canada and assesses them as Data Deficient, Not at Risk, Special Concern, Threatened, Endangered, Extirpated or Extinct. The species may then be considered for listing under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern. Species are listed in a provincial



ranking system, typically with input based on COSEWIC’s assessment, by the BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) as Yellow (Secure, Not-at-Risk), Blue (Special Concern, at risk of becoming Threatened) or Red (Threatened or Endangered, at risk of becoming Extinct or Extirpated). For this marine habitat assessment, marine species of conservation concern include species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern under SARA or recommended for listing under COSEWIC, as well as species listed as Red or Blue by the CDC.

Data sources accessed and/or information collected and reviewed for relevance to this assessment included but are not limited to the following:

• NuSEDS-New Salmon Escapement Database System (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2018)

• Herring spawning areas of British Columbia (Hay and Carter 2013)

• Rockfish Conservation Areas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2019)

• Important Bird Areas, including Great blue heron colony areas (Bird Studies Canada 2015; Community Mapping Network 2019)

• Species at Risk Public Registry (2019)

• Conservation Data Centre (2019)

• BC Species and Ecosystem Explorer (Ministry of Environment 2019)

3.2 Surveys

Intertidal foot and subtidal towed video and dive surveys were conducted to generally describe

the biophysical features within and adjacent to the project-related footprints and to identify

any valued or sensitive1 habitat areas that may be impacted by the project footprint,

construction and/or operation of the proposed new CCG Victoria SAR float. The marine surveys

were conducted with consideration for project effects related to fish and fish habitat, marine

birds and marine mammals as protected in Canada (Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act (SARA),

Migratory Bird Convention Act, Marine Mammal Regulations).

3.2.1 Intertidal Foot Survey

An intertidal foot survey was conducted during the low tide window of December 4, 2018, which ranged between 2.5 m and 1.4 m during the time of the survey2. Three intertidal transects (T1-T3) were surveyed within the survey area (Figure 2). Transect T2 was aligned with the proposed ramp alignment.

The intertidal survey transects were positioned perpendicular to the shoreline at appropriate intervals to adequately characterize the intertidal habitats following DFO's Marine Foreshore Environmental Assessment Procedures (MFEAP) (Figure 2). Upper and lower transect positions were recorded using a handheld Garmin GPS. Measurements of slope distance and vertical

1 Valued/sensitive habitat areas are habitats that are sensitive to perturbation and/or that are valuable for feeding, rearing or nursery grounds for fish and invertebrates. 2 Based on the tidal height prediction for the Victoria Harbour Tide Station using tidal prediction software (Tides and Currents Pro).



elevation were made at changes in biota and/or substrate along each transect. Vertical elevations were measured using a survey level and surveyor’s rod and are reported relative to chart datum (CD) 3.

Qualitative observations of key biota zones such as barnacle, rockweed (Fucus sp.), red/green algae, and bladed kelps, as well as substrate, were recorded for each habitat zone 25 m on either side of the transect. Vegetation was recorded as percent cover and identified to species or species group (e.g. as summarized above). Fauna was recorded as either percent cover (for sessile invertebrates) or as an estimate of abundance (i.e., present (P), common (C) and abundant (A)) for mobile invertebrates and identified to species or lowest possible taxonomic level. Substrate was classed as bedrock, boulder, cobble, pebble, sand, and silt/mud/clay consistent with Wentworth grain size classification and recorded by percent cover range.

Supplemental information was also collected from within the intertidal zone at high tide during the biophysical dive survey and towed underwater video survey to address the data gap between 0 and +1.8 m, which was not accessible during the intertidal survey due to the available low tide at the time of the survey. The transect lengths and elevation ranges of the intertidal survey transects along with the transect lengths and elevation ranges of the dive survey transects are summarized in Table 1 below to show the overlap or coverage in the lower intertidal zone.

Table 1 Summary of intertidal and dive survey transects.

Transect

Transect Length (m) Elevation Range (m, CD)

Intertidal Survey

Dive Survey Intertidal Survey

Dive Survey

T1 (south) 7.3 53 +5.45 to +1.93 +1.5 to -3.1

T2 (middle, along ramp alignment)

10.6 54.5 +5.4 to +1.9 +1.9 to -3.2

T3 (north) 9.6 50 +5.3 to +1.8 +1.4 to -3.8

T4 (through eelgrass/float

footprint)

N/A 84 N/A -3 to -1.8

3 Elevations were corrected to chart datum (CD) for the final report based on the tidal height prediction (Victoria Harbour Tide Station) at the time of each transect using tidal prediction software (Tides and Currents Pro). Positive (+) elevations are above CD while negative (–) elevations are below CD.



Figure 2. Biophysical survey transects (intertidal and dive surveys) and towed underwater video survey transects.

D-Jetty



3.2.2 Subtidal Towed Video Survey

The marine biophysical survey consisted of a subtidal towed video survey, which used Archipelago’s Seabed Imaging and Mapping System (SIMS), consisting of a towfish that incorporates a high-resolution camera, a video recording system that burns dGPS data onto each image and records imagery digitally, and a data processing system that records dGPS fixes and the depth of the towfish at 1 second intervals.

Using Fugawi navigational software, predetermined survey tracklines spaced approximately 15 m, apart extending parallel and perpendicular to the shore with finer spacing within the eelgrass (Zostera marina) bed and within the footprint of the two float/ramp options at depths from +1.85 m to -5.75 m (CD) were followed (Figure 2). The towed video survey took place on December 9, 2018. Approximately two hours of imagery were collected and the overall length of survey tracklines was approximately 4 km (Figure 2). Due to the re-positioning of the wave fence since the December 9, 2018 subtidal towed video survey, a subsequent survey was conducted on January 22, 2020 to address the data gap created by the design change. Approximately 0.5 hours of imagery were collected and the overall length of survey tracklines was approximately 0.9 km.

Every second of imagery from both surveys was subsequently classified and interpreted by a biologist using physical and biological codes. Five percent of the imagery was unclassifiable (due to poor visibility or the towfish being off the bottom of the seabed). Locations of the classified biological and physical features were then mapped using ArcGIS 10.2.

Substrate and biological classification codes are provided in Appendix B. All depths are reported relative to chart datum CD.4

3.2.3 Dive Surveys

The dive surveys were conducted to:

1. Collect additional biophysical information in support of the towed video survey and intertidal surveys.

2. Collect Phase 1 and Phase 2 abalone surveys information.

3.2.3.1 Biophysical Dive Survey

A daytime biophysical dive survey was conducted on December 10, 2018 during a 2.7 m tide (Victoria Harbour tide station #7120). Three transects (T1-T3) extending perpendicular to shore transversed the two float/ramp footprint options and were an extension of the three intertidal transects to provide overlap and/or additional coverage in the lower intertidal zone that was not accessible during the intertidal survey. A fourth transect (T4) extended parallel to shore through the eelgrass bed and float footprint options (Figure 2). The biophysical dive survey generally followed DFO's Marine Foreshore Environmental Assessment Procedures (MFEAP). One diver recorded observations of substrate, vegetation and fauna while the other diver recorded video with an underwater video camera (Go Pro Hero 5). Substrate was classed as bedrock, boulder, cobble, pebble, sand and silt/mud/clay and recorded on a percent basis.

4 Positive (+) depths are above chart datum (CD) while negative (–) depths are below CD.



Dominant vegetation was reported as percent cover and identified to species or morphological group (e.g. red foliose algae). Dominant fauna was reported as an estimate of abundance (i.e. present (P), common (C) and abundant (A)) and identified to species or the lowest possible taxonomic level. If species listed as invasive, rare or at risk (e.g. native oyster (Ostrea conchaphila), Northern abalone) were observed they were also recorded.

The transect lengths and elevation ranges of the biophysical dive survey transects along with the transect lengths and elevation ranges of the intertidal survey transects are summarized in Table 1 to show the overlap or additional coverage in the lower intertidal zone made possible by the dive surveys.

3.2.3.2 Phase 1 Abalone Survey

A daytime Phase 1 abalone survey was conducted on December 10, 2018 during a 2.7 m tide (Victoria Harbour tide station #7120) to identify habitat suitable to abalone5 in the nearshore subtidal area shown between the pink lines in Figure 3. The survey was completed in accordance with DFO’s Impact Assessment Protocol for Works and Developments Potentially Affecting Abalone and their Habitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012, Lessard and Campbell 2006). Two divers swam parallel to shore in a zigzag pattern following the depth contours between -2 m and 0 m (CD)6,7. One diver recorded video imagery with an underwater video camera (Go Pro Hero 5) while the other diver recorded observations of substrate and the algal community (dominant species), as well as the presence/absence of abalone, sea urchins and abalone predators.

3.2.3.3 Phase 2 Abalone Survey

A Phase 2 abalone survey was conducted during the evening of December 10, 2018 during a falling tide (2.4 to 2.2 m) (Victoria Harbour tide station #7120) and was based on the results of the Phase 1 abalone survey (i.e. >20 m2 suitable abalone habitat was identified at Camel Point during the Phase 1 abalone survey, which triggers a Phase 2 abalone survey pursuant to the Impact Assessment Protocol). The Phase 2 abalone survey followed the Impact Assessment Protocol. The three transects established for the biophysical dive survey were used for the Phase 2 abalone survey, as they were situated within the identified suitable abalone habitat; however, they were surveyed from where the suitable abalone habitat started offshore between -2 m and -1.4 m and ended in the intertidal zone between +1 m and +1.9 m7,8 (Figure 3). One meter square quadrats were sampled along the length of each transect at one meter

5 Suitable abalone habitat is characterized by primary substrate (boulder, bedrock), presence of encrusting coralline red algae, kelp, sea urchins, sea stars, and presence/absence of abalone as well as other physical factors (normal salinity, good water exchange, 0 to -10 m depth (CD)). 6 All dive survey depths are relative to chart datum (CD); positive (+) depths are above CD while negative (–) depths are below CD. 7 Normally the depth contours between -10 m and 0 m (CD) are surveyed as this is the known depth range for abalone and is required by the Impact Assessment Protocol; however, the substrate seaward of -1 m to -2 m (CD) at the project site consisted of sand, shell and/or pebble, which is not suitable abalone habitat therefore it was not included in the Phase 1 or Phase 2 abalone survey. 8 The survey extended into the intertidal zone above 0 m (CD) because the transects were already established there and abalone could potentially move into shallower water during high tide so the decision was made to survey this end of the transects.



intervals and were offset one meter from the transect centerline based on the Impact Assessment Protocol (i.e. quadrats are sampled every meter on transects <20 m long). Divers recorded observations of substrate and the algal community (dominant species), as well as the presence/absence of abalone, sea urchins and abalone predators.

Figure 3. Phase 1 and Phase 2 abalone dive survey area and transects.



4 Results

4.1 Intertidal Foot Survey

The intertidal zone within the Camel Point survey area is characterized by a rip rap slope. The rip rap/fill was comprised of mostly boulders (50-100% cover) with some bedrock (0-25% cover), cobble (0-25%) and pebbles (0-25%). In T2 and T3, a man-made conglomerate was observed at moderate (0-50%) cover between +5.4 m and +1.8 m. The man-made conglomerate consisted of pebble, gravel, concrete and anthropogenic waste including cables, metals and glass bottles. The biophysical dive survey confirmed that bedrock and/or boulder continued to and extended beyond 0 m (the defined seaward boundary of the intertidal zone) on all three transects (to -1.4 m (T1), -2.1 m (T2) and -2.3 m (T3) (see Section 4.2 and Appendix A for more details)).

Backshore vegetation consisted of terrestrial grasses (5-75% cover) and unidentified thistle in T1 to T3. In addition, the backshore included anthropogenic debris such as concrete blocks, and storage for metal structures.

In the upper intertidal zone, orange seaside lichen (Caloplaca/Xanthoria sp.) was present, although in trace to low cover (<5 to 5-25%). Additionally, woody debris, drift bull kelp (Nereocystis leutkeana) and anthropogenic waste were observed. In T1, limpets (Tectura persona) were present.

From the mid intertidal zone to the water line, brown algae mainly consisted of rockweed (<+2.7 m) at low to moderate cover (5-50%) for all transects. Red algae was present in trace to low cover and included Turkish towel (Mastocarpus sp. foliose and petrocelis phase) (<5%) (T1-T3); tufted seaweed (Endocladia muricata ) (5-25%) (T1-T2); red rock crust (Hildenbrandia sp.) (<5%) (T1); and sea brush (Odonthalia sp.) (<5%) (T3). Trace to low amounts of the green algae, sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) (<5% to 5-25%) were observed on all transects predominantly in the lower intertidal zone as observed during the dive survey. Additional algal species observed during the biophysical dive survey in the mid to lower intertidal zone included mixed foliose, filamentous and branching red algae (such as Porphyra sp., Polyneura latissima, Microcladia coulteri, and Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii) at trace to moderate cover (<5% to 25-50%) as well as the red algae sea sac/dead man’s fingers (Halosaccion glandiforme) at trace cover (<5%) and the brown algae Japanese wire weed (Sargassum muticum) (a non-native, invasive species) at trace cover (<5%) (see Section 4.2 and Appendix A for more details).

Invertebrate observations from the mid intertidal zone to the waterline consisted predominately of barnacles (Balanus glandula and Chthalamus dalli), which were common to abundant in all transects (<+2.7 m) (5-50%). Other intertidal invertebrates commonly found in this zone included periwinkles (Littorina sp.) (T1 - C; T2 - C); shore crabs (Hemigrapsus sp.) (T1 – C); mussels (Mytilus sp.) (T3 – C); and limpets (Lottia digitalis) (T1 - P; T2 - C; T3 - C)9. Less common, but present were dogwhelks (Nucella sp.) (T1 - P, T2 - P); chitons (Katherina tunicata; Mopalia sp.) (T3 - P); and purple sponge (Haliclona sp.) (T3 - P). Additional invertebrate species commonly observed in the mid to lower intertidal zone during the biophysical dive survey

9 P = Present; C = Common; A = Abundant



included barnacles (Semibalanus cariosus), limpets (Tectura sp.), blue mussels (Mytilus sp.), chitons (Tonicella sp.), Pandalid shrimp, and unidentified brittlestars, tunicates and sponges. Less common, but present were hermit crabs (Pagurus sp.), kelp crabs (Pugettia sp.), helmet crabs (Telmessus cheiragonus), Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas), short plumose anemones (Metridium senile), and jingle shells (Pododesmus macrochisma) (see Section 4.2 and Appendix A for more details).

Transect profiles, photographic documentation, substrate types, percent cover of vegetation and relative abundance of invertebrates including tidal elevations for all transects are presented in Appendix A.

4.2 Subtidal Survey

Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 describe the results of the towed underwater video survey with

supplemental information from the biophysical dive survey and Phase 1 abalone survey

(Section 4.3).

