ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION … · The summary of existing conditions was used...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

SE

CT

ION

4.6

: W

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY


Environmental Assessment Certificate Application

Part B – Assessment of Environmental, Economic, Social, Heritage and Health Effects

Section 4.6: Water Quality

1

4.6 WATER QUALITY EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

This section presents the existing conditions and results of the assessment of potential Project effects and

cumulative effects on Water Quality. The rationale for the selection of Water Quality as a Valued Component (VC)

and assessment boundaries are also described. Assessment findings, including identification of Project

interactions and effects, proposed approaches to mitigation, characterization of residual Project and cumulative

effects, and determination of significance, are presented. Monitoring and follow-up programs to be conducted with

respect to Water Quality are also described.

This effects assessment on water quality is linked to:

River Processes PC;

Fish and Fish Habitat VC;

Marine Mammals VC; and

Human Health VC.

Results of the Water Quality assessment were incorporated into the following sections in the Environment

Assessment Certificate (EAC) Application:

Fish and Fish Habitat VC;

Marine Mammals VC; and

Human Health VC.

Context and Boundaries

Context

Water Quality is defined as the chemical and physical characteristics of water that support aquatic life as well as

human needs or purposes including sustenance (i.e., drinking water), cultural, commercial, or recreational use.

Water Quality was selected as a VC following input from the Working Group and due to its importance to Aboriginal

groups, the public, and other stakeholders, as well as regulatory importance. The Project has the potential to affect

Water Quality from Project activities during construction, including dredging, soil densification, pile driving, and

infrastructure installation, that may result in sediment disturbance with the potential for increased turbidity levels.

Project activities during operation, such as maintenance dredging and vessel operations, also have the potential

to affect water quality through direct or indirect effects. Dredging activities associated with the Project are

anticipated to be of primary concern in this assessment, but consideration has also been given to other Project-

related activities that could potentially result in adverse effects. Site water generated by Project-related activities

will be managed, treated, and disposed of appropriately with required permits, if any.





2

The assessment of potential effects on Water Quality from Project-related activities consisted of the following

tasks:

Characterization of existing conditions in relation to surface water quality, sediment quality, and aquatic

health;

Identification of potential Project-related changes to surface water quality and the potential for adverse effects

to aquatic health;

Discussion of mitigation measures and management strategies; and

Assessment of residual Project effects and, if appropriate, cumulative effects.

The summary of existing conditions was used as the basis of the effects assessment, which describes and

evaluates potential effects arising from interactions between the Project and Water Quality. Where Aboriginal

groups provided information on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) through consultation, information

gathering, and voluntary information sharing, this TEK was integrated into the assessment as described in Part

C: Aboriginal Consultation.

Provincial and federal acts and regulations related to Water Quality that are applicable to the Project are listed in

Table 4.6-1.

Table 4.6-1: Applicable Provincial and Federal Acts and Regulations: Water Quality

Acts and Regulations

Description

BC Environmental Assessment Act, Reviewable Projects Regulation

(Government of BC, 2002)

The BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) requires environmental assessments for reviewable projects that need an Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC). A project can be determined as reviewable under Section 5, 6, or 7 of the Act. The Reviewable Projects Regulation (BC Reg 370/2002) prescribes what constitutes a reviewable project for the purpose of the Act.

BC Environmental Management Act (EMA)

(Government of BC, 2003)

The BC EMA prohibits the introduction of waste to the environment unless the introduction of that waste is conducted in accordance with a permit, approval, order, or regulation (EMA Sections 6([2] and 6[3]). The requirement of the EMA is that “a person must not introduce waste into the environment in such a manner or quantity as to cause pollution” (EMA Section 6[4]). Pollution is defined in the EMA as “the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment.”

Federal Fisheries Act

(Government of Canada, 1985)

The Fisheries Act is a federal Act that offers protection of all fish that are part of a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal (CRA) fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. Section 36 of the Act prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance into waters frequented by fish, unless authorized by regulations under the Fisheries Act or other federal legislation. Section 36 applies to the point of discharge.





3

Acts and Regulations

Description

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012

(Government of Canada, 2012)

CEAA 2012 requires an assessment of environmental effects on fish and fish habitat as per Section 5(1)(a)(i). For the purposes of CEAA 2012, there is no requirement to assess water quality directly. Changes to water quality, however, may affect fish and fish habitat under CEAA 2012.

CEAA 2012 Sections 5(1)(a)(i) and (ii) are relevant to Water Quality as changes potentially affecting Water Quality

are linked to fish and fish habitat as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act and are linked to aquatic species

as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act. CEAA 2012 Section 5(2)(a) is also relevant as disposal

of dredge material at sea is regulated by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and administered by

Environment and Climate Change Canada. This includes potential project-related changes in water quality,

including pH, temperature, and sediments, which have the potential to effect how fish and wildlife, regulated under

federal acts, use the project area.

Federal and provincial water and sediment guidelines were used in the effects assessment. These science-based

guidelines include the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Environmental Quality

Guidelines (CEQGs; CCME, 2018), the British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (ENV) Approved Water Quality Guidelines (AWQG; MOE, 2018) and the British Columbia Working Water

Quality Guidelines (WWQGs; MOE, 2017). CEQGs for the protection of aquatic life are benchmark concentrations

in water or sediment for constituents of interest that are generic and applicable across Canada. BC AWQGs and

WWQGs apply to aquatic environments within the provincial jurisdiction of BC but also represent safe levels

protective of the stated water use (e.g., protection of aquatic life). Corresponding guidelines protective of human

health used to screen existing conditions as part of the Human Health Effects Assessment are described in the

Section 8.

Ambient water and sediment quality objectives specific to the South Arm of the Fraser River (Fraser River Ambient

Water Quality Objectives [FRWQO]), were also used in the effects assessment. Swain et al. (Swain et al., 1998)

developed these objectives by describing water quality within different reaches of the Fraser River, including

impacts related to operations that existed at the time of the objective development (i.e., pre-1998), and then

selecting appropriate federal or provincial water quality guidelines (WQGs) protective of the associated water

uses, while also considering existing water quality within those reaches. Like WQGs, these objectives have no

legal standing, but they provide policy direction to resource managers for protection of water uses, as well as

informing assessment of the performance of protection activities, including the effectiveness of pollution control

regulations. The Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) was a management program specific to

the lower Fraser River that applies to the Project Regional Assessment Area (RAA). Under the FREMP, guidelines

and a strategy were developed for dredging in the lower Fraser River (FREMP 2006).





4

Valued Components

The process for identifying and selecting VCs followed the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office’s

(BCEAO’s) Guideline for the Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects (BCEAO,

2013), as outlined in Section 2.0, Identification and Selection of Valued Components. VCs were identified

based on an understanding of the Project, input from consultation, requirements set out in the Application

Information Requirements (AIR), and experience with other marine infrastructure projects in BC. Concerns of

stakeholders and Aboriginal groups regarding potential Project effects on Water Quality were identified through

Project consultations. Where available, traditional use information was applied to the selection of VCs.

Water Quality was selected as a VC for the following reasons:

Water quality is an important value to Aboriginal groups in itself and has the potential to affect current use of

marine or estuarine resources (fish and aquatic habitat) for traditional purposes or the exercise of Aboriginal

Interests.

Water quality is of concern to the public and other stakeholders. Water quality has the potential to affect listed

fish species or sensitive aquatic habitats, and public health. The EA Working Group requested that water

quality be assessed for the Project as a VC rather than a Pathway Component (PC).

The BCEAA requires consideration of adverse environmental effects on the environment including water

quality.

Water quality is assessed under CEAA 2012 as an indirect effect to fish and fish habitat/aquatic species, as

well as migratory birds under Section 5(1)(a), and it has links to Aboriginal health under Section 5(1)(c).

Subcomponents

Subcomponents chosen for Water Quality and rationale for their selection are presented in Table 4.6-2. The Project

may cause changes to surface water and sediment quality within the Local Assessment Area (LAA) that could

either directly or indirectly result in adverse effects on aquatic life indicators present within the LAA, namely benthic

invertebrates and fish species. These indicators are discussed in more detail in Section 4.6.1.2.2.

Table 4.6-2: Subcomponents for Water Quality

Subcomponent Rationale for Selection

Surface water quality Potential changes in water quality as a result of Project activities that include sediment disturbance may have the potential to adversely affect aquatic life indicators present in the LAA.

Sediment quality Potential disturbance of sediment within the LAA as a result of Project activities may have the potential to result in changes in sediment quality.

Aquatic health Potential changes in water quality may have the potential to adversely affect the health of aquatic life indicators present in the LAA.

LAA = Local Assessment Area.





5

Indicators

Indicators and measurable parameters provide a means of determining Project-related changes to a VC. The

Project may cause changes to Water Quality within the LAA that may affect the health of aquatic life indicators

present in the LAA based on an assessment of measurable parameters. Indicators identified within the LAA include

surface water quality, sediment quality, benthic invertebrates, and fish health. Indicators and measurable

parameters and rationale for their selection are presented in Table 4.6-3. Benthic algae was identified as a

potential aquatic health indicator in the AIR, but algal communities are not as well established in the lower Fraser

River compared to upper reaches. This is due to the influence of downstream sediment transport on the lower

reaches and unstable, soft bottom, sandy substrates that are characteristic of the lower Fraser River. Conditions

are particularly turbid in the river during the freshet season from April to August that encompasses most of the

growing season for algae in BC defined by Nordin (1985). Outside of this growing season, algal growth continues

to be limited by turbid and light-limiting conditions in the river as well as colder temperatures.

Table 4.6-3: Indicators for Water Quality

Indicator Subcomponent Measurable Parameters Rationale for Selection

Relevant surface water quality parameters

Surface water quality

Concentrations of relevant surface water quality parameters (e.g., total suspended solids, metals, major ions, nutrients, organic constituents)

Project activities can cause changes to water quality, which may affect aquatic health. The importance of assessing potential changes to water quality was identified through consultation with regulators, the public, and Aboriginal groups.

Relevant sediment quality parameters

Sediment quality

Concentrations of relevant sediment quality parameters (e.g., metals, organic carbon, organic constituents)

Project activities will result in some level of sediment disturbance that could potentially result in changes to water quality that may in turn affect aquatic health.

Aquatic health indicator (benthic invertebrates)

Aquatic health

Comparison of water and sediment quality to relevant regulatory benchmarks for the protection of aquatic life

Benthic invertebrates are an important intermediate link in aquatic food chains. Benthic invertebrates graze on plant material and detritus and then serve as food for tertiary consumers such as fish and birds.

Aquatic health indicator (fish)

Aquatic health

Comparison of water and sediment quality to relevant regulatory benchmarks for

the protection of aquatic life

Fish dominate many freshwater food webs as the top predator and can be sensitive indicators of water quality. The importance of evaluating residual effects of the Project on fish species was identified through consultation with regulators, the public, and Aboriginal groups.