4.2.1 Physical Features

The substrate (See Appendix B for substrate definitions) throughout most of the survey area consisted of sediment (which includes mud, sand, and gravel (pebble, cobble, and boulder)) or was obscured by algal vegetation, which was either drift or vegetation attached to hard substrate including bedrock, boulder, cobble, pebble and shell debris as verified by the dive survey (Figure 4). One area to the north and one area towards the northeast of the survey area were classified as bedrock, although more bedrock was observed inshore of the towed underwater video survey area during the dive surveys (predominantly at Camel Point)10.

Of the areas classified as sediment substrate, the sediment class (See Appendix B for sediment class definitions) in the nearshore area was identified as gravel11 and/or gravel (5-80%) with mud and/or sand, which transitioned to mud and/or sand at between depths below ~-2 m (Figure 4).

Boulder at high cover (50-100%) was observed at the base of the rip rap slope and was limited to around the footprint of the proposed ramp and portions of the two float options10, and in a small area at the northern extent of the survey area and in a small area at the northeastern extent of the survey area between depths of +1.6 m and -2.2 m (Figure 5). The remainder of boulder observations are in the same areas as described above at trace to moderate (<5 - 50%) cover. Mixed cobble (<5% to 50% cover) and pebble (<5% to 80% cover) occurs throughout the nearshore survey area to depths of -3.4 m with most observations occurring above -2 m (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Mixed cobble and pebble, transition to trace (<5%) pebble mixed with sand and or mud to depths of -3.1 m (Figure 6). The remainder of the survey area is characterized by mud and/or sand or the substrate was obscured by vegetation. These substrate characteristics were

10 During the Phase 1 abalone survey bedrock was observed between 0 m and – 2 m at what is known as Camel Point. Boulder and cobble were present on either side of the bedrock (approximately between 0 m and – 2 m to the northwest and between 0 m and – 1 m to the southeast). The toe of the bedrock and boulder substrate was observed between -1 m and -2 m. 11 Includes boulder, cobble and pebble.



similar to that observed and verified during the dive surveys. Shell debris was present throughout much of the survey area (unless obscured by vegetation) at trace (<5%) to moderate (30-50%) cover and consisted of fragments of cockle (Clinocardium sp.) and littleneck (Protothaca sp. or Venerupis sp.) shells on the mud/sand substrate12.

Anthropogenic debris was observed on 51 occasions and included tires, wooden pilings or logs, concrete blocks, wood debris, a PVC pipe, metal objects, cable/wire/rope and bottles or cans (Figure 6).

Physical features observed during the towed video survey are shown in Figure 4 through Figure 6. Photo documentation from the towed video survey and biophysical dive survey are presented in Photo Plate 1 and Photo Plate 2. See Appendix A for biophysical dive survey transect profiles, tabulated data and additional photos.

12 Species identified during the biophysical dive survey.



Figure 4. Substrate (left) and sediment class (right) observations from the towed video survey.



Figure 5. Percent cover of boulder (left) and cobble (right) observations from the towed video survey.



Figure 6. Percent cover of pebble (left) and anthropogenic debris (right) observations from the towed video survey.



4.2.2 Biological Features

No canopy kelps (i.e. bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana)) were observed during the towed video survey or dive surveys. Bladed kelps were observed from trace (<5%) to moderate (25-75%) cover between +1.5 m and -5.8 m over the majority of the towed video survey area with the exception of the east end of the survey area where the distribution of bladed kelp was discontinuous (Figure 7). High (>75%) cover of bladed kelp was also observed at the northwest end of the survey area at depths between -2.4 and -3.6 m and offshore from Camel Point between depths of -2.5 and- 2.7 m. As verified by the biophysical dive survey, the bladed kelp was generally unattached drift algae on the offshore mud and/or sand substrate while in the nearshore area it was attached most commonly to bedrock and boulder and to a lesser extent cobble. The dive surveys also confirmed that the majority of the bladed kelps were sugar wrack (Saccharina latissima) and five-ribbed kelp (Costaria costata). Japanese wireweed (Sargassum muticum) was observed from trace (<5%) to low (5-25%) cover during the towed video and dive surveys mainly around Camel Point (Figure 7); moderate cover (25-75%) was also observed at the northwest and northeast ends of the towed video survey area and therefore was not observed during the dive surveys.

Foliose green algae was observed throughout the survey area between +1.9 m and -4.5 m with trace (<5%) to moderate (25-75%) cover present predominantly in inshore areas and high (>75%) cover present in the offshore area (Figure 7). Similar to the bladed kelp observations, the foliose green algae was generally unattached drift algae on the offshore mud and/or sand substrate while in the nearshore area it was attached mainly to boulder and bedrock13.

The majority of red algae observed during the towed video survey was filamentous and foliose red algae, which was observed from trace (<5%) to moderate cover (25-75%) mainly along the shore and at the northwest/west and southeast/east ends of the survey area to depths of -2.7 m (Figure 8). The biophysical dive survey confirmed that the red algae species included Porphyra sp., Polyneura latissima, Microcladia coulteri, and Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii. Encrusting coralline red algae was not observed during the towed video survey; however, it was observed at trace (<5%) to moderate (50-75%) cover during the biophysical dive survey and the Phase 1 and 2 abalone surveys associated with bedrock and boulder substrate at depths above -2 m. Diatom mats were widespread along the shoreline and at the southeast/east ends of the towed video survey area at low (5-25%) to high (>75%) cover (Figure 8). They were also observed during the biophysical dive survey near the toe of the rip rap slope on sand and/or mud and pebble substrate.

Eelgrass was observed during the towed video survey between -0.1 m and -2.3 m depth at trace (<5%) to low (5-25%) cover to the east of the proposed float/ramp alignment (Figure 9). A smaller patch of eelgrass adjacent to the James Bay Angler’s boat ramp had trace (<5%) to moderate (25-75%) cover. During the biophysical dive survey, eelgrass was observed on T1, T2 and T4 transects. The eelgrass on T1 was present at trace (<5%) to low (5-25%) cover along 20 m of the transect (15 m to 35 m horizontal distance on the transect; -1.9 m to -2.8 m). A small patch of eelgrass with trace (<5%) cover was observed on T2 along 5 m of the transect (20 m to 25 m horizontal distance on the transect; -2.5 m). Trace (<5%) to low (5-25%) cover of eelgrass

13 Observed during biophysical and Phase 1 abalone dive surveys.



was present along 37 m of T4 (26 m to 63 m horizontal distance on the transect; -2.6 m to -2.1 m).

The most common invertebrates observed throughout the towed video survey include plumose anemones (Metridium sp.), Pandalid shrimp, cancer crabs, and sea stars (Figure 9). There were a total of 17 plumose anemone observations, often attached to available hard substrate and ranging from depths of +0.85 m to -3.75 m. Crustacean observations include 12 Pandalid shrimp counts, ranging from -2.35 m to -3.55 m depth; nine cancer crab14 counts ranging from +0.45 m to -3.65 m depth; and two kelp crabs (Pugettia sp.) at +0.65 m depth. Crustaceans were mostly associated with sand and/or mud substrate. Very few echinoderms were observed within the towed video survey; six unidentified sea stars were observed between depths of +0.35 m to +0.85 m, and one sea cucumber (Cucumaria sp.) was observed at a depth of -1.65 m. In-fauna holes (worm, bivalve, or crustacean holes, for which the species or species group cannot be distinguished) were common within mud and/or sand substrate at the southern and the most westerly extent of the towed video survey, at depths ranging from -0.85 m to -5.75 m (Figure 9).

During the biophysical dive survey, the most abundant and common invertebrate species observed on the hard substrate in the subtidal zone included barnacles (Balanus glandula, Semibalanus cariosus), jingle shells, Pandalid shrimp, and unidentified brittlestars, tunicates and sponges. Less common, but present were also the lined chiton (Tonicella sp.), leafy hornmouth snail (Ceratostoma foliatum), rock scallop (Crassodoma gigantea), short-plumose anemone, lemon nudibranch (Peltodoris nobilis), Heath’s dorid nudibranch (Geitodoris heathi), California sea cucumber (Parastichopus californicus), orange sea cucumber (Cucumaria miniata), mottled sea star (Evasterias troschelli), six-armed sea star (Leptasterias hexactis), green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis), and kelp crab (Pugettia sp.). The most abundant and common invertebrate species observed on the mud and/or sand substrate during the biophysical dive survey included Pandalid shrimp, ornate tubeworms (Diopatra ornata) and burrowing brittlestars (Amphiodia periercta). Less common, but present were the stubby rose anemone (Urticina coriacea), burrowing anemone (Anthopleura artemisia), red rock crab (Cancer productus), helmet crab, frosted nudibranch (Dirona albolineata), and six-armed sea star.

There were no fish observations during the towed video imagery. Fish species observed on the hard substrate during the biophysical dive survey included the white spotted greenling (Hexagrammos stelleri), smoothhead sculpin (Artedius lateralis), black eye goby (Rhinogobiops nicholsii), and an unidentified sculpin while one unidentified sculpin was observed during the dive survey on the mud/sand substrate.

Biological features observed during the towed video survey are shown in Figure 7 through Figure 9 with photo documentation in Photo Plate 1. Representative photographs from the biophysical dive survey are presented in Photo Plate 2 while dive transect profiles, tabulated data and additional photos are presented in Appendix A.

14 May include Metacarcinus spp. and/or Cancer sp.



Figure 7. Percent cover of bladed kelp, Japanese wireweed (left) and green algae (right) observations from the towed video survey.



Figure 8. Percent cover of red algae (left) and diatom (right) observations from the towed video survey.



Figure 9. Eelgrass (left) and invertebrates (right) observations from the towed video survey.



Photo Plate 1. Photographic documentation of the towed video survey.

Photo 1. Sargassum sp., branching red algae, foliose green algae and diatom.

Photo 2. Foliose green algae, filamentous brown algae and foliose red algae.

Photo 3. Diatom mat with woody debris. Photo 4. Eelgrass (Zostera sp.) patch with filamentous brown

algae.

Photo 5. Diatom mat with mounded infauna hole. Photo 6. Foliose green algae, bladed brown kelps, and a sea

anemone (Urticina sp.) over sand, pebble substrate.



Photo Plate 2. Photographic documentation of biophysical dive survey.

Photo 1. Bedrock on T1 with green (Ulva sp.) and red

foliose algae, and Japanese wireweed (Sargassum

muticum).

Photo 2. Boulder on T1 with foliose green (Ulva sp.)

and red algae and barnacles.

Photo 3. Shell, pebble and cobble at base of bedrock

and boulder on T1 with drift foliose green algae (Ulva

sp.) and sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima).

Photo 4. Drift foliose green algae (Ulva sp.) and sugar

kelp (Saccharina latissima) on T1 offshore on sand

substrate.

Photo 5. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) on T1 with trace

(<5%) to low (5-25%) cover (15 m to 35 m horizontal

distance; -1.9 m to -2.8 m). Diatom cover and shell

debris evident.

Photo 6. Boulder on T2 with green (Ulva sp.) and red

foliose algae, sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima),

Japanese wireweed (Sargassum muticum) and

encrusting coralline red algae.



Photo 7. Sand and pebble with diatom cover on T2 at

base of boulder/bedrock. Helmet crab (Telmessus

cheiragonus) at center.

Photo 8. Sand substrate with foliose green algae (Ulva

sp.), diatom cover and ornate tubeworms (Diopatra

ornata) on T2.

Photo 9. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) on T2 with trace

(<5%) cover (20 m to 25 m horizontal distance; -2.5 m).

Sand substrate with diatom cover and drift foliose

green algae (Ulva sp.) and sugar kelp (Saccharina

latissima).

Photo 10. Bedrock on T3 with foliose green algae (Ulva

sp.), sea sac (Halosaccion sp.) and barnacles (B.

glandula, S. cariosus).

Photo 11. Boulder with encrusting coralline red algae

on T3.

Photo 12. Boulder on T3 with green (Ulva sp.) and red

foliose algae, sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima), and

Japanese wireweed (Sargassum muticum).



Photo 13. Sand, pebble and shell debris with diatom

cover on T3 near base of boulder.

Photo 14. Drift sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) on T3

(30 m horizontal distance; -3 m).

Photo 15. Sand substrate with drift foliose green algae

(Ulva sp.), sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima) and

eelgrass (Zostera marina) on T4.

Photo 16. Drift foliose green algae (Ulva sp.) with high

(>75%) cover at southeast end of T4 (63 m to 84 m

horizontal distance; -2.1 m to -1.8 m).

Photo 17. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) on T4 with low (5-

25%) cover (26 m to 63 m horizontal distance; -2.6 m to

-2.1 m).

Photo 18. Drift foliose green algae (Ulva sp.), sugar kelp

(Saccharina latissima), and ornate tubeworm (Diopatra

ornata) on T4.



4.3 Phase 1 Abalone Survey

The physical and biological features observed in the survey area that are characteristic of suitable abalone habitat5 include:

• Primary substrate (bedrock, boulder);

• Appropriate depth (0 to -2 m CD which is within the depth zone identified for suitable abalone habitat (0 and -10 m CD)5;

• Good water exchange;

• Secondary substrate (cobble); and,

• Presence of encrusting coralline red algae and kelp.

Bedrock (primary substrate) was observed between 0 m and – 2 m at what is known as Camel Point. Boulder (primary substrate) and cobble (secondary substrate) were present on either side of the bedrock (approximately between 0 m and – 2 m to the northwest and between 0 m and – 1 m to the southeast). The toe of the bedrock and boulder substrate was observed between -1 m and -2 m. Figure 10 delineates the suitable abalone habitat within the Phase 1 abalone dive survey area, which is estimated at approximately 280 m2.



Figure 10. Suitable abalone habitat area delineated from Phase 1 abalone survey results.



Pebble, sand and/or mud and shell were intermixed with cobble and boulder on the northwest and southeast sides of Camel Point between 0 m and -0.5 m. The substrate consisted predominantly of pebble, sand and/or mud and shell at the northwest and southeast ends of the survey area between 0 and -1 m.

Biological features associated with abalone habitat that are present in the survey area include under-storey kelp (sugar wrack and five-ribbed kelp, trace to moderate cover (<5% to 50-75%), and encrusting coralline red algae at trace (<5%) to moderate (25-50%) cover. Abalone predator observations were limited to the red rock crab (Cancer productus).

Neither Northern abalone nor evidence of the presence of abalone (i.e. empty abalone shells) were observed during the survey.

In addition to the previously described biological features associated with abalone habitat, Japanese wireweed (low (5-25%) cover) and an assemblage of foliose green algae (Ulva sp., trace (<5%) to moderate (25-50%) cover), foliose, filamentous and branching red algae (including Mastocarpus papillatus, Porphyra sp., Polyneura latissima, Microcladia coulteri, Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii, low (5-25%) to moderate (25-50%) cover), and sea sac/dead man’s fingers (Halosaccion sp., red algae) were observed during the Phase 1 abalone dive survey. Additional invertebrate species observed included barnacles (Balanus glandula, Semibalanus cariosus), jingle shell, limpets (Tectura sp., Lottia sp.), rock scallop, kelp crab (Pugettia sp.), Pandalid shrimp, Heath’s dorid nudibranch, ringed nudibranch (Diaulula sandiegensis), painted sea anemone (Urticina crassicornis), short-plumose anemone, six armed sea star, orange sea cucumber, California sea cucumber, compound tunicates and sponges.

Representative photographs for the Phase 1 abalone survey are presented in Photo Plate 3 below. The Phase 1 abalone survey data are provided in Appendix C.

Photo Plate 3. Photographic documentation of the Phase 1 abalone survey.

Photo 1. Boulder at 0 m southeast of Camel Point with

foliose green algae (Ulva sp.) and red algae, sea sac

(Halosaccion sp.), Japanese wireweed (Sargassum

muticum), and encrusting coralline red algae.

Photo 2. Boulder at 0 m northwest of Camel Point with

encrusting coralline red algae, foliose green algae (Ulva

sp.) and red algae, and Japanese wireweed (Sargassum

muticum).



Photo 3. Bedrock at 0 m at Camel Point with foliose

green algae (Ulva sp.) and red algae, sea sac

(Halosaccion sp.), Japanese wireweed (Sargassum

muticum), encrusting coralline red algae, and sugar kelp

(Saccharina latissima).

Photo 4. Gravel and cobble at 0 m at northwest end of

survey area with foliose green algae (Ulva sp.) and red

algae, and Japanese wireweed (Sargassum muticum).

Photo 5. Boulder at -0.5 m northwest of Camel Point

with encrusting coralline red algae and sugar kelp


Photo 6. Bedrock at -0.5 m at Camel Point with foliose

green algae (Ulva sp.) red algae, encrusting coralline

red algae, and sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima).

Photo 7. Pebble, sand and shell at -0.5 m at northwest

end of survey area with drift foliose green algae (Ulva

sp.) and red algae.

Photo 8. Cobble, pebble and shell at -0.5 m) at

southeast end of survey area with drift foliose green

algae (Ulva sp.) and red algae, and sugar kelp




Photo 9. Base of bedrock at -1 m to -2 m at Camel Point

with foliose red algae and sugar kelp (Saccharina

latissima).

Photo 10. Pebble, sand, shell and cobble at -1 m at

southeast end of survey area with drift sugar kelp


4.4 Phase 2 Abalone Survey

A total of 44 quadrats were surveyed across the three Phase 2 abalone transects15 and were characterized by bedrock and boulder substrate. Sixteen of the quadrats were located in the intertidal zone and 28 were located in the subtidal zone.

Understory kelp was present on all transects throughout the subtidal and lower intertidal zones in 27 quadrats (61% of total quadrats) and consisted mainly of sugar kelp and five-ribbed kelp (trace (<5%) to moderate (25-50%) cover). Other understory kelp species present was Japanese wireweed (trace (<5%) to low (5-25%) cover). Encrusting coralline red algae was observed predominantly on T3 (north) (12 of 14 quadrats) in the subtidal and lower intertidal zones while few observations occurred on T1 (two of 12 quadrats) and T2 (seven of 18 quadrats) in the subtidal zone; coverage ranged between trace (<5%) and moderate/high (50-75%). Turf algae consisted of foliose green (Ulva sp.) and foliose and branching red algae (including Mastocarpus papillatus, Porphyra sp., Polyneura latissima, Microcladia coulteri, and Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii) with coverage ranging between trace (<5%) and moderate/high (50-75%). Predator species observed included four red rock crabs as well as one helmet crab.

All three transects had physical and biological factors characteristic of abalone habitat over the lengths that were surveyed15. Abalone and evidence of the presence of abalone (i.e. empty abalone shells) were not observed during the survey. The Phase 2 abalone survey data are provided in Appendix D.

15 The three transects were surveyed from where the suitable abalone habitat started offshore between -2 m and -1.4 m and ended in the intertidal zone between +1 m and +1.9 m therefore did not include the mud/sand substrate offshore portions of the transects.



5 Marine Setting and Biophysical Characterization The project resides within the Juan de Fuca Strait marine ecosection, one of twelve marine ecosections in British Columbia that are based on the British Columbia Marine Ecological Classification and are defined by physical, oceanographic and biological features (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management 2002). The Juan de Fuca Strait marine ecosection is characterized as “semi-protected coastal waters with strong ‘estuarine-like’ outflow current” and a “migratory corridor for anadromous fish, moderately productive, mixture of neritic and oceanic plankton species” (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management 2002).

The closest Important Bird Area (IBA) is ‘Chain Islets and Great Chain Island’ (BC045) located approximately 10 km east of Victoria Harbour and the project location (Bird Studies Canada 2015). However, the project is located within the much larger Victoria Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary (MBS), which encompasses the area from Portage Inlet at the head of Victoria Harbour to Ten Mile Point, located approximately 14 km east of Victoria Harbour and the project location (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2019). The MBS is “home for valuable wildlife including birds, fishes, mammals, molluscs, crustaceans, plants and other organisms including several species at risk” (i.e., Northern abalone, southern resident orcas) (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2019). It provides important roosting and overwintering sites for a large number of migratory bird species that inhabit that area year-round or seasonally (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2019).

The closest documented Pacific great blue heron (Ardea Herodias fannini) colony is at Beacon Hill Park located approximately two kilometers east of Victoria Harbour and the project location (Community Mapping Network 2019). Two colony sites have been documented here: GBHE-101-001, with the first documented active year in 1988 and the last documented active year in 2007; and GBHE-101-001B, with the first documented active year in 2010 and the last documented active year in 2012 (Community Mapping Network 2019). The closest rockfish conservation areas (RCAs) are the Duntze Head RCA located at the southeast entrance to Esquimalt Harbour, less than four kilometers west of Victoria Harbour and the project location, and the Trial Island RCA located approximately seven kilometers east of Victoria Harbour and the project location (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2019).

Based on the intertidal foot, towed underwater video and biophysical dive surveys, which were also supplemented by information obtained during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 abalone dive surveys, the nearshore area characterized mainly by boulder and bedrock substrate had the greatest diversity of invertebrate and algal species while the soft substrate offshore area, accounting for the majority of the surveyed area, consisted of fewer invertebrate and algal species. Fish diversity and abundance were low across both habitat types.



The eelgrass bed located to the east of the proposed float and ramp is the only sensitive habitat identified within the survey area. This main eelgrass bed (i.e. excluding the smaller patches of eelgrass adjacent to the James Bay Angler’s boat ramp) is estimated at 965 m2. In comparing the distribution, area and cover of the main eelgrass bed in 2012 and 2018 (Figure 11 and Figure 12), it appears the eelgrass bed has shifted northwest and decreased in size and cover (from 1,262 m2 in 2012 to 965 m2 in 2018; a good portion of the bed in 2012 had moderate (25-75%) to high (>75%) cover (Archipelago 2012) while in 2018 it was observed to be trace (<5%) to low (5-25%) cover (Figure 9).



Figure 11. Eelgrass perimeters and cover in 2018 (left) and 2012 (right) (Archipelago 2013).



Figure 12.Comparison between eelgrass bed surveyed in 2012 and 2018.



In addition to the eelgrass bed, the bladed kelps present on the boulder/bedrock slope in the low intertidal zone and nearshore subtidal zone are also considered valuable and important habitat. Eelgrass beds and brown bladed kelp provide habitat structure that supports both ecologically and economically important finfish (e.g. salmonids, herring) and shellfish (e.g. crab and shrimp) populations. They contribute nutrients and invertebrate prey items to the nearshore areas upon which many fish and shellfish species depend. These nearshore habitats also tend to have high biological productivity and species abundance and diversity. They provide spawning, nursery, and/or rearing habitat for a variety of species including Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister), red rock crab, graceful crab (M. gracilis), perch, juvenile rockfish (Sebastes sp.) and salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.), as well as provide substrate for spawning herring.

Overall eelgrass beds provide a variety of ecological services that assist in the maintenance of healthy estuarine and nearshore marine habitats and are considered essential (Duarte et al. 2008) or valued habitat. Eelgrass is considered sensitive habitat, as it is negatively affected by stressors such as, but not limited to, physical disturbance through anchoring, fishing practices, dredging, filling, and shoreline hardening; shading from in-water structures; and increased nutrient inputs leading to decreased light availability (Kemp et al. 1983; Moore et al. 1997) and increased algal abundance (den Hartog 1994; Short and Burdick 1996; Bowen and Valiela 2001).

Juvenile salmonids may be present in estuarine and nearshore habitats between early spring and late summer, during which time they utilize these habitats for feeding and rearing before migrating to the open ocean. The nearest streams to the project site with historical Fisheries and Oceans Canada salmon records are Craigflower Creek and Colquitz Creek. Both creeks drain into Portage Inlet at the head of Victoria Harbour (approximately nine kilometers from the project site) and support chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2018). The most recent year that these salmon species were observed as adults in these creeks was 2018 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2020). Both creeks also have historical records for adult sockeye (O. nerka) salmon in 1997 and the Gorge Waterway Initiative indicates both streams also support spawning coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki) (Gorge Waterway Initiative 2007).

Herring are generally present in estuarine and nearshore habitats, such as eelgrass, between February and May while they spawn. Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s long-term cumulative spawn records for Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) show reported spawn by surface observation in Portage Inlet at the head of Victoria Harbour between 1931 and 1972 (Hay and Carter 2013; subarea 2 in Figure 13). Based on Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s analysis of cumulative herring spawn, these were classified as ‘minor’ to ‘low’ spawn and ranked within the bottom 25% and 50% of ranked shoreline kilometer segments, respectively (Hay and Carter 2013). A minor classified spawn was also identified by surface observation at Shoal Point in Victoria Harbour (some time within the record date range of 1933 to 1995 as shown in subarea 1 in Figure 13). The Gorge Waterway Initiative (2007) indicates that significant spawning has not occurred in the inlet since the late 1980’s but herring still frequent the Victoria Harbour and Portage Inlet waters.



Figure 13. Cumulative herring spawn for Section 193 Victoria Harbour from 1931 to 1972 around the project area. Accessed January 29, 2019 from: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/herspawn/193fig-eng.html. Red dots are classified as vital spawning areas, brown are major, yellow are high, green are medium, blue are low, and purple are minor.

Based on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada historical salmon and herring spawning records, salmon and herring can reasonably be expected to occur along the Victoria Harbour shoreline at certain times of the year as previously described. The bladed kelps as well as the other mixed species of algae in the project area, may in some years provide spawning habitat for herring as well as shelter, nursery, rearing and feeding opportunities for other fish and invertebrate species as described previously. The eelgrass bed in the project area is likely providing limited habitat opportunity (shelter, nursery, rearing, feeding, spawning) to salmon and herring as well as other fish and invertebrate species due to the size of the bed and low percent cover. The vegetated boulder/bedrock slope in the project area is also providing potential abalone habitat (between 0 and -2 m) (see Section 5.2) for discussion of abalone and abalone habitat).

Based on the results of the surveys, the eelgrass bed and bladed kelps are considered the primary sensitive and/or valued and important marine habitats in the project area regarding potential impacts from the project. Listed species, including abalone, and potential abalone habitat are discussed further in Section 5.1 and 5.2, respectively). Potential impacts to habitat and resident and transient species from the location, design and construction/installation of project components (i.e. ramp, float and wave fence) are presented in greater detail in Section 6. Mitigation measures and BMPs are presented in Section 7 followed by an effects assessment and summary in Section 8.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/herspawn/193fig-eng.html

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/herspawn/193fig-eng.html



5.1 Transitory Non-Listed and Listed Species

Although not observed during the surveys, other transitory, non-listed marine species that could possibly occur in the vicinity of the project site throughout or at certain times of the year include Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), harbour seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), river otters (Lontra canadensis), and marine birds such as diving birds (e.g. loons, grebes, cormorants), alcids (e.g. murres, auklets, guillemots, murrelets), gulls, waterfowl (e.g. geese, wigeon, teal, scoters, harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), bufflehead, goldeneye, merganser), shorebirds, and raptors16.

Listed marine species such as native oyster and Northern abalone or evidence of their presence (i.e. empty shells) were not observed during any of the surveys (see Section 5.2 for discussion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 abalone surveys). Other listed marine species that were not observed during the survey and are considered transitory that may occur in the vicinity of the project site include:

• Southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) (SARA listed as Endangered)

• Transient killer whale (O. orca) (SARA listed as Threatened)

• Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (SARA listed as Special Concern)

• Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (SARA listed as Special Concern)

• Great blue heron (Ardea herodias herodias) (BC listed as Special Concern (Blue))

• Brandt’s cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus) (BC listed as Endangered or Threatened (Red))

• Double-crested cormorant (P. auritus) (BC listed as Special Concern (Blue))

• Common murre (Uria aalge) (BC listed as Endangered or Threatened (Red))

• Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (BC listed as Special Concern (Blue))

Other listed marine mammal species known to frequent the waters of Juan de Fuca Strait that is contiguous with Victoria Harbour include the grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus; SARA listed as Special Concern) and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae; SARA listed as Special Concern). The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is also a federally listed marine species (SARA listed as Endangered) that has been observed off the coast of BC; however, sightings are considered rare (Species at Risk Public Registry 2019).

With respect to the southern resident killer whales, the project site is located inside of their designated critical habitat, which extends from the mouth of Juan de Fuca Strait to south of the entrance to Burrard Inlet (Figure 14).

16 The 2016 preliminary Christmas Bird Counts posted by the Victoria Natural History Society identify 69 species of birds in Victoria Harbour (http://christmasbirdcount.ca/bcvi/2016prelim.pdf).

http://christmasbirdcount.ca/bcvi/2016prelim.pdf



Figure 14. Critical habitat for southern and northern resident killer whales (Ford et. al 2017).

5.2 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Abalone Surveys

Although abalone were not observed during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 abalone surveys, physical and biological features suitable for abalone habitat were observed during the Phase 1 abalone survey largely between the southeast and northwest sides of Camel Point as shown in Figure 10 and which was the focus of the Phase 2 abalone survey. These biophysical features included: primary substrate (bedrock, boulder), appropriate depth (0 to -2 m), good water exchange, secondary substrate (cobble), encrusting coralline algae and kelp. The suitable abalone habitat area is greater than 20 m2 (estimated at approximately 280 m2), which triggered the requirement to complete the Phase 2 abalone dive survey as per the Impact Assessment Protocol17 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012, Lessard and Campbell 2006). The Phase 2 abalone survey represents the second part of the impact assessment for Northern abalone outlined in the Impact Assessment Protocol and serves to assess the abalone density at the site.

17 A Phase 2 survey must be undertaken for any proposed works and developments where abalone habitat is present and the area affected will be larger than 20 m2 (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012, Lessard and Campbell 2006).