Surface water and sediment quality under existing conditions is described in Section 4.6.2.2. Descriptions of

benthic invertebrate communities and fish species that reside in the LAA and RAA, either temporarily or on a

permanent basis, are provided in Section 4.2, Fish and Fish Habitat.





6

Assessment Boundaries

This section describes the methods used in identifying spatial, temporal, administrative, and technical boundaries

for the assessment of Water Quality.

Spatial Boundaries

The LAA and RAA for Water Quality are defined in Table 4.6-4 and shown in Figure 4.6-1.

Table 4.6-4: Spatial Boundary Definitions for Water Quality

Spatial Boundary Description of Assessment Area

Local Assessment Area (LAA)

The LAA for Water Quality comprises the aquatic area of the Project site, including the nearshore and shoreline habitat associated with the footprint of the jetty and Dredge Area, a 500 m buffer upstream of the Project site to include the Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) Fraser River (Main Arm) at Gravesend Reach and the Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program (FRAMP) Site 4 monitoring stations, and a 100 m buffer downstream of the Project site.

Regional Assessment Area (RAA)

The RAA for Water Quality consists of the South Arm of the Fraser River downstream of the Project site to Sand Heads and includes a 500 m buffer upstream of the Project site to include the ECCC Fraser River (Main Arm) at Gravesend Reach and FRAMP Site 4 monitoring stations.

Cumulative Effects Assessment Area

Same as RAA.

!oFRASER RIVER (SOUTH ARM)

MUSQUEAM IR 4

STRAIT OFGEORGIA

SAND HEADSLIGHTHOUSE

DELTA

RICHMOND

VANCOUVER

DEAS ISLANDREGIONAL PARK

LADNERHARBOUR

PARK

WELLINGTONPOINT PARK

TSAWWASSENFIRST NATION

LULUISLAND

TILBURYISLAND

WESTHAMISLAND

SHADYISLAND

KIRKLANDISLAND

BARBERISLAND

GUNNISLAND

DEASISLAND

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT BOUNDARY

WATER QUALITY (VC) LAA

WATER QUALITY (VC) RAA

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

INDIAN RESERVE

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDS

RESIDENTIAL AREA

PARK / FOREST AREA

WETLAND

WATER

WATERCOURSE

ROAD

RAILWAY

!o SAND HEADS LIGHTHOUSE

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049

Pat

h: \\

gold

er.g

ds\g

al\b

urna

by\C

AD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\W

esP

ac_M

idst

ream

_LLC

\Tilb

ury\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

3142

2004

9_M

arin

eJet

ty\0

2_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\170

00\M

XD

\Rep

ort\W

ater

_Qua

lity\

TILB

UR

Y_F

igur

e_4_

6_1_

Wat

er_Q

ualit

y_LA

A_R

AA

.mxd

FRASER RIVER(SOUTH ARM)

INSET MAP

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

: AN

SI B

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DD

KS

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

1,500 0 1,500

1:70,000 METRESSCALE

120 0 120

1:20,000METRES

SCALE:

EI

KE

MD

JP

2019-03-14

4.6-1217000

WATER QUALITY (VC) LAA AND RAA

TILBURY MARINE JETTYDELTA, B.C.

1. INDIAN RESERVES, TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDS AND MUNICIPALBOUNDARIES OBTAINED BY B.C. MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURALRESOURCE OPERATIONS.2. RAILWAY, WATER, FOREST, PARKS, WATERCOURSE, WATERBODY AND RESIDENTIALAREA DATA OBTAINED FROM CANVEC © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESCANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.3. IMAGERY © 20170903 ESRI AND ITS LICENSORS. SOURCE: DIGITALGLOBE, VIVIDWV02. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

WESPAC MIDSTREAM - VANCOUVER LLC





8

The LAA was established to encompass the area within which the Project is expected to interact with and

potentially have an effect on Water Quality. In determining LAA boundaries, consideration was given to the nature

and characteristics of Water Quality, its potential exposure to various influences, including annual navigational

dredging and the maximum extent of potential adverse effects related to the Project.

The RAA was established to provide a regional context for the assessment of Project effects. The RAA also

encompasses the area within which residual effects of the Project on Water Quality are more likely to combine

with the effects of other projects and activities to result in a cumulative effect.

Temporal Boundaries

Temporal characteristics of the Project’s construction, operation and decommissioning phases are defined in

Section 1.1, Description of Proposed Project. In summary, the temporal boundaries established for the

assessment of Project effects on Water Quality encompass these Project phases:

Construction — 2019 to 2023 (just over three years;

Operation — 2023 to 2053 (30 years minimum); and

Decommissioning — 2053 (one year.

Temporal characteristics specific to Water Quality (e.g., seasonality in flow) are considered in Section 4.6.2.

Administrative Boundaries

No administrative boundaries were applied to Water Quality.

Technical Boundaries

Predicting the effects of a project and proposed mitigation measures on complex environmental systems is limited

by our understanding of how water quality responds to various environmental changes. Limitations on prediction

confidence include:

• Adequacy of water quality baseline data for understanding current conditions and future changes unrelated to

the Project (e.g., extent of future developments, climate change, catastrophic events);

• Assumptions made in the assessment;

• Understanding of Project-related impacts on complex ecosystems that contain interactions across different

scales of time and space; and

• Knowledge of the effectiveness of Project design features and mitigation for reducing or removing impacts

(e.g., sediment containment measures) based on scientific documentation.





9

The characterization of existing water quality for this assessment was largely based on available long-term data

collected by ECCC within the LAA, supplemented by data collected within the LAA by the FRAMP under low flow

conditions.

Existing Conditions

Section 4.6.1 of the AIR stated the Water Quality assessment would include a characterization of the existing

conditions related to water quality, sediment quality, and aquatic health. This section describes surface water

quality and sediment in the LAA and RAA.

Aquatic health indicators, as described in Section 4.6.1.2.2, includes benthic invertebrates and fish. A description

of the benthic invertebrate communities and fish species that reside in the LAA and RAA, either temporarily or on

a permanent basis, are provided in Section 4.2, Fish and Fish Habitat.

Information Sources

A review of existing information was undertaken to support the characterization of existing conditions for water

quality. Information was sourced from the following:

Site-specific water and sediment quality studies by WesPac Tilbury Midstream–Vancouver LLC (WesPac;

i.e., Appendices B and C);

Online databases such as the ECCC’s Pacific Water Quality Monitoring and Surveillance Program and the

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Tides, Currents, and Water Levels program (as referenced in

Appendix 4.6-1);

Metro Vancouver (FRAMP water quality data from Site 4; as referenced in Appendix 4.6-1);

Databases and reports concerning water quality and sediment quality guidelines and/or associated technical

reports, as follows:

▪ CCME WQGs

▪ BC AWQG

▪ FRWQO – Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser River from Hope to Sturgeon and

Roberts Banks; and

Government and non-government reports.





10

In 2015, WesPac initiated desktop and primary data collection studies to support the assessment of effects on

Water Quality. Building on the available information, field studies were conducted to address known data gaps

related primarily to water and sediment quality in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Desktop and field studies

conducted with respect to Water Quality are summarized in Table 4.6-5.

Table 4.6-5: Studies to Support the Water Quality Assessment

Study Name Study Purpose Study Available At

Desktop Studies and Literature Reviews

Water Quality Assessment and

Objectives for the Fraser River

from Hope to Sturgeon and

Roberts Banks (Swain et al.,

1998)

Literature review conducted by Environment

Canada and the British Columbia Ministry of

Environment, Lands, and Parks describing the

water quality ranging from Hope to Sturgeon

and Roberts Banks

http://www.dfo-

mpo.gc.ca/Library/27253

9.pdf

Water Quality in the Fraser River

Basin (Shaw & Tuominen, 1999)


Canada describing water quality within Fraser

River basin

http://publications.gc.ca/c

ollections/collection_2015

/ec/En47-119-1999-5-

eng.pdf

Sediment Quality in the Fraser

River Basin (Brewer, Sylvestre,

Sekela, & Tuominen, 1999)


Canada describing sediment quality within

Fraser River basin

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca

/hfd/library/ffip/brewer_r1

999.pdf

Status of Water, Sediment and

Fish Quality in the Lower Fraser

River (Hope to the Mouth), from

1971 to 2003 (Bull, 2004)

Literature review conducted by the Ministry of

Water, Land & Air Protection describing the

state of water quality and sediment quality in

the lower Fraser River in relation to local

water and sediment quality objectives

Bull (2004)(a)

Survey of Contaminants in

Suspended Sediment and Water

in the Fraser River Basin from

McBride to Vancouver (1996)

(Sylvestre, Brewer, Sekela,

Tuominen, & Moyle, 1998)

A study undertaken by Environment Canada

to measure contaminant concentrations in

suspended sediment and water upstream and

downstream of pulp mills and urban centres

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca

/hfd/library/ffip/Sylvestre_

S1998.pdf

Annacis Island Wastewater

Treatment Plant Transient

Mitigation and Outfall Project:

Stage 2 Environment Impact

Study (Golder, 2018)

A study conducted by Golder Associates Ltd.

to provide a technical assessment of

predicted water quality as a means to

evaluate whether adverse effects on the

receiving environment and public health might

result from Metro Vancouver Stage V

upgrades to the Annacis Island Waste Water

Treatment Plant

https://www.portvancouv

er.com/wp-

content/uploads/2018/01/

Appendix-K.2-Part-A-

Stage-2-Environmental-

Impact-Study-Report-

Annacis-Outfall.pdf





11


Field Studies and Regional/Federal Monitoring Programs

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty

Project: Sediment

Characterization Report

A baseline sediment sampling program

undertaken in 2015 and 2018 to provide a

characterization of sediment within the

proposed Dredge Area and at two intertidal

stations on the foreshore adjacent to the

proposed jetty location.

Sediment samples were taken at surface

and at depth to provide a

characterization of existing conditions for

this environment assessment and to

meet the requirements of a potential

Disposal at Sea application.

Benthic invertebrate samples were taken

at a subset of stations within the Dredge

Area and at the two foreshore stations to

provide a characterization of benthic

invertebrate communities to support the

Fish and Fish Habitat VC.

Appendix 4.6-2

Foreshore Characterization of

the Lease Area of the Future

Tilbury LNG Project Area

(Golder, 2015)

An investigative water sampling program

undertaken in 2014 to describe existing

sediment and water quality along the

foreshore within the Project lease area

Golder (2015)(a)

ECCC’s Pacific Water Quality

Monitoring and Surveillance

Program (ECCC, 2017)

Long-term water quality monitoring conducted

by ECCC at the Fraser River (South Arm) at

Gravesend Reach – Buoy (BC08MH0453)

from 2008 to present. Water quality

monitoring includes the collection of discrete

grab samples for chemical analysis and

continuous in situ monitoring of suite of field

parameters.