In addition to the Phase 2 abalone survey and although abalone were not identified during the Phase 1 and 2 abalone surveys, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as part of their formal Project Review response, may still require a pre-construction night-time abalone dive survey to relocate any identified abalone pursuant to the Impact Assessment Protocol before any project works are initiated. This generally is required if abalone are identified at the project site (i.e. during the Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 abalone surveys) and particularly if prohibited effects on abalone (i.e. killing, harming, harassing), as per the Species at Risk Act (SARA), can not be avoided and mitigated.

If the pre-construction night-time abalone dive survey is required, a no-fee permit application under Section 73 of SARA is required to relocate abalone prior to construction18. In addition, a no-fee Introduction or Transfer of Fish License pursuant to Section 56 of the Fishery (General) Regulations will be required. Fisheries and Oceans Canada indicates that a decision on a SARA permit application must be made within 90 days of an applicant being notified that an application has been received, therefore the permit application should be submitted at least 90 days before project works are scheduled to commence. In some cases, Archipelago has experienced that SARA permits have been issued within 30 days, but this cannot be relied on, as it is dependent on Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s application load. The Introduction or Transfer of Fish License is typically issued immediately after Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Aquaculture Programs Governance Officer handling the license application receives the SARA permit from the project proponent or proponent’s qualified professional.

18 The SARA permit application is submitted to Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s referral inbox ([email protected]) where it is assigned to a Fisheries and Oceans Canada Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program biologist. The Introduction or Transfer of Fish License is submitted to Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Aquaculture Programs; our current Aquaculture Programs Governance Officer contact, as of May 29, 2019, is Ginny Van Pelt ([email protected]).






6 Potential Project-Related Effects Potential effects from the proposed project include:

1. Shading of habitat from the abutment, ramp, float, wave fence and vessels;

2. Direct physical disturbance to habitat from barge spud and pile placement;

3. Underwater noise from pile installation; and

4. Shading and lighting effects on fish.

Design considerations and other potential effects from construction-related activities (e.g. accidental spills, working over eelgrass) and operation (e.g. pollutants from motors and bilges) not addressed in this section will be addressed (avoided) through the implementation of the comprehensive list of mitigation measures and BMPs presented in Section 7. The following sub-sections describe the four primary, potential project-related effects.

6.1 Shading of Habitat

The estimated area of the project footprint directly overlapping with marine habitat was interpolated from the project design drawings with the most recent November 29, 2019 revisions and the intertidal and subtidal survey data. Table 2 provides a summary of the dimensions and footprint areas for each of the project components and the marine habitat types they overlap.



Table 2. Summary of marine habitat types and overlapping project component footprint areas.

Project

Component

Dimensions (m) Area (m2) Marine Habitat Type

Abutment ~ 11.6 X 4.6 (6.7 in

one widened

section)

41.519 Hard bottom: bedrock/boulder (rip-rap,

concrete) with cobble, pebble

Vegetated (attached) and non-vegetated

Ramp ~ 20.7 X 4.6 94.3 Mixed hard and soft bottom: bedrock,

boulder, cobble, pebble; mud and/or

sand

All vegetated (attached)

Float ~ 18.7 X 28 (includes

fender floats)20

476 Mainly soft bottom (mud and/or sand)

with small area of cobble/pebble in

northeast corner

All vegetated (attached and drift)

Wave

Fence

~ 106.9 long

(variable widths due

to vertical and

angled batter piles)

98 Soft bottom (mud and/or sand)

All vegetated (drift)

Subtotal

Infrastructure

709.8 (710)

Vessels 14021 Soft bottom (mud and/or sand)

All vegetated (drift)

Subtotal Vessels 140

OVERALL TOTAL 849.8 (850)

19 Total abutment footprint is 61.5 m2, of which 41.5 m2 is below and 20 m2 is above the higher high water mark (large tide), which is +3.4 m. 20 Dimensions without fenders are approximately 26 m by 17 m (footprint 448 m2). Dimensions and footprint with fenders are used for the shading effects assessment. 21 Area based on implementation of “no-tie” area on east side of float to avoid eelgrass (specifically northeast side); otherwise area is 156m2 if smaller vessels moored on east side of float.



Shading is one of the primary (anthropogenic) disturbances to eelgrass resulting in areal reduction (Burdick and Short 1999; Gayaldo et al. 2001; Mumford 2007; Thom et al. 2008). Eelgrass beds beneath and directly adjacent to docks were shown to be impacted as indicated by depressed shoot density and canopy structure and that severe impacts can lead to eelgrass bed fragmentation (Burdick and Short 1999). Floating docks result in greater severity of impacts with high likelihood for complete elimination of eelgrass shoots beneath the docks and therefore should not be placed over eelgrass and alternatively should be placed in water deeper than the lower depth limit for eelgrass (Burdick and Short 1999; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1995). In addition, shaded eelgrass beds may be (further) fragmented by boating activities (i.e. prop dredging effects/prop wash) leading to bed destabilization (Burdick and Short 1999; Thom et al. 2008).

The total area of surveyed eelgrass, excluding the two small patches located east of the project, is estimated at 965 m2. The area of the project footprint that overlaps with this surveyed eelgrass bed is estimated at 10 m2 (1.2 % of the total project footprint (850 m2) and ~1% of the total eelgrass area surveyed) and is characterized as trace cover (<5%). The ramp is the only project component that overlaps with this surveyed eelgrass bed; the abutment, float, wave fence and vessels do not overlap with the surveyed eelgrass bed.

However, to account for positional accuracy of the survey methodology it is best to use the more conservative values that were calculated with a three-meter buffer applied to the perimeter of the eelgrass (Figure 15). The total area of surveyed eelgrass, excluding the two small patches located to the east, is estimated at 1,543 m2 with the three-metre buffer applied. The area of the project footprint that overlaps with the main surveyed eelgrass bed with the buffer is estimated at 50.2 m2 (5.9% of the total project footprint (850 m2) and 3.2% of the total eelgrass area surveyed) and is characterized as trace cover (<5%). The estimated 50.2 m2 consists of 50 m2 beneath the ramp (an elevated project component) and 0.2 m2 beneath the float (a floating project component). There is no overlap between the eelgrass and the abutment, wave fence and vessels; however, the latter is based on the implementation of a “no-tie” area on the east side of the float (specifically northeast corner of the float where the eelgrass occurs).



Figure 15. Eelgrass bed delineated in 2018. The main eelgrass bed is estimated at 965 m2 without 3 m buffer and 1,543 m2 with 3 m buffer. (Red cross-hatched area is portion of 3 m buffer that overlaps hard

substrate in the intertidal zone and is excluded from the eelgrass area with the 3 m buffer).

The total area of the project footprint that overlaps with the surveyed bladed kelps and mixed red/green algae and wireweed, is estimated at 832 m2 with a three-metre buffer applied. Of this, 121 m2 is classified as attached while 711 m2 is classified as drift, unattached. Table 3 provides a summary of the estimated area of each project component (abutment, ramp, float, wave fence and vessels) that overlaps with the attached and drift bladed kelps and mixed red/green algae and wireweed.



Table 3. Summary of estimated area of the abutment, ramp, float, wave fence and vessels overlapping with attached and drift bladed kelps and mixed red/green algae and wireweed.

Bladed Kelps and Mixed Red/Green Algae/Wireweed Area (m2)

Project

Component

Attached Drift Composition/Cover

Abutment

(mostly

elevated)

33 0 All mixed red/green algae in the intertidal zone (trace to low cover,

<5-25%).

Ramp

(elevated)

85

0 64 m2 bladed kelps (low to moderate cover, 5-75%) and mixed

red/green algae and wireweed (trace to moderate cover, >5-75%) in

the subtidal zone.

21 m2 mixed red/green algae in the intertidal zone (trace to low

cover, <5-25%).

Float (floating) 3 473 3 m2 attached bladed kelps (moderate cover, 25-75%) and mixed

green algae and wireweed (low cover 5-25%). Area delineated based

on presence of cobble and boulder substrate.

473 m2 drift bladed kelps (mainly moderate cover 25-75%, some low

5-25%, and very little trace <5%) and mixed red/green algae with

wireweed (trace to moderate cover >5–75%).

Wave Fence 0 98 Drift bladed kelps, trace to moderate cover (<5% - 75%) (moderate

cover at east end).

Mixed red/green algae, trace to moderate cover (<5% - 75%) (high

green algae cover (>75%) at east end).

Vessels 0 140 Drift bladed kelps, low cover (5-25%) under four vessels furthest

from land, and moderate to high cover (25 to >75%) under

innermost vessel facing abutment/ramp.

Mixed red/green algae, high cover (>75%) under four vessels

furthest from land, and moderate to high cover (25 to >75%), under

innermost vessel facing abutment/ramp.

TOTAL 121 711 832 (attached and drift bladed kelps and mixed red/green algae

and wireweed)



With respect to shading effects from the overlapping project component footprints, the portion of the habitat characterized with eelgrass and attached bladed kelps and mixed red/green algae and wireweed is the subject of the effects assessment due to their value and/or sensitivity to shading. All other habitat areas overlapping with the project component footprints were devoid of vegetation or consisted of drift bladed kelps and mixed red/green algae22, which is largely ephemeral and therefore is not carried forward to the residual effects assessment.

Table 4 provides an overall summary of the overlap between project components and the marine habitat features being assessed for effects from shading.

Table 4. Summary of project component overlap with marine habitat features related to shading effects.

Project Component Eelgrass Attached Bladed Kelps and

Mixed Red/Green

Algae/Wireweed Area

(m2)

Abutment

(41.5 m2)

0 33

Ramp (elevated)

(94.3 m2)

50 85

Float (floating)

(476 m2)

0.2 3

Wave Fence

(98 m2)

0 0

TOTAL 50.2 121

Through multiple project design options, the project proponent has considered location, layout, and orientation to minimize shading effects to eelgrass, due to its sensitivity to shading as previously described. Other design options considered were constrained by the proximity to the James Bay Anglers boat ramp to the east, Helijet and adjacent operations to the south, existing CCG boat ramp to the west, water lot boundary, and wave exposure. The current proposed project design option addresses these constraints while minimizing the amount of the project footprint that overlaps with the eelgrass habitat. Characterization of shading effects on eelgrass

22 Some of the red filamentous algae and wireweed may have been attached to small substrate (e.g. pebble) buried in the soft bottom substrate.



and attached bladed kelps/mixed red/green algae and wireweed for each of the project components with the consideration of mitigation measures and BMPs are presented below.

The shading effects from the abutment to the underlying attached mixed red/green algae in the intertidal zone cannot be reduced further due to the required width, height and non-light permeable surface. However, the effects are anticipated to be limited due to the relatively small amount of mixed red/green algae (33 m2) present beneath the abutment that is trace to low cover (<5-25%).

The shading effects from the ramp to the underlying eelgrass (50 m2, trace cover (<5%)) and attached bladed kelps/mixed red/green algae and wireweed (85 m2, trace to moderate cover (<5-75%)) are anticipated to be minimal or negligible due to:

• The ramp is more or less in a northeast-southwest alignment, which helps focus shading more directly under these project components for a few hours around (solar) noon, as opposed to the entire day with a west-east orientation (Burdick and Short 1999; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1995); and

• The ramp is elevated and grated with 50 X 100 mm spacing, resulting in a total open area of approximately 80%, which is greater than the recommended 30% (Green Shores for Homes 2015).

The shading effects from the float to the underlying vegetation (eelgrass and attached bladed kelps/mixed red/green algae and wireweed) cannot be reduced further due to the required width and non-light permeable surface. However, the effects are anticipated to be limited due to the very small amount of eelgrass (<0.5 m2, trace cover (<5%)) and attached bladed kelps/algae (3 m2, low to moderate cover (5-75%)) present beneath the float.

As previously noted, the proponent will implement a “no-tie” area on the east side of the float to ensure there is no vessel overlap with the eelgrass therefore shading effects to eelgrass from vessels are not a concern. In addition, the vessels and wave fence do not overlap with attached bladed kelps/mixed red/green algae and wireweed, and the wave fence does not overlap with eelgrass therefore they are not considered in this effects assessment with respect to shading of habitat.

Refer to Section 7 (Design Considerations) for additional details of relevant mitigation measures and BMPs to minimize the effects from shading to habitat. Refer to Section 8 for an assessment of residual effects from shading of habitat for the applicable project component footprints.

6.2 Direct Physical Disturbance

6.2.1 Barge Spud Placement

Direct physical disturbance of habitat will occur from the placement of barge spuds during pile installation activities and other project activities requiring barges to be positioned at the project site.

The substrate of the potentially impacted seabed is sand and/or mud with shell and occasional pebble. The vegetation is predominantly drift foliose green algae (Ulva sp.) (trace (<5%) to high (90%) cover), sugar kelp and five-ribbed kelp (trace (<5%) to moderate (25-75%) cover), and



foliose and branching red algae (trace (<5%) to low (5-25%) cover). The majority of the fauna observed in this area is mobile (i.e. Pandalid shrimp, nudibranchs, brittlestars) with the exception of the ornate tubeworms. Of significance, however, is the eelgrass habitat that is located beneath the ramp and northeast corner of the float and which continues to the east of the project footprint (Figure 9).

The mitigation measures and BMPs outlined in Section 7 (Construction Tending Vessel and Barge Operations) include measures to minimize or prevent the effects from barge spud placement. The disturbance and resultant effects to habitat can be minimized by limiting the movement/positioning of the barges. Specifically, disturbance and effects to eelgrass can be avoided by providing the contractor with ideal locations for spudding and establishing eelgrass exclusion zones to prevent spudding within eelgrass.

Refer to Section 8 for an assessment of residual effects from barge spud placement.

6.2.2 Pile Placement

Direct physical disturbance of habitat will occur from the placement of:

• Four – 610 mm diameter steel pipe piles in hard bottom intertidal habitat associated with the abutment;

• Three – 610 mm diameter steel pipe piles in soft bottom subtidal habitat associated with the float;

• Sixteen – 762 mm diameter steel pipe vertical piles in soft bottom subtidal habitat associated with the wave fence; and

• Sixteen – 762 mm diameter steel pipe batter piles in soft bottom subtidal habitat associated with the wave fence.

The hard bottom intertidal habitat, estimated at approximately one square meter between +1 m and +2 m CD where the four abutment piles overlap, is characterized by mixed red/green algae (trace to low cover, <5-25%), barnacles, blue mussels, limpets, dog whelks, chitons and sponges in the intertidal zone. Although abalone were not observed during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 surveys, suitable habitat occurs beneath the elevated ramp between 0 and -2 m chart datum. Abalone are generally found subtidally between 0 m and -10 m chart datum, although have been observed in the intertidal zone in British Columbia; between April and July sexually mature adults will aggregate in shallow water to spawn synchronously (COSEWIC 2009; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2008) and could therefore be present in the lower intertidal zone during higher tides. If abalone were present at the project site within the intertidal zone, then the only project component that could potentially directly interact with the abalone is the installation of the four abutment piles in the intertidal zone. A pre-construction abalone survey, under a SARA permit, could be conducted to relocate any abalone found within and adjacent to the pile footprint to protect them from the pile installation; however, the likelihood of the abalone being impacted is considered negligible given the small pile footprint (total surface area of four abutment piles is one m2), and the fact it is in the intertidal zone where abalone are least commonly found. Furthermore, the benefit acquired from moving the abalone to protect them may be outweighed by the risk of harm to them that could occur during the collection and



transfer process. The requirement for a pre-construction abalone survey will need to be confirmed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. As for the habitat itself, abalone habitat is generally defined as 0 to -10 m chart datum based on where abalone are commonly found. The four abutment piles will be installed above 0 m CD approximately between +1 m and +2 m CD. With the implementation of general and specific pile installation mitigation measures and BMPs, project-related effects are not anticipated to extend to the habitat below 0 m CD that was identified as suitable for abalone.

The soft bottom habitat, estimated at approximately 15.5 m2 where the float and wave fence piles overlap, is previously described in Section 6.2.1, but generally consists of drift/non-attached mixed red/green algae and bladed kelps, and largely mobile invertebrates (shrimp, nudibranchs, brittlestars), with the exception of ornate tubeworms. Float and wave fence piles will not be located within the eelgrass bed.

The mitigation measures and BMPs outlined in Section 7 (Design Considerations) include measures to minimize the effects from pile placement such as minimizing the project footprint and number of piles required and locating piles in areas without eelgrass. These measures have been incorporated into the current proposed project design therefore the effects from pile placement cannot be reduced further. Refer to Section 8 for an assessment of residual effects from pile placement.

6.3 Pile Installation Underwater Noise

Underwater noise generated during pile installation activities may potentially result in physical injury to fish and potentially prevent fish from reaching breeding and spawning grounds. In addition, it may potentially result in physical injury or disturbance to marine mammals. The magnitude of the effects depends on the pile material and type of hammer being used as well as environmental conditions (e.g. water temperature, water depth, seabed typography); however, the effects from pile installation noise can be minimized or prevented through the implementation of specific mitigation measures and BMPs (see Section 7 (Pile Installation)).

The 2003 BMPs for pile driving (BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association 2003) generally indicate that installation of steel piles greater than 24-inch in diameter (610 mm) using the vibratory method does not require visual monitoring as it is not expected to result in shock waves in excess of 30 kPa (equivalent to approximately 209.54 dB peak sound pressure level (SPL)23)(a vibratory hammer typically results in reduced sound levels relative to an impact hammer). The steel piles proposed for the project are 24-inch (610 mm) and 30-inch (762 mm) and the pile installation may involve rotary/rock drilling and vibratory although it will depend on the construction methodology of the selected contractor.

As a result of the unconfirmed pile installation method, the proponent and contractor will be prepared to conduct acoustic monitoring and visual monitoring (i.e. assess for fish disturbance, injury or death) in the event pile installation involves the use of an impact hammer. In addition, marine mammal monitoring is typically required prior to and during impact pile installation to

23 The peak sound pressure level (SPL) threshold more recently referenced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for

monitoring fish injury/mortality sound levels is 206 dB re: 1Pa as well as a cumulative sound exposure level (cSEL)

of 187 dB re Pa2s.



implement management actions in the case of marine mammal presence. If the impact pile installation method results in underwater sound threshold exceedances then corrective mitigation measures will be implemented (i.e. bubble curtains, fish exclusion measures). Typically the implementation of these mitigation measures is required during impact pile installation when it is being conducted outside the least risk timing windows.

Due to the proximity of the project to the federally designated southern resident killer whale (SRKW) critical habitat (Figure 14), Fisheries and Oceans Canada may require that initial acoustic monitoring be conducted to verify sound pressure levels during vibratory and/or other pile installation activities. In addition, marine mammal monitoring may be required regardless of pile installation method due to this proximity to the SRKW critical habitat, particularly between April and October when the whales typically frequent these waters, which coincides with the project schedule (April to November).

Refer to Section 7 (Pile Installation) for additional details of relevant mitigation measures and BMPs to minimize the underwater noise effects from pile installation. Refer to Section 8 for an assessment of residual effects from underwater noise effects from pile installation.

6.4 Lighting and Shading Effects on Fish

Light perception is critically important to juvenile salmon with respect to orientation, schooling, prey avoidance, and migration navigation. Simenstad et al. (1999) has undertaken an extensive review of literature on shading and light effects on juvenile salmon. The most prominent points with respect to overwater lighting are:

• The time required for light-adapted chum and pink fry to fully adapt to darkness ranges from 30-40 minutes;

• The time required for dark-adapted chum and pink fry to fully adapt to light conditions ranges from 20-25 minutes;

• During the adaptation time visual acuity ranges from extremely low to slightly diminished; and

• Reaction to sudden changes in light intensity ranges from avoidance to attraction, including disruption of schooling behaviour.

Fish encountering sudden changes in light intensity could experience:

• Disorientation, affecting alongshore movement;

• Disruption of schooling, resulting in higher exposure to predation; and

• Requirement to move to deeper water to avoid lighted areas, resulting in loss of refugia from predators.

The project proposes to install the following lighting during operations:

• Two navigational lights on the wave fence;

• One operational light on the float on the shore side, midway down the float; and



• One operational light at the top of the ramp.

The proponent has confirmed that the following mitigation measures and BMPs will be implemented (refer to Section 7 (Design Considerations)):

• Overwater, down cast lighting will be avoided;

• Diffuse lighting/low profile light fixtures that sidecast light so light is not directed downward to the water or upward to the sky to avoid/minimize effects on marine life (e.g. fish) and wildlife (e.g. birds) will be used; and

• Continuous lighting will be restricted for purposes of human and navigational safety.

Due to the minimal amount of lighting and lighting mitigation, potential lighting effects on fish at night are not considered to be a concern. Due to the elevation of the ramp and the light penetration provided by the ramp grating, the ramp is unlikely to create sufficient shading to affect fish visual acuity and behaviour during daylight conditions. As a result, lighting and shading effects on fish are not carried forward to the residual effects assessment.



7 Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices This section outlines the mitigation measures and BMPs for implementation during construction and operation of the proposed project, as well as design considerations, to minimize or prevent potential residual effects to the marine environment resulting from the project.

One of the proposed recommendations is environmental monitoring of the site, particularly during any work in environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. eelgrass) or when higher risk activities are being conducted (i.e. pile driving). Regarding the frequency of environmental monitoring, it is anticipated that the Environmental Monitor would have a significant presence on-site during project initiation, the establishment of environmental controls, and during key activities taking place in areas where sensitive environmental features/functions may be affected. Initially, frequent monitoring is anticipated in order to assess the efficacy of environmental controls. The requirement for monitoring visits to the project site will subsequently be reduced as construction proceeds.

Design Considerations (excerpted from Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2001; Green Shores for Homes 2015)

• Design SAR float and plan activities and works in the waterbody such that loss or disturbance to aquatic habitat is minimized and sensitive spawning habitats are avoided, and impacts to SARA-listed aquatic species, their residences or critical habitat are avoided. Through multiple project design options, the project proponent has considered location, layout, and orientation to minimize project-related effects, particularly on eelgrass;

• Design and construct approaches to the waterbody such that they are perpendicular to the waterbody to minimize loss or disturbance to coastal riparian vegetation. The proposed design has the abutment and ramp approach to the float aligned perpendicular to the waterbody;

• Minimize the footprint to only what is required to serve the purpose;

• Use the minimum number and size/diameter of pilings required to achieve safety and stability to minimize disturbance to the seabed, in particular eelgrass habitat. The proposed design does not result in pile placement within the eelgrass bed;

• Dock approach (abutment) should be at least 2 to 2.3 m above the higher high water mark. The proposed abutment is approximately 2.5 m above the higher high water mark mean tide;

• Floats should not rest on the seabed at any time. The minimum clearance below the floats at the lowest low tide should be 1.5 m to prevent propeller wash from disturbing the seabed. The proposed design will not result in the float resting on the seabed at any tide level; clearance is estimated between 1.5 m and 2 m;

• Use grating on overwater structure surfaces that results in a total open area of at least 30%, which can be achieved by using grating with 60% open area on at least 50% of the



overwater structure (Green Shores for Homes 2015). Light permeable deck grating should be installed so that the long axis runs north-to-south (Blanton et al. 2002). In addition, thinner, wider-spaced grating will allow more light to penetrate under the structure (Blanton et al. 2002). The proposed ramp is generally in a northeast to southwest alignment and consists of grating 50 X 100 mm spacing resulting in a total open area of approximately 80%;

• Minimize/avoid overwater, down cast lighting (particularly in shallow, nearshore areas); use diffuse lighting/low profile light fixtures that sidecast light so light is not directed downward to the water or upward to the sky to avoid/minimize effects on marine life (e.g. fish) and wildlife (e.g. birds);

• Restrict continuous lighting for purposes of human and navigational safety; and

• Operationally, restrict tie-up on the southeast side of the float to avoid eelgrass and preventing shading effects or damage from prop scour (proponent will designate this area as a “no-tie” area to protect eelgrass).

General

• Prepare a Project-specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) that outlines the mitigation measures and BMPs and how they will be implemented. Provide EMP to all contractor employees for review and acknowledgment of understanding;

• Ensure the proponent, Environmental Monitor(s) and contractors on-site are familiar with mitigation measures and BMPs and ensure appropriate equipment and personnel are in place to execute the mitigation measures and BMPs as required;

• Contractors must be able to properly install any protection measures and understand mitigation measures and BMPs used on the Project. If measures are not properly installed, they will not provide the necessary environmental protection;

• Appropriate supplies (e.g. bubble curtain during pile driving activities; silt curtain) required to execute BMPs (e.g. underwater noise control measures; turbidity control measures potentially required during pile cleaning and water pumping, and pile drilling) should be readily available on-site in sufficient quantities for the local conditions;

• Prepare to change existing mitigation measures and BMPs should they fail or be deemed inadequate by the Environmental Monitor or a regulatory agency;

• Minimize the area disturbed by construction activities spatially and temporally;

• Minimize foot traffic and heavy equipment operation, if required, within the exposed intertidal zone spatially and temporally;

• Minimize duration of in-water work;

• Conduct work in intertidal zone at low tide to further reduce the risk to fish and fish habitat and/or isolate work from tidal waters;



• Ensure that all in-water activities, or associated in-water structures, do not interfere with fish passage or result in the stranding or death of fish;

• Ensure appropriate protocols are applied, and applicable permits for relocating fish are obtained and to capture any fish trapped within an isolated/enclosed area at the work site and safely relocate them to an appropriate location in the same waters;

• Ensure that building material used in the marine environment has been handled and treated in a manner to prevent the release or leaching of substances into the water that may be deleterious to fish;

• Cease all in-water project activities if there is a risk of physical harm to a marine mammal (or other wildlife) from direct or indirect contact. Resume project activities only once there is no longer a risk of injury; and

• Schedule project works where possible to coincide with the least risk timing windows (i.e. marine/estuarine timing windows) for the project area to reduce the risk of harm to ‘fish’ and ‘fish habitat’. Timing windows for Area 19 Victoria are between December 1 – February 15 (winter window) and July 1 – October 1 (summer window): (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/timing-periodes/bc-s-eng.html#area-19). The proponent will aim to complete as much of the in-water works as possible (particularly pile installation) during the summer least risk window (proposed project schedule is between April and November). However, due to the proximity of the project to the southern resident killer whale (SRKW) critical habitat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada may recommend conducting pile installation activities (impact or any pile installation method) during the winter least risk timing window when the SRKW typically frequent waters further from the project location. Incorporating such a recommendation may not be possible given the proposed project schedule (April to November), as the installation of piles will be required before other project components can be installed (i.e. sheet pile panel walls, float, and ramp) and the pile installation process will span six months, as it involves drilling piles into bedrock and installing concrete rock sockets.

Coastal Riparian and Shoreline

• Avoid disturbance of soils, and although there is minimal coastal riparian vegetation present at the project site, minimize its clearing, as vegetation removal and soil disturbance can increase erosion and sedimentation of the intertidal zone and adjacent subtidal areas;

• Immediately stabilize shoreline disturbed by any activity associated with the project to prevent erosion and/or sedimentation, preferably through re-vegetation with native species suitable for the site; and

• Minimize the removal of natural woody debris, rocks, sand or other materials from the shoreline below the ordinary high water mark. If material is removed, set it aside and return it to the original location once construction activities are completed.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/timing-periodes/bc-s-eng.html#area-19



Machinery and Equipment

It is anticipated that heavy equipment and machinery (e.g. pile driving equipment) will be necessary for on-site project construction activities in the marine environment including barges and tending vessels. Mitigation measures to reduce the impact of machinery and equipment on site are as follows:

• Ensure that machinery and equipment arrives on site in a clean condition and is maintained free of fluid leaks, invasive species and noxious weeds;

• Inspect, keep clean and maintain all equipment, heavy machinery, and vessels in good working condition to prevent leaks of potentially deleterious products (e.g. hydraulic fluid, diesel, gasoline and other petroleum products) or transmission of noxious fumes;

• Maintain all equipment to limit noise generation and fit with functioning exhaust and muffler systems. Ensure all equipment complies with local emissions standards. Minimize idling of vessels and equipment. Turn off equipment and machinery when not in use. As much as possible, coordinate construction activities with daylight periods and regional noise bylaws;

• Ensure all machinery working in or around water has marine grade fluids and oils;

• For machinery working in or around water, utilize biodegradable hydraulic fluid where its use is compatible with the manufacturer’s specifications of construction equipment required to achieve project-specific construction objectives;

• Ensure an emergency spill response/containment kit will be readily accessible on each piece of equipment, barge and tending vessel;

• Operate equipment at optimum rated loads and turn off when not in use;

• Wash, refuel and service machinery and store fuel and other materials for the machinery in such a way as to prevent any deleterious substances from entering the water. Ideally, refuel equipment on land and at least 30 metres from any waterbody where possible. Ensure appropriate spill prevention and containment measures are in place at all times during refueling or use of petroleum or other harmful chemicals on site;

• Minimize light pollution by pointing lights downward and placing task lighting as close to the work area as possible; and

• Use of heavy equipment below the high water mark in the exposed intertidal zone will be avoided (i.e. machinery will be operated from land above the high water mark or from a floating barge). If machinery use in intertidal zone is necessary, the work must occur only under approved conditions and when the intertidal zone is not wetted by the tide. Minimize back and forth movements (tracking) within the exposed intertidal zone.



Construction Tending Vessel and Barge Operations

• Conduct works during suitable tides to prevent grounding by barges on the seabed;

• Ensure construction vessels are not operating in shallow water causing direct, physical disturbance to seabed/habitat (i.e. eelgrass bed) from prop scour, which can also lead to sediment resuspension/turbidity and sedimentation of habitat, algae and sessile organisms;

• Minimize movements/repositioning of barge(s) and subsequent spudding to minimize direct, physical disturbance to seabed;

• Create surface marked exclusion zone to avoid effects to eelgrass bed (i.e. avoid positioning of barge(s) over eelgrass beds to prevent spudding in the bed and shading of the habitat; may require on-site confirmation of eelgrass bed boundaries);

• Minimize vessel traffic over the eelgrass bed; and

• Avoid purposefully approaching marine mammals. Vessels must maintain a minimum distance of 100 m from marine mammals with the exception of all populations of killer whales (Orcinus orca) where a minimum 200 m approach distance is required and a minimum 400 m approach distance is required between June 1 and October 31 in southern resident killer whale critical habitat (echo sounders should be shut off and engines turned to idle when killer whales are within 400 m)24.