Water quality monitoring

and surveillance buoy:

http://aquatic.pyr.ec.gc.ca

/RealTimeBuoys/Default.

aspx

Long-term physical-

chemical water quality

monitoring:

https://www.canada.ca/e

n/environment-climate-

change/services/freshwat

er-quality-

monitoring/overview.html

#longterm

FRAMP – 2016 Sediment

Monitoring (ENKON, 2016a)

A study undertaken by ENKON Environmental

Ltd. for Metro Vancouver to characterize

sediment quality in the lower Fraser River

within Metro Vancouver.

Metro Vancouver Library

FRAMP – 2016 Water

Monitoring (ENKON, 2016)



water quality in the lower Fraser River within

Metro Vancouver.






12


Receiving environment

monitoring program for Metro

Vancouver’s Fraser River

wastewater treatment plants:

Initial Dilution Zone (Smith,

2015)



water quality within the initial dilution zone for

the Annacis Wastewater Treatment Plant.


(a) Not available online.

VC = Valued Component; ECCC = Environment and Climate Change Canada; FRAMP = Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program.

Traditional use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge Incorporation

Information on traditional use and traditional ecological knowledge (TU/TEK) was gathered from a Project-specific

studies undertaken by Aboriginal Groups and from publicly-available sources.

TU/TEK sources were reviewed for information that could contribute to an understanding of water quality. The

main sources of this information included:

An expert report produced on behalf of Tsleil-Waututh Nation, in relation to the Project (Morin, 2016)

An expert report produced on behalf of Kwantlen First Nation, in relation to the Project (Jones & McLaren,

2016)

Comments produced on behalf of Métis Nation British Columbia, in response to the Draft Aboriginal

Consultation Report (Gall, 2016)

xʷməθkʷəy̓əm Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study: WesPac Midstream’s Proposed LNG

Marine Jetty Project, prepared by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc. with the Musqueam

Indian Band (Tam, J. et al., 2018).

Impacts of marine vessel traffic on access to fishing opportunities of the Musqueam Indian Band, prepared

by M. Nelitz, H. Stimson, C. Semmens, B. Ma, and D. Robinson for the Musqueam Indian Band (Nelitz, M et

al., 2018)

Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study. Prepared for the Proposed George Massey Tunnel

Replacement Project by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc. (Tam, J. et al., Olson, &

Firelight Research Inc., 2016)

Other documents and export reports prepared for other projects in the vicinity of the Project site including the

George Massey Tunnel replacement project (Charlie, 2015; Kennedy, 2015) and the Pattullo Bridge

replacement project (Marshall, 2017)





13

For a summary of TU/TEK information as obtained through consultation with Aboriginal groups and available

through other sources, refer to Section 6.3 Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes.

TU/TEK information, provided information on water quality that generally overlapped with information on fish and

fish habitat. A summary of specific information related to fish and fish habitat is provided in Section 4.2, Fish and

Fish Habitat. This summary includes the following TU/TEK information specifically relevant to the Water Quality

VC and the aquatic health subcomponent:

fish species considered to be the most important to Aboriginal groups and related concerns regarding these

fish species

concern regarding the risk of spills

In addition to the information summarized in Section 4.2, the following information was provided by the Musqueam

Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study (Tam, J. et al., 2018):

Dredging activities may also degrade water quality both in and outside of the Project Jetty Footprint, affecting

aquatic habitats and fish populations downstream, specifically by the flow of suspended sediment.

Risk of contaminants entering the Fraser River, impacting fish populations and habitats in the Project Jetty

Footprint and downstream, as well as access by fishers.

Identification point-source and non-point source pollution as an impact; e.g. from agricultural run-off.

The extent of existing cumulative effects in Musqueam territory is highlighted by some the recorded and

recognized decline in fish stocks, water quality, and bird populations.

The study noted that water quality objective exceedances in the lower Fraser River that persist include

elevated suspended solids in the water, and nickel and long-term chromium concentrations in the sediment

(as documented in Bull 2004).

Description of Existing Conditions

Within the Fraser River basin, natural sources of metals, such as weathering of the mineral constituents of

sediment substrates, are remobilized and sediment is transported downstream to the lower reaches of the Fraser

River and further into the Fraser River estuary towards the Strait of Georgia (Bull, 2004; FRAP, 1999). Flows are

highest during the freshet season, and thus a large proportion of sediment movement occurs during this period.

Both the hydraulic regime of the Fraser River and natural geological sources of sediment within the catchment

influence water and sediment quality in the lower reaches of this river.

Industrial activities such as manufacturing, shipping, and pulp and paper milling have historically occurred and

continue to occur on the Fraser River, although manufacturing and shipping are more prominent in the lower

reaches (Swain et al., 1998). There are three municipal waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) in operation on

the lower Fraser River (i.e., Annacis Island, Lulu Island, and Northwest Langley WWTPs). Runoff from urban areas





14

in the greater Vancouver area may also influence Fraser River water and sediment quality because the storm

water system discharges directly into the lower Fraser River.

The following sections describe existing conditions for water quality (Section 4.6.2.2.1) and sediment quality

(Section 4.6.2.2.2) in the LAA within the lower Fraser River and factors that have been identified to influence

both water and sediment quality.

Water Quality

Water quality data were compiled from regional and federal data sources listed in Table 4.6-5 to characterize

existing water quality within the LAA over a five-year period between January 2012 and November 2017. Long-

term monitoring data were sourced from two locations (i.e., Federal and Provincial Long-Term Monitoring Station;

FRAMP Station at Tilbury Island; Figure 4.6-2). Summary statistics were calculated for conventional and biological

parameters, major ions, nutrients, and metals, as described in Appendix 4.6-1. The statistics, presented in tabular

format in Tables A2 in Appendix 4.6-1, were screened against applicable receiving environment WQGs identified

in Table A2. Existing water quality conditions were also screened against applicable guidelines protective of human

health in Section 8.

A characterization of existing water quality within the LAA is provided below based on interpretation of the

screening results presented in Appendix 4.6-1 and relevant water quality reports referenced in Table 4.6-5.

#0

"/

FRASER RIVER(SOUTH ARM)

Fraser River(Main Arm) atGravesend Reach

FRAMP Site 4

CLIENT

LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY



APPROXIMATE SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLINGAREA (SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS PROVIDED INAPPENDIX 4.6B)

#0 ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA (ECCC)MONITORING BUOY STATION

"/FRASER RIVER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM(FRAMP) SITE

FRASER RIVER SHIPPING CHANNEL

CENTER LINE OF SHIPPING CHANNEL

INNER/OUTER LIMIT OF SHIPPING

FLOW DIRECTION

REFERENCE

PROJECTTILBURY MARINE JETTY

TITLE

13-1422-0049

Pat

h: \\

gold

er.g

ds\g

al\b

urna

by\C

AD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\W

esP

ac_M

idst

ream

_LLC

\Tilb

ury\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

3142

2004

9_M

arin

eJet

ty\0

2_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\170

00\M

XD

\Rep

ort\W

ater

_Qua

lity\

TILB

UR

Y_F

igur

e_4_

6_2_

WQ

_Sed

_Sam

plin

g.m

xd

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

: AN

SI B

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

110 0 110

METRESSCALE

1. PRELIMINARY BERTH CONCEPT SUPPLIED BY AUSENCO-100761-0000-W-K50-A 04-15-2015. BATHYMETRY SUPPLIED BY AUSENCO. I2. IMAGERY © 20170903 ESRI AND ITS LICENSORS. SOURCE: DIGITALGLOBE, VIVIDWV02. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

1:2,500

WESPAC MIDSTREAM-VANCOUVER LLC.

SEDIMENT SAMPLING AREA AND LONG-TERM WATERQUALITY STATIONS WITHIN THE LOCAL ASSESSMENT AREA

2019-03-14

JP

PM

KS

EI

4.6-2218000





16

Conventional Parameters

The lower Fraser River within the LAA tends to be slightly alkaline, with soft to moderately soft water hardness

(Tables A2 Appendix 4.6-1). Dissolved oxygen concentrations exhibit a yearly cyclical pattern where

concentrations are highest in the winter months (November to March) and lower in the summer months (June to

September) due to higher water temperatures and increased biological demand from aerobic aquatic biota. During

both seasons, both federal and provincial dissolved oxygen guidelines are generally met in this well oxygenated

river (Appendix 4.6-1).

Upstream migration of the salt wedge from the Strait of Georgia under non-freshet conditions influences water

quality, notably by increasing levels of salinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids (Tables A2, Appendix 4.6-

1; Figure 4.6-3). Under freshet conditions from April to August, conductivity is lower as a result of downstream

migration of the salt wedge towards the river mouth in response to increased river discharge from upstream during

these high flow months (Figure 4.6-3). Under these conditions, total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations are

naturally high due to increased downstream transport of sediment from natural geological sources within the Fraser

River catchment. As shown in Figure 4.6-3, maximum turbidity and TSS levels occur just prior to peak freshet

conditions.

Under lower flow conditions outside of freshet, the influence of tidal forcing is more prominent, resulting in notable

diurnal variability in turbidity that can extend up to 30 to 40 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) within a tidal cycle

(Figure 4.6-3). Further discussion regarding mechanisms responsible for TSS and turbidity levels reported in the

lower Fraser River within the LAA is provided in Section 4.1, River Processes.





17

NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit; TSS = total suspended solids.

Figure 4.6-3: Turbidity, Total Suspended Solids, Conductivity, and Discharge at the Environment and Climate Change Canada Gravesend Reach Monitoring Buoy BCO8MH0453, 2012 to 2017

#0FRASER RIVER(SOUTH ARM)

Purfleet Point

Gravesend Reach

Fraser River(Main Arm) atGravesend Reach

CLIENT

LEGEND

PROJECT BOUNDARY



#0 ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE CANADA (ECCC)MONITORING BUOY STATION

FRASER RIVER SHIPPING CHANNEL

CENTER LINE OF SHIPPING CHANNEL

INNER/OUTER LIMIT OF SHIPPING CHANNEL

FRASER RIVER PILE AND DREDGE (GP) INC.NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING-REACH BREAK

FLOW DIRECTION

REFERENCE

PROJECTTILBURY MARINE JETTYTITLE

13-1422-0049

Pat

h: \\

gold

er.g

ds\g

al\b

urna

by\C

AD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\W

esP

ac_M

idst

ream

_LLC

\Tilb

ury\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

3142

2004

9_M

arin

eJet

ty\0

2_P

RO

DU

CTI

ON

\170

00\M

XD

\Rep

ort\W

ater

_Qua

lity\

TILB

UR

Y_F

igur

e_4_

6_4_

WQ

_nav

igat

iona

l_D

redg

ing.

mxd

IF T

HIS

ME

AS

UR

EM

EN

T D

OE

S N

OT

MAT

CH

WH

AT IS

SH

OW

N, T

HE

SH

EE

T H

AS

BE

EN

MO

DIF

IED

FR

OM

: AN

SI B

CONSULTANT


YYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

25m

m0

550 0 550

METRESSCALE

PRELIMINARY BERTH CONCEPT SUPPLIED BY AUSENCO-100761-0000-W-K50-A 04-15-2015. BATHYMETRY SUPPLIED BY AUSENCO. IMAGERY OBTAINED FROM BING MAPSFOR ARCGIS PUBLISHED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION, REDMOND, WA, MAY 2009.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

1:2,500

WESPAC MIDSTREAM-VANCOUVER LLC.

NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SOUTH ARM OFTHE LOWER FRASER RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT AND THELOCAL AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENT AREAS

2019-03-14

JP

PM

KE

EI

4.6-4218000





19

Influence of Navigational Dredging Activity on Suspended Matter

In the last three years since 2015, navigational dredging within Gravesend Reach (located close to Tilbury Island)

and within Purfleet Point (located downstream of Annacis Island) has occurred in the Fraser River least risk

fisheries window1 (June 16 to February 28) but with variable timing (Table 4.6-6, Figure 4.6-3, Figure 4.6-4). After

review of the detailed navigational dredging data current to 2018, it became apparent that the timing and extent of

recent navigational dredging was variable in this stretch of the river. The assumption made in the AIR prior to

receiving this information was made based on an assumed understanding that the navigational dredging adopted

a more structured approach to the timing and extent of the activity in this stretch of the river. The understanding

behind making the assumption in the AIR changed while drafting the application. Therefore, it was not considered

practical for the assumption made in the AIR that Project-related dredging coincide with annual dredging of the

existing navigational channel, to be carried through to the EA.

The total volume to be dredged during construction of the jetty and the Floating Temporary Bunker Berth (FTBB)

is within the annual range of navigational dredge volumes from 2015 to 2017 in the stretch 18 to 27 km from the

river mouth; that is, 306,000 m3 (minimum) to 582,000 m3 (maximum).

Table 4.6-6. Summary of the Estimated Dredging Activity within the Vicinity and Upstream of the Local Assessment Area

Year Month Purfleet Point (24 to 27 km from the

mouth) Dredge Volume (m3)

Gravesend Reach (18 to 24 km from the mouth) Dredge Volume (m3)

2015

July - 75,000

August 3,000 6,000

September 81,000 18,000

November 27,000 -

December 90,000 6,000

2016

January 99,000 -

February 57,000 66,000

July 54,000 111,000

November 99,000 30,000

December 33,000 33,000

2017

January 21,000 9,000

February 66,000 48,000

August 3,000 24,000

October 30,000 60,000

December 111,000 18,000

2018 January 90,000 126,000

Note: Dredging activity was calculated based on an estimated load of 3,000 m3 of dredge material per ship load (Fraser River Pile and Dredge Inc., 2018)

1 The least risk fisheries window for the Fraser River Estuary is a period when in-water work poses the least risk to fish and fish habitat. The work window for the Fraser River Estuary (Area 29 – Steveston/Surrey) is June 16 to February 28 (DFO 2014).





20

As shown in Figure 4.6-3, the navigational dredging activity that occurred between July 2015 and December 2017

at Purfleet Point and Gravesend Reach did not appear to coincide with identifiable increases in turbidity or TSS

measured at the ECCC water quality buoy2 located downstream close to the right bank opposite Tilbury Island.

Any turbidity/TSS signature from the navigational dredging activity appears to be within the range of variability

shown in Figure 4.1-3 in Section 4.1, River Processes (2015 to 2017) that is primarily driven by tidal cycles and

river discharge and represents natural background conditions for this stretch of the lower Fraser River.

Measurements of turbidity and TSS reported by ECCC at the buoy are representative of conditions near the

surface and of conditions that may be up to several kilometres downstream from the location of navigational

dredging activity. Turbidity data closer to the navigational dredge areas were not available during the navigational

dredging events as navigational concerns (collision) and flow conditions in the lower Fraser River preclude the

placement of the buoy closer to the middle of the channel.

Under non-freshet conditions when navigational dredging occurs, turbidity tends to be more variable, even though

the river discharge is lower compared to freshet. Under these lower flows, tidal influence (tidal inflow and outflow)

and the associated movement of suspended matter is more prominent in this section of the river that is influenced

by the salt wedge. There were isolated turbidity peaks from late 2015 to early 2017 that were not evident in previous

years. However, these peaks do not always align with navigational dredging activity and the available data suggest

there was no discernible increase in turbidity and TSS during past dredging cycles. Variability in turbidity was

similar before, during, and after dredging, with no apparent relationship between suspended matter measurements

at the ECCC buoy and navigational dredging activity.

Metals and Nutrients

Due to the increased transport of particulate metals to the lower Fraser River during freshet, total concentrations

of some metals, such as aluminum, chromium, copper, iron and zinc, can reach concentrations above FRWQO,

as well as applicable WQGs (Appendix 4.6-1). In contrast, dissolved concentrations of these metals are

considerably lower, indicating that only a proportion of total metal concentrations are potentially available for

uptake by aquatic biota. The same disparity between total and dissolved concentrations is observed for

phosphorus during freshet, where total concentrations increase by an order of magnitude. In contrast, dissolved

concentrations are lower and more consistent throughout the year.

The Fraser River can be naturally turbid under low flow conditions although to a lesser degree than during freshet.

Therefore, suspended sediments present in the water column continue to exert some influence on total metal and

nutrient concentrations in the LAA throughout the year, as indicated in Tables A2 in Appendix 4.6-1.

2 The ECCC water quality buoy is located approximately 21.5 km upstream from the mouth of the Fraser River.





21

Bacteriological Parameters

The 2012 to 2017 geometric mean values for fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli) calculated for the

“disinfection season” from April to October3 were below their respective FRWQOs, and in the case of E. coli, below

the WQG for recreational use (Appendix 4.6-1). The corresponding geometric mean value for Enterococcus was

above the FRWQO but below the WQG for recreational use.

Organic Constituents

A review of long-term water quality data compiled for the Fraser River by Shaw and Tuominen (Shaw & Tuominen,

1999) indicated that concentrations of many organic constituents, including chlorophenolic compounds,

insecticides and other chemical pesticides, as well as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxins and

furans, were near or below reported detection limits. Where constituents were detected, reported concentrations

were considerably lower than those reported historically. However, Shaw and Tuominen (Shaw & Tuominen, 1999)

noted that some constituents were identified to still be of concern in localized areas and gave the example of the

PAHs pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, and phenanthrene that remained above provincial WQGs in some sloughs within

the lower Fraser River.

More recently, Metro Vancouver has monitored a suite of organic constituents during routine receiving environment

monitoring at the edge of the initial dilution zone for the Annacis Wastewater Treatment Plant located upstream of

the Project (e.g., (Smith, 2015). A reference location located upstream of the wastewater treatment plant is also

monitored by this program. The suite of organic constituents monitored since 2012 includes pesticides,

alkylphenols, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), hormones and sterols,

and PAHs. These data were recently compiled and assessed to support an Environmental Impact Study for the

upgrade of the Annacis Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall (Golder, 2018). Most of the organic constituents were

either not detected or reported at concentrations below FRWQO and applicable WQGs. For some constituents,

there was some uncertainty associated with the data, in part due to the limited ability of analytical laboratories to

reliably measure certain compounds in the waterborne phase.

With reference to the Project site, PAHs and volatile organic compounds were not detected in surface water

sampled from the Fraser River within the Project lease area in December 2014 as part of a foreshore

characterization study (Golder, 2015).

Sediment Quality

In the lower Fraser River, fine sediments are readily transported downstream due to the low amount of energy

required to mobilize them. Depositional areas composed of fine sediments can form where the current is reduced

due to the morphology of the river or a physical obstruction to the river’s flow. The centre of the lower Fraser River

channel where current and flow are highest tend to be scoured, and the in situ substrate is predominantly

composed of sand with a small quantity of silt. Areas closer to shore or where eddies in the current form tend to

accumulate fine sediment. Sediment composition in the LAA shows a shift from fine sediment in the nearshore

areas to unconsolidated sand with a lower proportion of fines towards the centre of the river (Appendix 4.6-2).

3 Defined by the Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy (Swain et al. 1998)





22

Long-Term Monitoring

Sediment sampling is a component of the FRAMP designed to monitor ambient sediment quality in the lower

Fraser River (the term “ambient” referring to sediment quality outside the direct influence of effluent discharges).

The FRAMP focuses on depositional areas with finer sediments where contaminant concentrations are expected

to be the highest because these sediments have a higher surface area and thus more available binding sites by

mass for contaminants to adhere to. To date, the FRAMP has surveyed ambient sediment quality in three cycles

(2006, 2011, and 2016; (ENKON, 2016a; ENKON, 2009; Keystone, 2011). Prior to 2006, a number of initiatives

surveyed sediment quality in the lower Fraser River, including the FREMP, the Fraser River Action Plan (FRAP)

in the 1990s, and a 2004 study by the Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection (Bull, 2004; FRAP, 1999; FREMP,

1996).

Sampling Study within the Local Assessment Area

A baseline sediment study was undertaken in September 2015 to characterize sediment conditions in the proposed

approach channel, berth pocket, and the foreshore of Tilbury Island at the Project site and upriver in similar habitat

adjacent to the Project site (Appendix 4.6-2). Twelve surface sediment grab samples taken from the proposed

approach channel and berth pocket, in addition to two surface sediment grab samples from the foreshore at and

adjacent to the Project site. Five sonic drill sediment cores were also obtained to vertically characterize the

sediment, at separate stations within the berth pocket, where the river bathymetry is shallow, and a large amount

of material will be removed during dredging. Supplemental sampling was conducted in March 2018 to characterize

sediment quality within the revised approach channel and berth pocket in areas not previously sampled, as well

as in the FTTB, which was added as part of the revised design carried forward to this Environmental Assessment

(EA). This sampling event involved the collection of 13 surface sediment grab samples. The samples from both

2015 and 2018 were analyzed for particle size, conventional variables, organic and inorganic carbon, metals,

PAHs, PCBs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenols, dioxins, and furans. The results of the sediment

characterization are presented in Appendix 4.6-2; a brief summary of key findings is presented below. Although

not summarized here, existing sediment quality conditions were also screened against applicable guidelines

protective of human health in Section 8.

Particle Size Distribution

The majority of the sediment samples collected at surface and at depth from the proposed approach channel and

berth pocket were dominated by sand, followed by silt, clay, and gravel. Finer sediments composed of silt and

sand with some clay were collected at some stations located closer to shore within the Dredge Area and also at

the foreshore intertidal mudflat habitat stations. As discussed above, it is typical for sediments closer to the

dredged navigation channel to consist primarily of sand, in contrast to finer sediments that tend to accumulate

closer to shore where slower currents prevail.

Metals

Measured sediment concentrations of some metals (i.e., arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, and nickel)

in some samples, taken at surface and at depth within the Dredge Area, were above BC sediment quality

guidelines; however, maximum concentrations were less than the 95th percentile of sediment concentrations





23

recently reported by the FRAMP for the South Arm of the lower Fraser River (Appendix 4.6-2). Therefore, these

metal concentrations are reflective of ambient conditions in the Fraser River which are influenced by natural

geological inputs.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Concentrations of total PAHs were below BC sediment quality guidelines in all samples collected from the Project

area. Individual PAHs concentrations were below applicable guidelines and objectives except in three of the 30

stations in the Dredge Area and in one foreshore station (Appendix 4.6-2). Where guidelines/objectives were

exceeded, maximum PAH concentrations were also higher than the 95th percentile of sediment concentrations

reported by 2016 FRAMP. Overall, however, the distribution of stations with PAH exceedances was sporadic within

the berth pockets and foreshore.

Dioxins and Furans

In a few samples, dioxin and furan toxic equivalency quotients (TEQs) were above guidelines/objectives. However,

TEQs were less than the 95th percentile of TEQs observed in the greater FRAMP area (Appendix 4.6-2). Therefore,

dioxins and furans in sediments of the Project area reflected ambient conditions in the South Arm of the Fraser

River.

Other Organic Constituents

Concentrations of PCBs, VOCs, and phenols in sediments from the Dredge Area were either less than analytical

detection limits or below applicable guidelines and objectives.

Methodology for Assessment of Potential Project Effects

The assessment methodology used to assess the potential adverse effects of the Project has been outlined in

Section 3.0, Assessment Methodology. A summary of this assessment methodology as it relates to Water

Quality is provided below.

Potential Project Interactions

Construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project have the potential to change Water Quality. Potential

interactions between Project components and activities during these phases on Water Quality have been identified

and are rated in Section 4.6.4.1. To focus the assessment on those interactions of greatest importance,

interactions resulting in no effect or a negligible (undetectable or unmeasurable) effect have not been carried

forward for assessment.

The interaction ratings as follows have been applied:

Potential interaction—may result in a potential effect on Water Quality, these interactions have been carried

forward in the assessment.





24

Negligible interaction—neither detectable nor measurable and not anticipated to influence the short- or

long-term viability of the VC or subcomponent, these interactions have not been carried forward in the

assessment.

No interaction—these interactions have been justified but are not carried forward in the assessment.

For those Project interactions carried forward in the assessment, the potential effects, both adverse and beneficial

(if any) arising from those interactions, will be described.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures that are expected to reduce or eliminate an adverse effect on Water Quality will be described.

Mitigation measures may include monitoring to verify results and standard mitigation measures such as Best

Management Practices (BMPs), including changes to the means in which the Project will be designed, constructed,

operated, or decommissioned. Mitigation will also consider the views of Aboriginal groups and key stakeholders.

Effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects are characterized using the

following criteria:

High effectiveness: the mitigation measure is expected, once implemented, to significantly improve or

eliminate the effect or improve the condition of the VC.

Moderate effectiveness: the mitigation measure is expected, once implemented, to moderately improve the

effect on a VC or moderately improve the condition of the VC.

Low effectiveness: the mitigation measure may provide no or little change in the effect on a VC, the

effectiveness of the mitigation measure is unknown or untested, or no improvement to the condition of the

VC.

Effectiveness of proposed mitigation has been considered in assessing the significance and likelihood of potential

residual effects.

Characterization of Potential Residual Project Effects

Effects considered negligible prior to mitigation measures are not carried forward to the assessment of residual

Project effects or cumulative effects. Otherwise, residual effects are characterized using specific criteria for each

VC as defined in the BCEAO’s VC selection guideline (BCEAO, 2013). Definitions for residual effects criteria,

developed with specific reference to Water Quality, are presented in Table 4.6-7. These criteria are considered

together in the assessment, along with context derived from existing conditions and proposed mitigation measures,

to estimate residual effects from the Project on Water Quality using a reasoned narrative. Residual effects

predicted to be negligible based on the Water Quality assessment are not carried forward into a significance

determination or cumulative effects assessment.





25

Table 4.6-7: Criteria Used to Characterize Residual Effects on Water Quality

Criteria Description Definition

Magnitude Expected size or severity of the residual effect

Negligible—a change in water quality due to the Project that is so small it is neither detectable nor measurable and is not anticipated to influence the short- or long-term viability of water quality, sediment quality, or aquatic health

Low—a detectable change in water quality due to the Project that is within variability documented for the assessment area. The change cannot be distinguished from existing conditions accounting for inherent variability due to tidal cycles and river discharge. Peak concentrations may extend above FRWQOs or applicable water quality guidelines

Moderate—a detectable change in water quality due to the Project that is outside of the variability documented for the assessment area. Peak concentrations are expected to extend above FRWQOs or applicable water quality guidelines and suggest the potential for effects on the most sensitive indicators that reside in the receiving environment

High—a detectable change in water quality due to the Project that is outside of the variability documented for the assessment area. Peak concentrations are expected to extend above FRWQOs and applicable guidelines and suggest potential for effects on a wider range of indicators in the receiving environment

Geographic Extent

Spatial scale over which the residual effect is expected to occur

Site-specific—effect limited to the Project site

LAA—effect limited to the LAA

RAA—effect extends to the RAA

Beyond the RAA—effect extends to areas beyond the RAA

Duration Length of time over which the residual effect is expected to persist

Short-term—effect present for less than one year

Medium-term—effect present for one year to the life of the Project

Long-term—effect present for greater than the life of the Project

Permanent—effect present indefinitely

Frequency How often the residual effect is expected to occur

Infrequent—effect occurs once or rarely over the specified duration

Frequent—effect occurs repeatedly over the specified duration

Continuous—effect occurs continuously over the specified duration

Timing

Whether the period in which the residual effect occurs coincides with sensitive timing, periods, or windows for the VC

Within least risk window—effect occurs during the applicable least risk fisheries work window as specified by DFO, such that potential effects to fish and other aquatic life are reduced

Outside least risk window—effect occurs outside the applicable least risk fisheries work window as specified by DFO, such that potential effects to sensitive stages of fish and other aquatic life are possible





26

Criteria Description Definition

Reversibility

Whether or not the residual effect can be reversed once the physical work or activity causing the effect ceases

Reversible—effect can be reversed

Partially reversible—effect can be reversed partially

Irreversible—effect is permanent

Context Whether the VC is sensitive or resilient to Project-related stressors

Low resilience—subcomponent has low resilience or ability to adapt to changes in the measurement indicator and is susceptible to potential changes caused by the Project

Moderate resilience—subcomponent has a moderate resilience or ability to adapt to changes in the measurement indicator and has moderate susceptibility to potential changes caused by the Project

High resilience—subcomponent has high resilience or ability to adapt to changes in the measurement indicator and has low susceptibility to potential changes caused by the Project

FRWQOs = Fraser River Ambient Water Quality Objectives; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area; VC = Valued Component; DFO = Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

The EAC Application will assess the likelihood for residual adverse effects using appropriate quantitative or

qualitative terms and sufficient description to understand how the conclusions were reached. Likelihood refers to

whether or not a residual effect is likely to occur (BCEAO, 2013). The analysis to determine the likelihood of a

residual effect occurring is based on a review of available information and professional judgement. When

assessing likelihood, the following criteria have been applied and are defined to clarify interpretations:

Low—past experience and professional judgement indicates that a residual effect is unlikely but could occur.

Moderate—past experience and professional judgement indicates that there is a moderate likelihood that a

residual effect could occur.

High—past experience and professional judgement indicates that a residual effect is likely to occur.

Determination of Significance

Environmental significance is used to identify predicted effects that have sufficient magnitude, duration, and

geographic extent to cause fundamental changes to Water Quality that result in adverse effects on aquatic health.

The determination of significance of potential residual effects for Water Quality was based on assigned residual

effects ratings, a review of background information, consultation with government agencies and other experts, and

professional judgement. Each residual Project effect and cumulative effect has been rated as not significant

or significant, as follows:

Not significant— Potential residual effects are determined to be not significant if they do not meet the

definition of significant.

Significant—Potential residual effects may be characterized as significant if there is a reasonable

expectation that the effect of the Project would exceed established environmental standards, guidelines, or

objectives and be beyond the natural variability of environmental conditions, and/or affect the viability of





27

aquatic health (i.e., the ability of the population, ecosystem or community to work and function over time

within the defined spatial and temporal boundary). Significant effects are carried forward to the cumulative

effects assessment.

Confidence and Risk

The level of confidence for each predicted residual Project effect has been discussed to characterize the level of

uncertainty associated with both the significance and likelihood determinations. Level of confidence is based on

expert professional judgement. Assumptions have been made clear in the text and are based on the following

criteria:

Low—judgement hampered by incomplete understanding of cause-effect relationships or lack of data.

Moderate—reasonable understanding of cause-effect relationships and adequate data.

High—good understanding of cause-effect relationships and ample data.

Level of confidence is based on the knowledge that certain Project activities, design configurations, and mitigation

measures will occur. Level of confidence also takes into the account existing conditions and degrees of ecosystem

variability.

Confidence in the assessment of environmental significance is related to the following elements:

Adequacy of baseline data for understanding existing conditions and future changes unrelated to the Project

(e.g., extent of future developments, climate change, catastrophic events)

Model inputs (e.g., change in concentrations in water over time and space)

Degree to which the assessment accurately considers key processes that dominate the functioning of the

systems being modelled

Understanding of Project-related effects on complex ecosystems that contain interactions across different

scales of time and space

Knowledge of the effectiveness of the project design features and mitigation measures for reducing or

removing impacts (e.g., scour protection, dredging best management practices)

Assessment of Potential Project Effects

Project Interactions

This section considers potential Project effects on Water Quality in relation to the indicators and measurable

parameters listed in Table 4.6-3.

Potential interactions between Project components and activities and Water Quality during the construction,

operation, and decommissioning phases of the Project are identified in Table 4.6-8.





28

Table 4.6-8: Potential Project Interactions with the Water Quality

Project Phase and Activities

Subcomponent Interaction

Nature of Interaction and Rationale for Interaction Rating

Water Quality

CONSTRUCTION

Site preparation and removal of existing abandoned marine infrastructure

Potential interaction—surface water quality, sediment quality, aquatic health

▪ Site preparation may result in the re-suspension of sediment and release of trace metals and organic constituents to the water column, which may affect surface water quality and aquatic health.

▪ Removal of existing abandoned marine infrastructure may release of contaminants (e.g., creosote from old piles), which may affect the VC/subcomponents.

Dredging of Dredge Area

Negligible interaction—sediment quality

Potential interaction—surface water quality and aquatic health

▪ Dredging of the FTBB and the jetty within the LAA has the potential for sediment re-suspension, which can affect surface water quality with potential effects on aquatic life.