Turbidity and Upland Erosion and Sediment Control

Although turbidity is anticipated to be negligible during in-water construction activities, there is still the potential for it to occur as a result of pile cleaning and water pumping, and pile drilling if this method is employed. In addition, construction activities in the upland portion of the project may result in increased erosion at the site and the potential for sediment release into the surrounding (marine) environment. The following mitigation measures have been developed to minimize the effects of construction activities on the marine environment:

• If deemed necessary, monitor water quality for turbidity and implement silt curtains around in-water works (i.e. pile cleaning and water pumping, pile drilling) if turbidity levels exceed the BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines (i.e. 8 NTU over background);

• Ensure erosion and sediment control equipment and devices are readily available and in sufficient quantity on site. Ensure construction team members are trained in the appropriate installation and use of ESC equipment. ESC measures will be reviewed and approved by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) prior to work beginning;

• Prepare to install ESC equipment and measures quickly to minimize sediment entering the marine environment. The overall goal is to isolate the work area and prevent any potential sediment-laden runoff from entering the marine environment (i.e. from upland clearing and cut/fill/grading activities, disturbance to the foreshore slope);

24 https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/watching-observation/index-eng.html

https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/watching-observation/index-eng.html



• Install a floating curtain in the receiving marine environment to isolate potential effects of sediment runoff from the construction site, if terrestrial ESC measures are inadequate for containing sediment runoff from the site;

• Minimize exposed soil and sediment on site through phasing of construction activities, retaining as much vegetation as possible, or covering exposed areas with an appropriate temporary material (e.g. plastic sheeting or filter cloth);

• Stabilize disturbed areas at the end of construction through the effective use of soil cover (e.g. vegetation, straw mulch, erosion control blankets);

• Schedule project activities for dry or fair weather whenever possible to minimize erosion and sediment concerns. Additional ESC measures may need to be erected during or in anticipation of heavy precipitation. During times of extreme precipitation avoid project works that involve exposing soil and sediment and may cause soil/sediment run-off and sedimentation in the marine environment;

• Re-vegetate all areas that are not part of the final footprint of construction to prevent potential surface erosion and siltation of marine habitat;

• Protect exposed soil on any steep grade at the end of construction from surface erosion by hydroseeding with a heavy mulch, tackifier, and seed mix or by installing erosion control blankets; and

• Inspect ESC structures at least weekly and after each storm event of 25 mm+ of rain within a 24-hour period. Complete repairs as required.

Pile Installation

The CCG will need to confirm with Fisheries and Oceans Canada the monitoring requirements, including the monitoring thresholds (see below), based on the project location, conditions, pile size and pile installation method being used.

The following mitigation measures and BMPs are typically required by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for impact pile driving to minimize impacts to fish and marine mammals; however, they may also be required for other pile installation methods:

• Implement acoustic monitoring that adheres to the following sound pressure level thresholds and exclusion zones, which are based on requirements formally written by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for other projects involving impact pile driving:



Fish:

o Injury/mortality sound levels not to exceed a peak sound pressure level (peak

SPL) of 206 dB re: 1Pa and a cumulative sound exposure level (cSEL) of 187 dB

re Pa2s for fish at a practical and implementable fish exclusion zone (e.g. 10 m from sound source);

o Stop impact pile driving immediately if sound levels exceed 206 dB re: 1Pa at the fish exclusion zone boundary and/or if dead or distressed fish are observed within or in close proximity to the project site. Work will not proceed until additional mitigation measures are implemented that reduce the sound levels below the threshold (e.g. deployment of bubble curtain over full length of wetted pile25, amend exclusion zone distance, extend hammer ‘ramp up’/’soft start’26) and/or preclude the further distress or death of fish;

o Suspend activities if aggregations of Pacific herring or salmon are observed within or in close proximity to the project site during respective sensitive periods (more likely in fall and winter for returning adult salmon, spring for out-migrating juvenile salmon, and February to June for spawning Pacific herring, i.e. if working outside the least risk timing windows). Assess potential for activities to disturb or interfere with the fish and decide on appropriate management actions; and

o Temporarily suspend activities if Pacific herring spawn is observed within or in close proximity to the project site. Implement appropriate management actions or further suspend activities until the eggs have hatched and detached from equipment and/or materials (e.g. piles) and larvae have dispersed into the water column.

Marine Mammals:

o Define marine mammal exclusion zone using a disturbance threshold of 160 dB

re: 1Pa (RMS for repetitive activities) and confirmed by acoustic monitoring and recording of activities;

o Stop impact pile driving if sound levels exceed 160 dB re: 1Pa at the marine mammal exclusion zone boundary. Work will not proceed until additional mitigation measures are implemented that reduce the sound levels below the threshold (e.g. deployment of bubble curtain over full length of wetted pile, amend exclusion zone distance, extend hammer ‘ramp up’/’soft start’);

o Complete pile driving that results in sound levels above 160 dB re: 1Pa (inside the marine mammal exclusion zone) during daylight hours;

25 Use of a bubble curtain may be required at all times during impact pile driving and for certain during impact pile driving that is conducted outside the least risk timing windows. 26 Hammer ‘ramp up’/ ‘soft start’ should be conducted at all times not just when an exceedance is identified.



o Ensure that identified marine mammal exclusion zone is clear of marine mammals prior to commencing or during impact pile driving; and

o Delay or stop impact pile driving if a marine mammal is in or enters the exclusion zone before or during impact pile driving operations. Impact pile driving must not start until the marine mammal has left the exclusion zone or when a minimum of 30 minutes has elapsed since the last sighting of the marine mammal.

As previously identified under the general mitigation measures and BMPs regarding least risk timing windows, due to the proximity of the project to the southern resident killer whale (SRKW) critical habitat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada may recommend conducting pile installation activities (impact or any pile installation method) during the winter least risk timing window (December 1 – February 15) when the SRKW typically frequent waters further from the project location. However, this may not be possible given the proposed project schedule between April and November (eight months), as the installation of piles will be required before other project components can be installed (i.e. sheet pile panel walls, float, and ramp) and the pile installation process will span six months, as it involves drilling piles into bedrock and installing concrete rock sockets. The requirement for conducting pile installation within the winter least risk timing window will need to be discussed with Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Appropriate acoustic monitoring equipment needs to be identified based on the defined project monitoring requirements (i.e. capability of live readings). In addition to the above, other best management practices for pile driving outlined by the BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association (2003) should be followed where applicable.

Concrete Works and Grouting

The following BMPs are recommended to prevent and minimize the potential for impacts on the receiving environment from concrete works and grouting:

• Use pre-cast structures where possible;

• Prevent uncured or wet concrete from contact with precipitation or marine waters (minimum of 72 hours curing);

• Carefully pour and distribute concrete to minimize spillage;

• Complete concrete works in isolation of flowing water or marine waters (i.e. complete in the dry during low tides);

• Employ proper housekeeping and appropriate work site isolation techniques to minimize the potential for spills;

• Ensure appropriate spill cleanup materials are readily available, easily accessible, and in sufficient quantity on site;

• If applicable, contain all wastewater, such as displacement water from piles during concrete tremie placement works, until water quality monitoring confirms applicable water quality criteria are met; and



• Conduct water quality monitoring for pH where warranted.

Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products

Petroleum products (i.e. fuels, oils, hydraulic fluids and lubricants) will be used during construction. Effective mitigation will be required to ensure that these materials are stored and managed appropriately and are not accidentally discharged to the marine environment. The following BMPs will mitigate the effect of petroleum product use on site:

• Avoid depositing any deleterious substances in the marine environment;

• Store all petroleum products used on-site in a designated location that poses no risk of marine water contamination. Secure the designated storage area and clearly label and manage it in accordance with local safety regulations;

• Use impervious containment structures able to contain 110% of the maximum capacity of storage vessels on the site;

• Handle petroleum products in such a manner as to minimize leakage and spillage and ensure containment and recovery in the event of a spill. Remove petroleum products no longer required from the site;

• Appropriately label containers and designate them to be used for the temporary storage of used petroleum products. Do not use these containers for disposal of garbage or construction debris; and

• Inspect the site on a regular basis to ensure that all waste petroleum products and waste materials (e.g. oil cans, grease tubes, oily rags) are collected and properly disposed of at a location approved by regulatory authorities.

Spill Prevention and Readiness

Project construction will involve the operation of vessels, equipment and machinery using petroleum products (i.e. fuels, oils, hydraulic fluids, lubricants) and other substances that may be deleterious if released into the marine environment. There is, therefore, the potential for environmental damage to occur from accidental spills of petroleum or other products to the marine environment with the resulting potential for contamination of the marine waters and habitat. To minimize the likelihood and potential environmental impact of a spill event, BMPs to be implemented during construction include:

• Establish a Project-specific Emergency and Spill Response Plan prior to commencement of site preparation and/or construction activities to ensure compliance with Project-specific environmental protection measures and commitments;

• Response plan is to be implemented immediately in the event of a spill of a deleterious substance. Stop work and contain deleterious substances to prevent dispersal;

• Report any spills of sewage, oil, fuel or other deleterious material whether near or directly into marine environment;



• Ensure clean-up measures are suitably applied so as not to result in further alteration of the marine habitat;

• Clean up and appropriately dispose of the deleterious substances;

• Maintain appropriate supplies for spill response and containment on all construction equipment onsite. Maintain a spill kit in an accessible central location;

• Identify all materials of a deleterious nature that could be spilled;

• Ensure all Contractor personnel are trained in proper spill containment and remediation procedures;

• Monitor all on-site storage areas throughout the construction period for signs of spillage or leakage of stored product;

• Inspect and monitor equipment, storage, refueling/maintenance and construction areas regularly; and

• Plan activities near water such that materials such as paint, primers, blasting abrasives, rust solvents, degreasers, grout, poured concrete or other chemicals do not enter the watercourse.

Solid Waste Management

Solid wastes generated during the project will be removed from the site for recycling, where possible, or disposal. The following BMPs will minimize the effects of solid waste on the receiving environment:

• Recover all pile cut offs, waste or any miscellaneous unused materials for either disposal in a designated facility or placed in storage. Under no circumstances will materials be deliberately thrown into the marine environment or left below the high water mark;

• Collect all recyclable or compostable materials separately from general waste according to regional bylaw requirements. Remove garbage from site on a regular basis;

• Adhere to all applicable legislation with respect to the handling, transportation, and/or disposal of all materials related to the Project. Regulations include, but are not limited to, the BC Hazardous Water Regulations, Spill Reporting Regulations, Workers Compensation Board Regulations, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations, etc.;

• Provide portable sanitary facilities on-site for workers’ use throughout the duration of the construction period. Service the facilities regularly with a qualified Contractor;

• Provide properly labeled separate container(s) for potentially hazardous waste such as oily rags and hydrocarbon absorbent pads. Handle and transport absorbent materials or soils contaminated with oil (greater than 3% by weight) or any quantity of gasoline as Hazardous Waste. Excavate and haul off any contaminated soils to an authorized treatment/disposal area in accordance with the BC Hazardous Waste Regulations; and

• Remove all construction-related materials from site upon Project completion.



Operation

• Designate east side of float as “no-tie” area and restrict vessel operation in this area;

• The placement of educational signage regarding the presence and ecological importance of the eelgrass habitat, as well as the importance to protect it, will help mitigate potential effects occurring from float use, such as the deposition of anthropogenic debris and boat operation over the eelgrass habitat;

• Adoption of responsible boating principles such as those outlined in Georgia Strait Alliance’s Green Boating Program will encourage environmental stewardship with regards to fuelling, sewage, bilge waste, boat maintenance, waste disposal, eco-friendly materials, and wildlife interactions and sensitive areas (https://georgiastrait.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/19.GGB-web.pdf); and

• Ensure that vehicles, machinery and equipment used on the ramp and float arrive on site in a clean condition and are maintained free of hydraulic fluid, diesel, gasoline and other petroleum product fluid leaks.

https://georgiastrait.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/19.GGB-web.pdf

https://georgiastrait.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/19.GGB-web.pdf



8 Residual Effects Assessment and Summary Table 5 provides a summary of the criteria used to characterize the residual effects, post mitigation, for the proposed CCG Victoria SAR float. These criteria are identified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada as a requirement of the effects assessment.

Table 5. Criteria for the characterization of residual effects for the proposed abutment, ramp, float, and wave fence.

Criteria Definitions

Magnitude Intensity or severity of the effect

Low - a measurable change from existing baseline conditions but is below environmental and/or regulatory thresholds.

Moderate - a measurable change from existing baseline conditions that is below but approaching environmental and/or regulatory thresholds.

High - a measurable change from existing baseline conditions that is above environmental and/or regulatory thresholds.

Geographic Extent Spatial range of the effect

Site-Specific - effects are contained within the Project footprint.

Local – effects are contained within the local study area (i.e. Victoria Harbour).

Regional – effects are contained within the regional study area (i.e. Gulf Islands area).

Duration Temporal period for which the effect will persist

Short Term - residual effect restricted to project construction and/or decommissioning phase and is predicted to return to existing baseline conditions within two years with no lasting effect.

Long Term - residual effect continues for more than two years after the project construction and/or decommissioning phase, before returning to existing baseline conditions.

Permanent - residual effect is unlikely to return to existing baseline conditions.

Probability Likelihood of the effect occurring

Low - the predicted residual effect is not likely to occur.

Moderate - the predicted residual effect has a reasonable likelihood to occur.

High - the predicted residual effect is likely to occur or certain.

Table 6 provides a summary of the potential project-related effects, the mitigation measures and BMPs to minimize or offset the effects, and the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, and likelihood of residual effects after the implementation of the mitigation measures and BMPs.



Table 6. Summary of potential project-related effects, mitigation measures and BMPs, and resultant residual effects associated with the proposed abutment, ramp, float, and wave fence.

Shading of Habitat Direct Physical

Disturbance

Pile Installation

Underwater Noise

Potential

Project-

Related

Effects

1) Shading of estimated

50.2 m2 trace cover

eelgrass (50 m2 from

ramp; 0.2 m2 from float).

2) Shading of estimated

121 m2 trace to moderate

cover attached bladed

kelps/mixed algae

(abutment – 33 m2, ramp

– 85 m2, and float – 3 m2).

1) Habitat disturbance from barge spud placement.

2) Habitat disturbance from pile placement.

Underwater noise from

impact pile installation may

injure and/or disturb fish

and marine mammals.

Mitigation 1) Elevated ramp with

light permeable surface.