▪ Trace metals and organic constituents associated with re-suspended sediment may be released to the water column, and therefore affect surface water quality and aquatic health.

▪ The lower Fraser River has a dynamic riverbed such that sediments are continuously moved downstream throughout the year but particularly during freshet. Given this existing pattern of sediment movement and the relative similarity between ambient sediment quality and sediment quality within the Dredge Area, a negligible interaction is expected between the Project and sediment quality. This is because when the sediments resettle in adjacent areas, sediment quality is not expected to change.

In-river ground stabilization and pile works



▪ In-river ground stabilization and pile works have the potential for sediment release, which can affect surface water quality with potential effects on aquatic life.

▪ Trace metals and organic constituents in the released sediment may be remobilized to the water column, and therefore affect surface water quality and aquatic health.


Land-based ground stabilization and pile works

No interaction—surface water quality, sediment quality, aquatic health

▪ Land-based ground stabilization and pile works are not expected to affect the VC/subcomponents, as upland works will be isolated from the aquatic environment by a dike.





29




Construction of associated Offshore Facilities


▪ Construction of associated Offshore Facilities may result in re-suspension of sediment in the river, which may affect surface water quality and aquatic health.

▪ Construction of Offshore Facilities may result in release of contaminants (e.g., cementitious material from cast-in-place works), which may affect surface water quality, sediment quality, and aquatic health.

Construction of associated Onshore Facilities


▪ Construction of associated Onshore Facilities are not expected to affect the VC/subcomponents, as upland works will be isolated from the aquatic environment by a dike.

Marine transportation of construction materials and equipment

Negligible interaction—surface water quality, sediment quality, aquatic health

▪ Marine transport activities related to the Project are expected to be similar to transport activities currently occurring within the Fraser River.

▪ The increase in transport activities is not expected to represent a significant proportion of existing shipping traffic in the Fraser River. Therefore, negligible interactions with the VC/subcomponents are expected.

Road transportation of construction materials and equipment


▪ Road transportation of construction materials and equipment are not expected to affect the VC/subcomponents, as upland works are isolated from the aquatic environment by a dike.

Shoreline enhancement of the previously disturbed shoreline


▪ Shoreline enhancement activities may result in a temporary release of sediments to the aquatic environment that may affect the VC/subcomponents.

▪ Trace metals and organic constituents in the released sediments may be mobilized to the water column, and therefore affect surface water quality and aquatic health.

Employment and expenditures


▪ This activity is not expected to affect the VC/subcomponents.

Accidents and malfunctions

Potential interaction— surface water quality, sediment quality, aquatic health

▪ Land- and aquatic-based accidents and malfunctions could affect aquatic health through changes in surface water quality and sediment quality.





30




OPERATION

LNG carrier/barge loading



▪ LNG carrier/barge loading has the potential to suspend sediment into the water column, which can affect surface water quality with potential effects on aquatic life.

▪ Trace metals and organic constituents associated with the suspended sediment may be mobilized to the water column, and therefore affect surface water quality and aquatic health.


Berthing/departure of vessels



▪ Propeller operation in the berthing area has the potential to suspend sediment into the water column, which can affect surface water quality with potential effects on aquatic life.



Marine shipping from the Project site to Sand Heads


▪ Marine shipping could affect aquatic health through changes in surface water quality and sediment quality due to accidental spills.

Maintenance dredging



▪ Dredging to maintain the approach channel and berth pocket has the potential to re-suspend sediment, which can affect surface water quality with potential effects on aquatic life.

▪ Trace metals and organic constituents associated with re-suspended sediment may be mobilized to the water column, and therefore affect surface water quality and aquatic health.

▪ The lower Fraser River has a dynamic riverbed such that sediments are continuously moved downstream throughout the year but particularly during freshet. Given this existing pattern of sediment movement and the relative similarity between ambient sediment quality and sediment quality





31




within the Dredge Area, a negligible interaction is expected between the Project and sediment quality. This is because when the sediments resettle in adjacent areas, sediment quality is not expected to change.

Maintaining marine security zone


▪ This activity will involve patrolling the marine security zone in small watercrafts, which is similar to other boating activities currently occurring within the Fraser River.

▪ This activity is not expected to represent a significant proportion of existing boating traffic in the Fraser River. Therefore, negligible interactions with the VC/subcomponents are expected.







DECOMMISSIONING

Removal of associated Offshore Facilities


▪ Removal of associated Offshore Facilities may result in re-suspension of sediment in the river, which may affect surface water quality and aquatic health.


▪ Removal of infrastructure may result in release of contaminants, which may affect the VC/subcomponents.

Removal of associated Onshore Facilities


▪ Removal of Onsite Facilities is not expected to affect the VC/subcomponents, as upland works are isolated from the aquatic environment by a dike.

Marine transportation of decommissioning materials and equipment


▪ Marine transport activities related to the Project are expected to be similar to transport activities currently occurring within the Fraser River.

▪ The increase in transport activities is not expected to represent a significant proportion of existing shipping traffic in the Fraser River. Therefore, negligible interactions with the VC/subcomponents are expected.





32








Potential interaction – surface water quality, sediment quality, aquatic health


Notes: Potential Project interaction ratings: no interaction; negligible interaction; potential interaction. VC = Valued Component; FTBB = Floating Temporary Bunkering Berth; LAA = Local Assessment Area; LNG = liquefied natural gas.

Potential Project Effects

The potential for Project effects that could result from Project interactions identified in Section 4.6.4.1 is discussed

in this section. Each Project effect is assessed by Project phase (i.e., construction, operation, decommissioning).

To assess magnitude of the potential Project effects, the assessment considered whether a change in water quality

was detectable or could result in exceedances of Project-specific benchmarks based on receiving environment

water quality objectives or guidelines at the assessment point, as represented by the outer boundary or edge of

the work zone. The work zone was defined as 100 m from the source of the Project activities (e.g., 100 m from the

point of discharge where turbidity can no longer be controlled allowing for a safety buffer) as shown conceptually

in Figure 4.6-5 for the proposed dredging activity.





33

Figure 4.6-5: Schematic Diagram Showing Point of Discharge, Operational Compliance Point, and Assessment Point for the Proposed Dredging Activity for the Project

Increased Suspended Sediment Due to Sediment Disturbance

The introduction of sediment to a waterbody, or the re-suspension of aquatic sediments as a result of sediment

disturbance within that waterbody, can result in increased suspended sediment as quantified by measurements of

TSS and turbidity. Turbidity and TSS data may be influenced by anthropogenic activities that affect waterbodies

and watercourses, as well as natural, temporal (i.e., seasonal), and spatial phenomena (Caux, Moore, &

MacDonald, 1997). Under most natural conditions, soil erosion and weathering are the greatest contributors to

turbidity, such as runoff during the spring freshet. Biological activity, such as the proliferation of planktonic

organisms during warm summer months, may also have a seasonal effect on turbidity and TSS measurements

(Chapman, 1992).

These measurements of suspended sediments are described below:

TSS represent a measure of the amount of particulate matter suspended in water. This can include both

inorganic (e.g., silt and clay) and organic (e.g., detritus and algae) matter. TSS is measured by passing

surface water samples through a glass fibre filter and then measuring the dry weight of the non-dissolved





34

particulates that accumulate on the filter. The measurement of TSS requires the collection of a sample and

submission of that sample to the laboratory. Data for this analysis are typically available on a minimum of a

24-hour turnaround.

Turbidity is a similar and related measure to TSS; however, turbidity is a measure of the optical properties

(e.g., scattering of light) of particulates suspended in water. It is measured using an instrument that measures

the passage of light through the sample as well as the scattered light that is reflected from the sediment

particles and reports values in units such as NTU. Turbidity can be measured on site, in real and near-real

time and so is often used for the day-to-day management of in-water activities such as dredging.

Effects of Total Suspended Solids on Aquatic Life

There are several reviews on the effects of suspended sediments in freshwater ecosystems (Birtwell, 1999; Caux

et al., 1997; EIFAC, 1964; Newcombe & Jensen, 2011; Newcombe & MacDonald, 1991). Increasing TSS

concentrations above background levels can adversely affect aquatic environments, but effects on aquatic life are

dependent on many site-specific factors, such as water velocity, particle size and angularity, habitat

characteristics, and particulate composition. Quantification of those effects is relevant to determining whether or

not there is an impact.

Fish and Fish Habitat

Suspended solids are not usually associated with lethal effects on fish except when the TSS concentration is very

high. For example, 96-hour LC50 (lethal concentration for 50% of test organisms) values between 31,000 and

17,600 mg/L have been reported for chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus

nerka) by Servizi and Gordon (1990) and Servizi and Martens (1991). These concentrations are not commonly

encountered in waterbodies except under extreme circumstances. Similarly, physiological trauma such as gill

damage has only been observed at elevated TSS concentrations on the order of hundreds to thousands of

milligrams per litre (Birtwell, 1999; Muck, 2010; Servizi & Martens, 1991).

In contrast, a review of the effects of suspended sediment on fish and their habitat, Birtwell (1999) concluded that

sub-lethal effects on fish tend to occur in the order of tens to hundreds of milligrams per litre with variability among

species with respect to tolerance of suspended sediment. Behavioural alterations in response to elevated TSS

reported in the available literature include avoidance of habitats and reduced prey capture success for visual

predators such as salmonids. For example, changes in the behaviour of salmonids, such as avoidance, have been

observed at turbidity levels on the order of 35 to 70 NTU (Bisson & Bilby, 1982; Robertson, Scruton, & Clarke,

2007). McLeay, Ennis, Birtwell, & Hartman (1987) found that Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) had a decreased

ability to capture prey at a TSS concentration of 100 mg/L. These results were similar to those found by Berg &

Northcote (1985) for juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

As suspended sediments settle out of the water column, they can fill the interstitial spaces within aquatic substrate,

thereby reducing the quantity and quality of cover and habitat available to macroinvertebrates, fish eggs, and fish

fry. Fish eggs have been shown to be susceptible to smothering by the settling of fine particulates associated with

elevated TSS. These fine particulates act by disrupting gas exchange between the egg and the surrounding waters

(Anderson, Taylor, & Balch, 1996; CCME, 2002).





35

Benthic Invertebrates and Primary Producers

TSS has also been shown to affect aquatic invertebrates through physical alterations to habitat, smothering and

clogging interstices used for refuge, abrasion of respiratory surfaces, reduced feeding, and behavioural effects

(CCME, 2002; Singleton, 1985). Acutely lethal effects to benthic invertebrates have been reported at similar

concentrations as fish, with LC50 values ranging between 720 and 51,000 mg/L (CCME 2002). However, the

settling of TSS particulates in lower energy environments can at times have greater influence on benthic

invertebrates than TSS in the overlying waters (Kefford, Zalizniak, Dunlop, Nugegoda, & Choi, 2010).

The effects of TSS on algae and plants are predominately associated with the decreased depth in which light can

penetrate surface waters. Decreased photic depths can adversely affect the organism’s ability to photosynthesize.

Conversely, temporary re-suspension of sediment particulates or erosion of upland areas can also sometimes

increase nutrient availability in the system, which can lead to periodic increases in primary productivity (Bilby &

Bisson, 1992).

Suspended Sediment Water Quality Guidelines

Current provincial WQGs for the protection of aquatic life for TSS in marine and freshwater environments stipulate

that TSS concentrations should not:

Increase 25 mg/L above background levels for a duration of 24 hours in clear water (i.e., <25 mg/L TSS);

Increase 5 mg/L above background levels for a duration of 30 days in clear water (i.e., <25 mg/L TSS);

Increase 10 mg/L above background levels at any time when background levels are between 25 and

100 mg/L during high flow or in waters that are turbid (i.e., ≥25 mg/L);

Increase 10% above background at any time when background is >100 mg/L either during high flows or when

waters are turbid (i.e., ≥100 mg/L).

Potential Project Effect of Increased Suspended Sediment Due to Sediment Disturbance

Sediment disturbance from the following Project activities could potentially result in increased suspended sediment

and turbidity (i.e., cloudiness) levels in the water column within the LAA, which could thus adversely affect aquatic

health:

Site preparation and removal of existing infrastructure during the construction phase;

Construction of associated Offshore Facilities, dredging, and in-river ground stabilization and pile works

during the construction phase;

Maintenance dredging and propeller operation during berthing and departure of vessels during the operation

phase;

Shoreline enhancements; and

Removal of Offshore Facilities during the decommissioning phase.





36

For these Project activities, potential sediment disturbance would be temporary. The scale of disturbance will

depend on the Project activity, with dredging activity likely to result in the largest scale disturbance within the LAA.

Construction

Capital Dredging of the Dredge Area:

For the purposes of this assessment, capital dredging is assumed to occur between October and December 2019.

The total dredge volume is estimated to be 510,000 m3 within an area of 221,000 m2. Both dredging for the FTBB

and the jetty (Construction Stages 1 and 2) are included in this estimate as outlined in Table 4.6-9. Assuming a

dredging rate of 14,000 m3/day, capital dredging is anticipated to extend over approximately 36 working days or

approximately 50 calendar days and to be continuous (i.e., 24 hours per day). As discussed in the Section 4.2,

Fish and Fish Habitat, this work will be conducted during the applicable least risk fisheries work window of June

16 to February 28 specified by DFO (DFO, 2014).

Table 4.6-9: Summary of Proposed Dredging Activity during Construction

Item FTBB Jetty Total for Q4 2019

Dredge area(a) 17,000 m2 204,000 m2 221,000 m2

Dredging volume 50,000 m3 460,000 m3 510,000 m3

Densification area(a) 4,230 m2 13,235 m2 17,465 m2

Number of piles 18 38 46

(a) Approximate area of each construction activity estimated from ARC-GIS shape files of Project design.

FTBB = floating temporary bunker berth.

Most of the capital dredging is expected to be conducted using a trailing suction hopper dredger (estimated at 80%

of the total dredge volume) with the remainder undertaken using a hopper clamshell dredger (estimated at 20% of

the total dredge volume), and this has been assumed for this assessment. Sediments within this segment are

dredged annually by both of these types of equipment to maintain the shipping channel. Infrequent clam shell

dredging to maintain vessel access to the sloughs and moorage in small craft harbours also occurs (FREMP,

2006).

Dredging will result in riverbed disturbance and re-suspension of sediments, with some transport downstream

depending on river flow and tidal conditions. Sediment composition will also influence the settling rates of re-

suspended sediment in the LAA, with sandier sediments settling more quickly than finer sediments. Sediments in

the proposed dredge areas are primarily composed of sand with a relatively low percentage of fine sediment

(Section 4.6.2.2.2). Factors that influence fine sediment transport throughout the RAA are described further in

Section 4.1, River Processes and include river discharge (seasonal) and tidal forcing (diurnal timescale). Under

existing conditions, the highest suspended sediment levels in the lower Fraser River occur during freshet from

April/May to July/August with maximum turbidity and TSS levels just prior to peak freshet conditions when flows

are their highest (Section 4.6.2.2.1). Under low flow conditions, short-term increases in-river discharge can result

in increased turbidity as shown for a representative two-month period in 2016 in Figure 4.6-3 during a period of





37

navigational dredging. The associated decrease in conductivity that coincides with the increase in turbidity

suggests that river discharge was primarily responsible for the short-term increase in turbidity.

The total volume to be dredged during construction of the FTBB and the jetty (510,000 m3) is approximately twice

that most recently dredged in January 2018 for navigational dredging purposes in Gravesend Reach and at

Purfleet Point (216,000 m3). The proposed capital dredging rate for the Project (14,000 m3/day) is also higher than

the maximum dredging rate during navigational dredging in recent years (approximately 9,000 m3/day). There is

therefore the potential for short-term, temporary disturbance of river bottom sediments and re-suspension within

the LAA.

Estimated Total Suspended Solids during Dredging

To assess the potential effects of increased suspended sediment and turbidity related to dredging, the TSS

concentrations at the edge of the work zone (i.e., 100 m from the point of discharge) were estimated. The estimated

TSS concentrations were calculated according to the methods outlined in Appendix 4.1-4. In consideration of the

dredging techniques to be employed and river conditions for a representative year (2016), Section 4.1, River

Processes estimated TSS concentrations in the LAA during varying average river discharges, including the

expected discharge when capital dredging is assumed to occur (i.e., between October and December). The

estimated TSS concentrations represent TSS integrated through the water column within the navigational channel,

which means that these concentrations could be overestimates of actual concentrations.

Estimates were generated under a range of discharge conditions to represent TSS concentrations projected to

occur during capital dredging proposed for the Project as well as TSS concentrations that occurred during past

navigational dredging events. Past and projected TSS estimates at the edge of the work zone (i.e., 100 m from

point of discharge) are shown in Figure 4.6-6 in relation to river discharge: the red line represents proposed capital

dredging; the blue line represents past navigational dredging.

Also shown in Figure 4.6-6 are measured TSS concentrations at the ECCC buoy within and outside of past

navigational dredging periods. These are measured concentrations taken at surface outside the navigational

channel, and therefore may under-represent actual TSS concentrations in the navigational channel. As discussed

in Section 0, navigation concerns (collision) and flow conditions in the lower Fraser River preclude the placement

of a buoy closer to the middle of the channel. Therefore, although the ECCC buoy is not located within the

navigational channel and therefore may not record the higher TSS measurements that can occur in the channel

during historical dredging events, it is the best available source of data on suspended sediment in the river within

the RAA. The measured TSS data from the ECCC buoy show wide variability with a general trend of increased

TSS during higher discharge periods and decreased TSS during lower discharge periods. However, TSS

measurements were similar within and outside navigational dredging periods, which suggests navigational

dredging activity had limited effect on measured TSS, which is consistent with turbidity measurements presented

in Figure 4.6-3.





38

Note: Also shown is TSS measured near the surface under varying river discharge for the period 2012 to 2018 within and outside periods of known dredging (2015 to 2018). TSS = total suspended solids.

Figure 4.6-6 Estimated Total Suspended Solids as a Result of Project-Related Dredging during Construction and Baseline Navigational Dredging under Varying River Discharge





39

At discharge rates representative of those expected in the river during the assumed capital dredging period from

October to December (i.e., 700 to 2,800 m3/s)4, TSS associated with capital dredging (red line in Figure 4.6-6) is

estimated to be incrementally higher than the estimated TSS associated with past navigational dredging programs

(blue line), consistent with the larger relative volume of sediment that will be dredged as part of construction

activities. Under the river discharge expected during the dredging events (i.e., 700 to 2,800 m3/s between October

and December), the estimated TSS concentration in the river at the edge of the work zone (i.e., 100 m from the

point of discharge) would range from 14 to 54 mg/L (Figure 4.6-6). These TSS concentrations are an order of

magnitude below concentrations reported to result in fish mortality or gill damage and are below or within the lower

range of concentrations reported to result in sublethal effects on fish. Background concentrations are also relevant

in the assessment of potential effects, as are the site-specific tolerance of resident fish species. Mean and 95th

percentile TSS concentrations under low flow conditions in the Fraser River (Appendix 4.6-1) are within the TSS

concentration range predicted at the edge of the work zone. Mean and 95th percentile TSS concentrations under

high flow conditions are higher than the TSS concentration range predicted at the edge of the work zone.

Therefore, fish and other aquatic life will have been exposed to TSS concentrations higher than those predicted

during dredging during the freshet and the post-freshet period leading up to the assumed capital dredging period

(i.e., October to December).

Overall, this assessment suggests that TSS due to capital dredging is not negligible but may not be discernible

from natural variability in TSS documented in the RAA for assumed time period. Effects of sediment release on

surface water quality related to capital dredging have therefore been considered for further mitigation.

In-River Ground Stabilization and Pile Works

Ground stabilization works within the LAA will be required to minimize the risks to Project infrastructure associated

with liquefaction of riverbed sediments. Soil densification via vibro-replacement stone column will be undertaken

across an area of 4,230 m2 for the FTBB and 13,235 m2 for the jetty. Flat deck barges may be used to transfer

equipment for offshore ground stabilization activities, or temporary rock berms may be constructed from the

foreshore into the river. Ground stabilization works are expected to occur between Q4 2019 and Q2 2020.

Conventional steel piles with concrete pile-caps will support the export and bunker platforms, adjoining access

trestle, berthing dolphins, and mooring dolphins. Pile depths are expected to range from 30 to 40 m below the final

dredged elevation. As outlined in Table 4.2-10 (Section 4.2, Fish and Fish Habitat), it is estimated that

approximately 100 piles would be required for the FTBB and construction of the jetty, with pile works expected to

occur between Q1 2020 and Q4 2020. Piles will be driven using a crane barge located offshore.

The re-suspension of sediments due to in-river ground stabilization and pile works is expected to be relatively

minor, particularly in comparison to dredging, and thus effects to Water Quality are not anticipated. Nonetheless,

the effects of sediment release on surface water quality related to in-river ground stabilization and pile works have

been considered for further mitigation.

4 Average discharge in Fraser River as measured at Hope, BC, and summarized in the annual hydrograph in Figure 4.1-2 in Section 4.1, River Processes.





40

Site Preparation, Removal of Existing Marine Infrastructure, and Construction of Offshore Facilities

The following activities related to site preparation, removal of existing marine infrastructure, and construction of

Offshore Facilities have the potential to cause short-term, temporary re-suspension of river bed sediments,

though the potential for sediment release is expected to be minor compared to dredging:

Site preparation includes using excavators or other heavy machinery to clear the onshore portion of logs and

debris.