1) a) Limit repositioning of

barges to minimize spud

placement; b) Identify areas

where eelgrass is absent for

spud placement; c) Establish

eelgrass exclusion zone.

2) a) Use minimum number

and size/diameter of pilings

required to achieve safety

and stability; b) Pile

placement avoids eelgrass.

1) Use of a vibratory

hammer instead of an

impact hammer; 2) Use of an

impact hammer with

implementation of bubble

curtain, other fish exclusion

measures, hammer ramp-

up/soft start if noise

exceedances or outside least

risk window; 3) Acoustic

monitoring during impact

pile installation (potentially

during initial vibratory pile

installation/other installation

methods to verify sound

pressure levels and to ensure

thresholds are not

exceeded)*; and 4)

Monitoring for fish and

marine mammals during

impact pile installation*

*Potentially during vibratory

pile installation/other

installation methods given



Shading of Habitat Direct Physical

Disturbance

Pile Installation

Underwater Noise

proximity to SRKW critical

habitat; especially between

April and October when they

frequent these waters.

Potential Residual Effect? (Y/N)

Y Y Y

Magnitude Low to Moderate 1) Low (areas without

eelgrass); Moderate to High

(if barge spud accidentally

placed in eelgrass)

2) Low

Low

Geographic

Extent

Site-Specific Site-Specific Local

Duration Long Term (until

decommissioning)

1) Short Term (spud

placement)

2) Long Term (pile

placement)

Short Term (~6 months)

Probability Low to Moderate Moderate Low

8.1 Shading of Habitat

There is anticipated to be variability in the residual effects from shading of habitat as some of the vegetation (attached mixed red/green algae) occurs below the non-light permeable abutment while the majority of the eelgrass and attached bladed kelps/mixed algae occurs below the elevated, light permeable ramp and a limited amount of each occurs below the floating, non-light permeable float. In considering the potential range in shading, the residual effects from shading of habitat are anticipated to be low to moderate in magnitude, limited spatially and long term (based on lifetime of project until its decommissioning). Post-construction monitoring of the eelgrass to evaluate changes to the bed and potential offsetting requirements may be required.



8.2 Direct Physical Disturbance

8.2.1 Barge Spud Placement

With the implementation of relevant mitigation measures and BMPs outlined in Section 7 (Construction Tending Vessel and Barge Operations), the residual effects from the deployment of barge spuds in areas without eelgrass are anticipated to be low in magnitude, limited spatially, and short term; affected infaunal and epifaunal communities are expected to recover to a pre-construction state relatively quickly.

It is anticipated that areas with eelgrass can be avoided through detailed planning of barge positioning. Therefore, residual effects to eelgrass from barge spud placement would likely only occur from accidental placement within the bed; however, accidental placement can be prevented by marking an exclusion zone at the surface of the water. If accidental barge spud placement occurs in the eelgrass bed, the residual effects are anticipated to be limited spatially, short term, but moderate to high in magnitude depending on the extent of eelgrass affected and whether it results in rhizome exposure (i.e. around edge of depression created by the spud), plant damage or plant loss.

8.2.2 Pile Placement

With the implementation of relevant mitigation measures and BMPs, the residual effects from pile placement are anticipated to be low in magnitude, limited spatially, and long term (based on lifetime of project until its decommissioning). Pile placement is not planned within the eelgrass bed therefore was not carried forward to this assessment of residual effects. As the installation of abutment piles will occur in the intertidal zone (approximately between +1 m and +2 m CD) above what is typically defined as suitable abalone (0 m to -10 m CD), the suitable habitat for abalone identified between 0 m and -2 m CD below the ramp is not anticipated to be affected with the implementation of specific mitigation measures and BMPs for pile installation.

8.3 Pile Installation Underwater Noise

Given that the potential noise effects from pile installation can for the most part be mitigated, it is anticipated that residual effects to fish and marine mammals will be low in magnitude, limited to a local area, and short term provided the mitigation measures and BMPs outlined in Section 7 (Pile Installation) are implemented.

8.4 Summary

With the implementation of the mitigation measures and BMPs, the residual effects can be kept low to moderate in magnitude (potentially high in unlikely instance of accidental barge spud placement in eelgrass), and limited to the site or local area (pile driving noise).

As there is expected to be variability in the extent of shading effects on eelgrass due to differences in the overwater structures (elevated, light permeable and floating, non-light permeable), a post-construction monitoring program may be required to help determine if the eelgrass is impacted negatively and potentially requires offsetting. Baseline data (e.g. area, percent cover, density, length area index (LAI) measurements) can be collected prior to final placement of the float and ramp, and collected annually at the same time of year as the



baseline at a frequency specified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Due to the carbohydrate storage capacity of eelgrass rhizomes, effects from shading may not be obvious for several months therefore it is important to monitor for at least one full growing season (Shafer 1999). Based on similar projects, Fisheries and Oceans Canada may require the monitoring to take place over a five year period where monitoring is conducted in Year 1, 2, 3 and/or 5. This monitoring program would help proponents, practitioners, and regulatory agencies better understand the variability of shading effects on eelgrass for these types of projects.

Although abalone are generally found subtidally between 0 m and -10 m chart datum, they could be present in the lower intertidal zone during higher tides, particularly between April and July when sexually mature adults aggregate in shallow waters to spawn. The requirement for a pre-construction abalone survey to relocate any abalone within and in the vicinity of the abutment pile installation area will need to be confirmed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as the benefit acquired from moving the abalone to protect them will need to be evaluated against the risk of harm to them that could occur during the collection and transfer process.



9 References

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. March 2013. 2012 Shoal Point Eelgrass Survey. Victoria Canadian Coast Guard Base. 99pp.

BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association. 2003. Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations.

Bird Studies Canada. 2015. Important Bird Areas of Canada database. Port Rowan, Ontario: Bird Studies Canada. Accessed January 29, 2019 at: http://www.ibacanada.org.

Blanton, S., Thom, R., Borde, A., Diefenderfer, H., and J. Southard. 2002. Evaluation of methods to increase light under ferry terminals. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation Research Office, Olympia, Washington. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL-13714.

Bowen, J.L. and I. Valiela. 2001. The ecological effects of urbanization on coastal watersheds: Historical increase in nitrogen loads and eutrophication of Waquoit Bay estuaries. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:1489-155.

Burdick, D.M., and F.T. Short. 1999. The effects of boat docks on eelgrass beds in coastal waters of Massachusetts. Environmental Management. Vol. 23, No.2, pp. 231-240.

Community Mapping Network. 2019. British Columbia Great Blue Herons Atlas. Accessed January 29, 2019 at: http://cmnmaps.ca/GBHE/

Conservation Data Centre. 2019. Species and ecological communities at risk. Retrieved online from CDC. Accessed January 29, 2019 at: http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/cdc/

COSEWIC. 2009. 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. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

den Hartog, C. 1994. Suffocation of a littoral Zostera bed by Enteromorpha radiata. Aquat Bot: 47:3-14.

Duarte C.M., J. Borum, F. Short, and D. Walker. 2008. Seagrass Ecosystems: Their global status and prospects. In: Polunin NVC (ed) Aquatic Ecosystems: Trends and Global Prospects. Cambridge University Press.

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2019. Accessed on January 29, 2019 at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-bird-sanctuaries/locations/victoria-harbour.html

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1995. Marina development guidelines for the protection of fish and fish habitat.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2001. Factsheet: Marine guide to small boat moorage. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library/281614.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008. Northern Abalone. DFO Science Stock Status Report 2004/053.

http://www.ibacanada.org/

http://cmnmaps.ca/GBHE/

http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/cdc/

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-bird-sanctuaries/locations/victoria-harbour.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-bird-sanctuaries/locations/victoria-harbour.html

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library/281614.pdf



Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012. Action Plan for the Northern Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in Canada Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vii + 65pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2020. Conservation Unit Data. Retrieved online from NuSEDS-New Salmon Escapement Database System. Accessed on January 20, 2020 at: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/c48669a3-045b-400d-b730-48aafe8c5ee6

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2019. Rockfish Conservation Areas Area 18. Accessed January 29, 2019 at: https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/rca-acs/areas-secteurs/1920-eng.html

Ford, John K.B., J.F. Pilkington, A. Reira, M. Otsuki, B. Gisborne, R.M. Abernethy, E.H. Stredulinsky, J.R. Towers, and G.M. Ellis. 2017. Habitats of special importance to resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) off the West Coast of Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2017/35. pp. 66.

Gayaldo, P., Ewing, K., and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 2001. Transplantation and alteration of submarine environment for restoration of Zostera marina (eelgrass): A case study at Curtis Wharf (Port of Anacortes), Washington. Puget Sound Research.

Gorge Waterway Initiative. 2007. Accessed on January 29, 2019 at:

https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/initiatives-pdf/gwi-pdf/infosheets/fish-of-the-waterway.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Green ShoresTM for Homes. 2015. Credits and ratings guide: A reference for homeowners, designers, and construction professionals to help minimize the environmental impact of waterfront properties and development. p. 138. (http://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/PDF_docs/greenshores/Resources/GSHCreditsandRatingsGuide.pdf)

Hay, D.E., and P.B. McCarter. 2013. Herring spawning areas of British Columbia. A review, geographic analysis and classification. Accessed on January 29, 2019 at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/hertags/pdf/project-eng.pdf

Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.C. Stevenson, R.R. Twilley, and J.C. Means. 1983. The decline of submersed vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Mar Technol Soc J 17:78-89.

Lessard, J. and A. Campbell. 2006. Impact Assessment Protocol for Works and Developments Potentially Affecting Abalone and their Habitat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Stock Assessment Division, Science Branch, Pacific Biological Station.

Logan, J., A. Davis, and K. Ford. 2015. Environmental Impacts of Docks and Piers on Salt Marsh Vegetation Across Massachusetts Estuaries- A Quantitative Field Survey Approach. 44.

Logan, J., S. Voss, and K. Ford. 2014. Shading Impacts of Small Docks and Piers on Salt Marsh Vegetation in Massachusetts Estuaries.

https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/c48669a3-045b-400d-b730-48aafe8c5ee6

https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/rca-acs/areas-secteurs/1920-eng.html

https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/rca-acs/areas-secteurs/1920-eng.html

https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/initiatives-pdf/gwi-pdf/infosheets/fish-of-the-waterway.pdf?sfvrsn=2

https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/initiatives-pdf/gwi-pdf/infosheets/fish-of-the-waterway.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/PDF_docs/greenshores/Resources/GSHCreditsandRatingsGuide.pdf

http://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/PDF_docs/greenshores/Resources/GSHCreditsandRatingsGuide.pdf

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/hertags/pdf/project-eng.pdf





Ministry of Environment. 2018. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Province of British Columbia. Accessed January 29, 2019 at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 2002. British Columbia Marine Ecological Classification. Marine Ecosections and Ecounits. Prepared by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Decision Support Services Branch for the Coastal Task Force, Resources Information Standards Committee. Version 2.0. p. 63.

Moore, K.A., R.L. Wetzel, and R.J. Orth. 1997. Seasonal pulses of turbidity and their relation to eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) survival in an estuary. J Mar Biol Ecol 215: 115-134.

Mumford, T.F. Jr. 2007. Kelp and eelgrass in Puget Sound. Prepared in support of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership. Technical Report 2007-05.

Shafer, D.J. 1999. Design and construction of docks to minimize seagrass impacts. WRP Technical Note VN-RS-3.1.

Short, F.T. and D.M. Burdick. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 19; 730-739.

Species at Risk Public Registry. 2019. Accessed January 29, 2019 at: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1192.

Thom, R.M, Southard, S.L., Borde, A.B., and P. Stoltz. 2008. Light requirements for growth and survival of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in Pacific Northwest (USA) estuaries.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/

http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1192



Appendix A: Biophysical Transect Data



Biophysical profile of Transect 1



Photographic documentation of the biophysical characteristics of Transect 1. See Photo Plate 2 for additional photo documentation from the biophysical dive survey.

Photo 1: Looking towards the waterline, substrate

was bare and consisted of large boulder riprap.

Photo 2: Looking towards T2, the high intertidal

zone was mostly bare of flora and fauna and

consisted of boulder rip rap.

Photo 3: At the waterline, bedrock and boulder

were tracely covered in foliose green algae,

rockweed and barnacle.

Photo 4: Rip rap boulders covered in foliose red

and green algae in nearshore portion of dive

survey.

Photo 5: Japanese wire-weed (Sargassum

muticum), foliose green algae (Ulva sp.), and

foliose red algae on boulder substrate.

Photo 6: Along the sand substrate, trace patches

of eelgrass (Zostera marina) were observed.



Intertidal Transect Data for Transect 1 (surveyed from high to low intertidal zone)

Elevation 4.76 to 5.45 m

Slope Distance 0.0 to 2.1 m

Substrate Boulder (>75%)

Vegetation Terrestrial grasses, thistle (5-25%)

Invertebrates None



Substrate Boulder size riprap (95%); cement with pebbles

Vegetation Orange seaside lichen (Caloplaca/Xanthoria sp.) (< 5%)

Invertebrates Limpet (Tectura persona ) (P)

Comments Woody debris, washed up bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana )



Substrate Boulder (>75 %); Bedrock (5-25%)

Brown algae (rockweed (Fucus sp.) (5-25%))

Red algae (Turkish towel (Mastocarpus sp. (< 5%); red rock crust

(Hildenbrandia sp. (< 5%)); tufted seaweed (Endocladia muricata

(5-25%))

Green algae (foliose sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) (< 5%))

Barnacle (Balanus glandula ) (5-25%) (C ); (Chthalamus dalli ) (5-

25%) (C )

Periwinkle (Littorina sp.) (C )

Dogwinkle (Nucella sp.) (P)

Shore crab (Hemigrapsus sp.) (C )

Limpet (Lottia digitalis ) (P)

Comments Cables, metal debris

Elevations: relative to chart datum (e.g. -5 = 5 m below chart datum; +5 = 5 m above chart datum)

Vegetation: % cover estimated for dominant species

Invertebrates: A = Abundant, C = Common, P = Present

Transect 1

Top Bank

Vegetation

Invertebrates

Bare

Barnacle

mix

Rockweed



Subtidal Transect Data for Transect 1 (surveyed from deep to shallow)






Photographic documentation of the biophysical characteristics of Transect 2. See Photo Plate 2 for additional photo documentation from the biophysical dive survey.

Photo 1: Looking towards the waterline, the high

intertidal zone consisted of large boulder rip rap.

Photo 2: Substrate consisted of manmade

conglomerate with metal and glass waste in the

upper intertidal zone.

Photo 3: At the waterline, a barnacle bioband

mixed with rockweed over bedrock and boulders

was present.

Photo 4: Below the water line, substrate consisted

of boulders covered in barnacles (Balanus cariosus

and Chthalamus dalli), green foliose algae (Ulva sp.),

and rockweed (Fucus sp.).

Photo 5: Substrate consisted of sand covered in

diatom with trace fronds of eelgrass (Zostera

marina) present.

Photo 6: Substrate consisted of a mix of pebble

and gravel, covered in diatom at toe of rip rap

slope. Within the white box, a helmet crab

(Telmessus sp.) rests.






SubstrateAngular riprap; Pebble (5-25 %); boulder (5-25%); concrete

block (5-25 %)

Vegetation Terrestrial grasses (5-25 %)

Invertebrates None



SubstrateBoulder size rip rap (> 75%); manmade concrete rock with

cables, metals, anthropogenic debris (5-25 %)

Vegetation Orange seaside lichen (Caloplaca/Xanthoria sp.) (5%)

Invertebrates None



SubstrateBoulder (25-75%); Cobble (5-25%); Manmade concrete rock

with cobble and pebble (5-25 %)


Red algae (Turkish towel foliose and encrusting

(Mastocarpus sp. And petrocelis phase) (<5 %); tufted

seaweed (Endocladia muricata ) (<5 %)

Green algae (foliose sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) (<5 %)

Barnacle ((Balanus glandula ) (25-50%) (A); Chthamalus

dalli (25-50%) (A); spat (5-25%)

Periwinkle (Littorina sp.) (C )

Dogwinkle (Nucella sp. ) (P)

Limpet (Lottia digitalis ) (C )

Comments Plastic cables, metal remnants, copper wires

Transect 2

Bare




Top Bank

Vegetation

Invertebrates

Barnacle mix

Rockweed









Photographic documentation of the biophysical characteristics of Transect 3 (See Photo Plate 2 for additional photo documentation from the biophysical dive survey).

Photo 1: The upper intertidal zone consisted of large

concrete blocks and boulder sized rip rap.

Photo 2: Substrate was a mix of boulder sized

riprap and manmade conglomerate with metal and

glass debris in it.

Photo 3: At the waterline, a barnacle mixed with

rockweed bioband was visible covering bedrock

and boulder.

Photo 4: Bedrock covered in barnacles (Balanus

glandula and Semibalanus cariosus), foliose and

filamentous red algae, foliose green algae (Ulva sp.)

and rockweed (Fucus sp.) in nearshore portion of

dive survey.

Photo 5: Marine flora included bladed brown kelp,

foliose green algae (Ulva sp.), Japanese wireweed

(Sargassum muticum), sea sacs (Halosaccion sp.),

and foliose red algae on bedrock/boulder

substrate.

Photo 6: Sand substrate covered in diatom with

filamentous and foliose red algae in offshore

portion of dive survey.






Substrate Boulder (5-25%)

Vegetation Terrestrial grasses (>75 %)

Invertebrates None

Comments Anthropogenic debris; cables, wires, concrete, metal blocks



SubstrateManmade concrete rock with metal debris (25-50%); Boulder

size rip rap (25-50%); Concrete blocks (5-25%)

Vegetation Orange seaside lichen (5 %)

Invertebrates None

Comments Woody debris



Substrate Boulder (25-50%); manmade rock (25-50%)


Red algae (Turkish towel (Mastocarpus sp.) (<5%); sea brush

(Odonthalia sp.) (<5 %); encrusting and branching coralline algae

(<5 %))

Barnacle (Balanus glandula ) (25-50%) (A); Chthdalamus dalli (25-

50%) (A)

Limpet (Tectura persona ) (C ); (Lottia sp. ) (C )

Mussel (Mytilus sp. ) (C )

Chiton (Katherina tunicata ) (P); (Mopalia muscosa ) (P)

Purple sponge (Haliclona sp.) (P)




Transect 3

Top Bank

Bare

Vegetation

Invertebrates

Barnacle mix

Rockweed




Dist. (m)

Depth

(m) (CD) Time

7 100 UL 90Red rock crab (C.

productus )P

RB 5

LA drift 5

7 100 UL 90 Tubeworm (Diopatra ) C-A

8 5 LA drift 5 Unid. topsnail C-ABarnacles (Balanus,

Semibalanus )A

Jingle shell

(Pododesmus )P

Painted anemone (U.

crassicornis )P

Six armed star

(Leptasterias )P


8 5 LA drift 25 Pandalid shrimp P

7 100 UL 75

8 5 LA drift 25


RB 25 Pandalid shrimp C

LA drift 25-50Frosted nudibranch

(Dirona )P


RB 25 Unid. shrimp C

LA/CO

drift50

Rock scallop

(Crassodoma ) P

7 100 UL 5 Brittlestar (Amphiodia ) A

RB 5-25 Tubeworm (Diopatra ) C-APandalid shrimp PSix armed star

(Leptasterias ) P

LA 5-25Barnacles (Balanus,

Semibalanus ) A BEG P

RF 5-25 Pandalid shrimp C

EN 5-25 Unid. tunicate/sponge CBrittlestar C10-tentacled anemone

(Halcampa ) PAnemone (Metridium

senile ) PSea cucumber (C.

miniata ) PLined chiton (Tonicella

sp.) PKelp crab (Pugettia sp.) P

EN=Encrusting coralline UL=Ulva EG=Eelgrass SA=Sargassum FU=Fucus HA=Halosaccion

BEG=Black eyed goby

(A=Abundant C=Common P=Present) Substrate/algae percent cover: <5% 5-25% 26-50% 51-75% >75%1=Bedrock smooth 2=Bedrock crevice 3=Boulder 4=Cobble 5=Pebble 6=Pea Pebble 7=Sand 8=Shell 9=Mud

LA=Laminaria CO=Costaria G=Green R=Red B=Brown F=Foliose H=Filamentous B=Branching

5

Sculpin P14 -2.3 1158 3,4 100

SA

-

20 -2.6 11568, 5 5

LA drift 25

- -

25 -2.9 11548 5

-

-

30 -3 1152

Crab trap8 5

- -

35 -3.5 1151Tubeworm (Diopatra )

C-A -

- -

40 -3.6 1150 - -

42 -3.6 1147 Concrete block

-

45 -3.6 1147 - -

50 -3.8 11468 5

Tubeworm (Diopatra )

Substrate/% Algae/% Inverts Fish

C-A-



Subtidal Transect Data for Transect 3 (surveyed from deep to shallow) (Cont.)

Dist. (m)

Depth

(m) (CD) Time

LA 25-50Barnacles (Balanus,

Semibalanus )A

EN 25-50Jingle shell

(Pododesmus )C

Unid. topsnail C

Bristly tunicate P

Broadbase tunicate PLeafy hornmouth

(Ceratostoma )P

Rock scallop

(Crassodoma )P

Nudibranch (dorid) P

Green sea urchin P

3,4 95 RF/RB 25-50Barnacles (Balanus,

Semibalanus ) A

UL 5 Unid. topsnail C

SA 5Limpets (Tectura sp.,

Lottia sp.) C

LA <5

EN 5

FU 50Barnacles (Balanus,

Semibalanus, A

RF/UL/RB 50 Chthamalus )

HA 5-25Limpets (Tectura sp.,

Lottia sp.) APandalid shrimp CRose anemone (U.

piscivora ) POchre star (Pisaster

ochraceus ) PKelp crab (Pugettia sp.) PHelmet crab (Telmessus )

PKaty chiton (Katharina ) P


EN=Encrusting coralline UL=Ulva EG=Eelgrass SA=Sargassum FU=Fucus HA=Halosaccion

BEG=Black eyed goby

Jingle shell

(Pododesmus ) P

5

- -

(A=Abundant C=Common P=Present) Substrate/algae percent cover: <5% 5-25% 26-50% 51-75% >75%1=Bedrock smooth 2=Bedrock crevice 3=Boulder 4=Cobble 5=Pebble 6=Pea Pebble 7=Sand 8=Shell 9=Mud


0 1.4 1212 3,2 100

SA

- -

5 0.5 12098 5

- -

10 -1 1204 3,4 100

HA 5



Subtidal profile of Transect 4 (Eelgrass Float Footprint)



Photographic documentation of subtidal survey of Transect 4. See Photo Plate 2 for additional photo documentation from the biophysical dive survey.

Photo 1: Invertebrates identified among the drift

algae included red rock crab (Cancer productus)

and tube worms (Diopatra sp.).

Photo 2: Drift algae covered the sand substrate

and included a mix of foliose green algae

(Ulva,sp.), filamentous red algae, and brown

bladed kelp.

Photo 3: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) was observed

along T4.

Photo 4: Drift algae included foliose green algae

(Ulva sp.) and the branched red algae

(Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii).

Photo 5: Substrate consisted of sand with shell

hash, diatom cover and drift kelp.

Photo 6: Tubeworms (Diopatra sp.) covered in

foliose green and red algae.




Dist. (m)

Depth

(m) (CD) Time

7 100 UL 75

RB 5

LA drift 5

7 100

7 100 UL 75-95

7 100 UL 5-25

EG 5

LA drift 5

7 100 UL 5-25

EG <5

LA drift 5

7 100 UL 5

EG 5

Cross T2 (middle) at 26.2m RB 5

LA/CO

drift5-25

7 100 UL 5-25Kelp crab

(Pugettia sp.)P

RB 5-25

RH 5

Cross T3 (north) at 12.8mLA/CO

drift50

7 100 UL 50Tubeworm

(Diopatra )C-A

8 5LA/CO

drift50

Helmet crab

(Telmessus )P

7 100 UL 90Tubeworm

(Diopatra )C-A

8, 5 5 RB 5Heath's dorid (G.

heathi )P

1=Bedrock smooth 2=Bedrock crevice 3=Boulder 4=Cobble 5=Pebble 6=Pea Pebble 7=Sand 8=Shell 9=Mud


EN=Encrusting coralline UL=Ulva EG=Eelgrass

Cross T1 (south) at 35.6m

End of EG @ ~26 m

Surveyed southeast to northwest

0 -3 1138 - -

(A=Abundant C=Common P=Present) Substrate/algae percent cover: <5% 5-25% 26-50% 51-75% >75%

-

10 -3 1135 - -

- -

20 -2.8 1132

8 5Tubeworm

(Diopatra )C-A

-

- - -

30 -2.6 1129

8 5Pandalid shrimp A

- - - -

44 -2.4 1126

8 5-

5/5-25Pandalid shrimp A - -

49 -2.4 11268 5

- - - -

63 -2.1 11238 5 EG

- - -

70 -2 11228 5

UL 100


84 -1.8 11198 5

-



Appendix B: Towed Video Physical and Biological Classification Categories



Physical Classification

Table 1. Summary of physical classification.

Field Description

SUBSTRATE the general substrate of the seabed (rock, veneer, clastics, biogenic) (Table B 2)

BOULDER % cover of boulder on the seabed by class (Table B 3)

COBBLE % cover of cobbles on the seabed by class (Table B 3)

PEBBLE % cover of pebble on the seabed by class (Table B 3)

TOTAL GRAVEL % cover of gravel; as total cover pebbles, cobbles and boulders by class (Table B 3)

ORGANICS % of visible vegetation or wood debris on the seabed by class (Table B 3)

SHELL % of coarse shell on the seabed by class (Table B 3)

SEDIMENT CLASS 6 classes of clastic sediment (Table B 4)

MAN MADE man-made objects seen on the seabed (Table B 5)

Table 2. General Substrate codes and definitions

Substrate Name Code Description

Rock R bedrock outcrop; may be partially covered with a veneer of sediment

Veneer over bedrock vR intermittently visible bedrock covered with a thin veneer of clastic sediments

Clastic C seabed comprised of mineral grains of gravel, sand or mud-sized material

Biogenic B surface of seabed comprised of material of biogenic origin such as vegetation

Table 3. Sediment Categories.

Sediment Category Size

(Intermediate Axis)

General

Category

boulder >25.6 cm

GRAVEL cobble 6.4 to 25.6 cm

pebble 2 mm to 6.4 cm

sand 0.062 to 2 mm SAND

mud <0.62 mm MUD

shell (coarse) >2 mm SHELL

organic debris n/a ORGANICS

wood debris n/a



Table 4. Sediment Class Codes. The percent cover of Boulder, Cobble, Pebble, Total Gravel, Organics and Shell are individually estimated based on the categories of percent cover listed in Table B 5.

Gravel

Content >90% Mud Mud/Sand Mixture >90%Sand

>80% G

(gravel)

5-80% - gMS, (mud/sand with gravel) gS

(sand with gravel)

0-5% M

(mud)

MS

(mud/sand)

S

(sand)

Table 5. Substrate percent cover classes.

Class

Percent Cover Range

1 none

2 T-5%

3 5-30%

4 30-50%

5 50-80%

6 >80%

Table 6. Codes for Man-Made Objects.

Code Object

B Bottle

BT Boat hull

C Cable/wire/rope

CB Crab trap

CN Can or cans

CH Chain

CO Concrete object

L Log or lumber

ML Large metal object (>50cm)

MS Small metal object (<50 cm)

MT Mast

OL Large object (>50cm)

OS Small object (<50 cm)

P Pipe

PL Piling (wood or cement)

T Tire



Biological Classification

Table 7. Vegetation Classification Codes.

Algal Group or

Species Subgroup Code Description

Brown Algae

Bladed Kelps BKS

Large laminarian bladed kelps, including Saccharina latissima (formerly Laminaria

saccharina), S. subsimplex (formerly L. groenlandica), Costaria costata and Cymathere

triplicata. Alaria may also be present.

Japanese wireweed SAR Large brown introduced seaweed (Sargassum muticum)

Filamentous Browns FIB Filamentous brown algae

Green Algae Foliose Greens FOG Primarily the foliose green algae Ulva, but also includes Enteromorpha and Monostroma.

Filamentous Reds FIR Filamentous red algae

Red Algae

Foliose Reds FOR

A diverse species mix of foliose red algae (including Chondracanthus, Mazzaella,

Mastocarpus, Rhodymenia, Constantinia, Opuntiella) which may be found from the lower

intertidal to depths of 20m primarily on rocky substrate.

Filamentous Reds FIR Filamentous red algae

Seagrasses Eelgrass ZOS Eelgrass (Zostera marina).

No Vegetation NOV No vegetation observed

Cannot Classify X Imagery is not clear, classification not possible.

Table 8. Invertebrate Classification Codes.

Taxonomic

Group Code Description

No Fauna NOF No Fish or Invertebrate megafauna visible

Anemone ANM Plumose anemone (Metridium sp.)

Crab CAN Cancer sp. (C. magister, C. gracilis, C. productus)

PUG Kelp crab (Pugettia sp.)

In fauna "holes" HLF Unmounded (flat) worm, clam or crustacean holes - species or species group cannot be distinguished.

HLM Mounded worm, clam or crustacean holes - species or species group cannot be distinguished.

Sea Cucumber CUC Unidentified Cucumaria (Cucumaria sp.)

Sea Star STR Unidentified Sea Star

Shrimp

(Pandalid) PAN Unidentified Pandalid



Appendix C: Phase 1 Abalone Survey Datasheets





Appendix D: Phase 2 Abalone Survey Datasheets







Documents

Marine Habitat Assessment for the Canadian Coast Guard