Removal of existing marine infrastructure includes removing old timber piles, mooring dolphins, steel piles,

and concrete desk.

Construction of the Offshore Facilities includes construction of the jetty (access trestle, loading platform,

mooring dolphins, and berthing dolphins), the LNG transfer system, and process control and power supply

systems.

These activities have been considered for further mitigation in Section 4.6.4.3.

Shoreline Enhancement

Construction activities in the shoreline have the potential to cause erosion and sediment mobilization to the river,

and there is potential for effects to water quality. Therefore, effects of sediment release on surface water quality

related to shoreline enhancement have been considered for further mitigation.

Operation

Maintenance Dredging

Annual maintenance dredging is expected to occur during operations and is anticipated to be undertaken within a

two-week period for the purposes of this assessment. As described for construction, maintenance dredging during

operations will be conducted using a trailing suction hopper dredger (estimated at 80% of the total dredge volume)

with the remainder undertaken using a hopper clamshell dredger (estimated at 20% of the total dredge volume).

Although not to the same extent as the capital dredging, there is the potential for short-term, temporary disturbance

of river bottom sediments and re-suspension within the LAA; therefore, maintenance dredging has been

considered for further mitigation.

Berthing and Departure of Vessels

Propeller operation in the berthing area during arrival and departure of vessels (also known as prop wash) has the

potential to re-suspend sediment into the water column. Vessels are expected to enter the berth facing upstream

so that the downstream area would have the propeller. This activity could occur daily at any time of day throughout

the life of the Project. The potential for Project effects directly related to this activity to be detectable depends on

how frequent the vessel activity is relative to other vessel activities in the river. It is estimated up to 69 bunkering





41

vessels and 34 LNG vessels a year may use the jetty, but the actual number and type of vessels will depend on

market conditions, which are not easily predicted. The LNG vessels are larger than bunkering vessels, and

therefore may create more propeller wash, particularly given the shallow depth of the area. The potential effects

of this activity on surface water quality have been considered for further mitigation.

Decommissioning

Removal of Offshore Facilities

Removing Offshore Facilities during the decommissioning phase may re-suspend riverbed. The potential effects

associated with this activity are similar to those related to the construction of the Offshore Facilities, and so have

been considered for further mitigation.

Remobilization of Trace Metals and Organic Constituents from Disturbed Sediments

Disturbance of bottom sediments has the potential to facilitate the release of trace metal and organic constituents

such as PAHs, metals, and dioxins and furans to the overlying water column. This potential effect applies to

activities described in Section 4.6.4.2.1, and can occur during construction, operation, and decommissioning

phases.

The composition of sediment constituents within the Dredge Area and LAA is characterized in Section 4.6.2.2.2.

Reported sediment concentrations of some metals (i.e., arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, and nickel)

and dioxins and furans in some samples, taken at surface and at depth within the Dredge Area, were above BC

sediment quality guidelines; however, maximum concentrations were less than the 95th percentile of sediment

concentrations measured by the 2016 FRAMP. In general, the sediment characterization study undertaken for the

Project suggests that the Project site does not represent a contaminant source for metals or dioxins and furans,

but rather is reflective of ambient conditions within the river (Section 4.6.2.2.2; Appendix 4.6-2). As such, the

potential for mobilization of these constituents to the water column was not assessed further.

Although total PAH concentrations were below BC sediment quality guidelines in all samples analyzed from the

Project site, concentrations of several individual PAHs were greater than guidelines in some samples (see

Appendix 4.6-2). Only naphthalene and phenanthrene had concentrations that also exceeded the Fraser River

Objective (FRO) for sediment quality. Maximum concentrations of several PAHs were higher than the 95th

percentile of sediment concentrations measured by 2016 FRAMP. Therefore, the potential for mobilization of PAHs

from disturbed sediment to the water column was assessed further.

Under current conditions, despite the high sediment load in the river as discussed in Section 4.6.2.2.1.5, PAHs

are not detected in the water column at the Project site, which is consistent with other water quality studies on the

lower Fraser River. Low or undetectable PAH concentrations in the water column are likely, in part, attributable to

the hydrophobic nature of PAHs and their affinity to bind to organic matter, particle surfaces, or biological lipids

rather than desorbing to the water column. Their relative hydrophobicity and the well-mixed river conditions within

the LAA suggest that PAHs will not desorb from disturbed sediment to the extent that river concentrations within





42

the LAA will increase above water quality objectives or guidelines as a result of the activities described in Section

4.6.4.2.1.

To support this assessment, the 95th percentile of baseline sediment PAH concentrations from the proposed area

of the dredge pocket were used to predict total surface water concentrations that may be expected during dredging

for 50, 100, and 200 mg/L TSS scenarios. This TSS range includes the maximum estimated TSS concentration at

the edge of the work zone (54 mg/L), as well as two and four times higher TSS concentrations, which have been

occasionally observed in the baseline dataset (Figure 4.6-6).

Surface water concentrations were predicted using the following calculation:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐(𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐶 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) =𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐(𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐶 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡) × 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐(𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)

1,000,000

Where:

Conc(COPC in water) is the concentration of the PAH in water in mg/L

Conc(COPC in sediment) is the concentration of the PAH in sediment in mg/kg dry weight (dw)

Conc(TSS in water) is the expected concentration of total suspended solids in water in mg/L during the

dredging events (i.e., 50, 100, or 200 mg/L)

1,000,000 is the unit conversion from kilograms to milligrams of sediment

Based on the 95th percentile of measured sediment concentrations, predicted surface water concentrations of all

PAHs under the 50, 100, and 200 mg/L TSS scenarios were determined to be less than the BC and CCME long-

term WQGs (Table 4.6-10) and applicable guidelines protective of human health (Table 4.6-11).





43

Table 4.6-10: Screening of Predicted Surface Water Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations during Dredging against Water Quality Guidelines Protective of Aquatic Health

Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Units

BC

WQG (a)

CCME

WQG (b)

95th Percentile

Measured

Sediment

Concentration

(mg/kg dw)

Estimated Concentration in Water (µg/L)

Assuming TSS at:

50 mg/L 100 mg/L 200 mg/L

Acenaphthene µg/L 6 (FW) 5.8 (FW) 0.047 0.0023 0.0047 0.0094

Acenaphthylene µg/L 0.005 0.00025 0.00050 0.0010

Anthracene µg/L

0.1 (p,

FW)

0.012

(FW, I) 0.017 0.0009 0.0017 0.0035

Benzo[a]anthracene µg/L

0.1 (p,

FW)

0.018

(FW, I) 0.025 0.0013 0.0025 0.0050

Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L

0.01

(FW)

0.015

(FW, I) 0.014 0.0007 0.0014 0.0029

Benzo[b]fluoranthene µg/L 0.022 0.0011 0.0022 0.0044

Benzo[b,j,k]fluoranthene µg/L 0.028 0.0014 0.0028 0.0056

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene µg/L 0.010 0.0005 0.0010 0.0020

Benzo[k]fluoranthene µg/L 0.011 0.0006 0.0011 0.0022

Chrysene µg/L

0.1

(M/ES) 0.028 0.0014 0.0028 0.0055

Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene µg/L 0.005 0.00025 0.00050 0.0010

Fluoranthene µg/L

0.2 (p,

FW)

0.04

(FW, I) 0.095 0.0048 0.0095 0.019

Fluorene µg/L

12

(FW) 3 (FW, I)

0.051 0.0025 0.0051 0.010

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene µg/L 0.010 0.0005 0.0010 0.0020

2-Methylnaphthalene µg/L

1

(M/ES) 0.013 0.0007 0.0013 0.0027

Naphthalene µg/L

1 (FW) 1.1 (FW,

I) 0.010 0.0005 0.0010 0.0021

Phenanthrene µg/L

0.3

(FW)

0.4 (FW,

I) 0.154 0.0077 0.015 0.031

Pyrene µg/L

0.02 (p,

FW)

0.025

(FW, I) 0.067 0.0034 0.0067 0.013

(a) British Columbia Ministry of Environment Approved Water Quality Guidelines for freshwater/estuarine/marine aquatic life (MOE, 2018). Where approved guidelines were not available, working guidelines were used for screening (MOE, 2017). (b) Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 2018). BC = British Columbia; WQG = water quality guideline; CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment; mg/kg dw = milligrams per kilogram dry weight; TSS = total suspended solids; µg/L = micrograms per litre; FW = freshwater aquatic life guideline; p = phototoxic water quality guideline; I = interim, M/ES = marine/estuarine guideline for aquatic life.

Table 4.6-11

Screening of Predicted Surface Water Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations

during Dredging against Water Quality Guidelines Protective of Human Health

Drinking

WaterDrinking Water × 10 Recreation Drinking Water

Drinking Water

× 10Health Based Aesthetic Based

Drinking Water

× 10RSL NC or C

Adjusted to

HQ=0.2,

ILCR=10-5

Drinking

Water × 1050 mg/L 100 mg/L 200 mg/L

Acenaphthene mg/L 0.25 2.5 - - - - - - 0.53 NC 0.106 1.06 2.5 DW BC 0.0000023 0.0000047 0.0000094

Acenaphthylene mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.00000025 0.0000005 0.000001

Acridine mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anthracene mg/L 1 10 - - - - - - 1.8 NC 0.36 3.6 10 DW BC 0.0000009 0.0000017 0.0000035

Benz(a)anthracene mg/L 0.00007 0.0007 - - - - - - 0.00003 C 0.0003 0.003 0.0007 DW BC 0.0000013 0.0000025 0.000005

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/L 0.00001 0.0001 - 0.00001 0.0001 0.00004 - 0.0004 0.000025 C 0.00025 0.0025 0.0001 DW BC 0.0000007 0.0000014 0.0000029

Benzo(b)fluoranthene mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.00025 C 0.0025 0.025 0.025 DW EPA 0.0000011 0.0000022 0.0000044

Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene mg/L 0.00007 0.0007 - - - - - - 0.000065 C 0.00065 0.0065 0.0007 DW BC 0.0000014 0.0000028 0.0000056

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0000005 0.000001 0.000002

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.0025 C 0.025 0.25 0.25 DW EPA 0.0000006 0.0000011 0.0000022

Chrysene mg/L 0.007 0.07 - - - - - - 0.025 C 0.25 2.5 0.07 DW BC 0.0000014 0.0000028 0.0000055

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/L 0.00001 0.0001 - - - - - - 0.000025 C 0.00025 0.0025 0.0001 DW BC 0.00000025 0.0000005 0.000001

Fluoranthene mg/L 0.15 1.5 - - - - - - 0.8 NC 0.16 1.6 1.5 DW BC 0.0000048 0.0000095 0.000019

Fluorene mg/L 0.15 1.5 - - - - - - 0.29 NC 0.058 0.58 1.5 DW BC 0.0000025 0.0000051 0.00001

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene mg/L - - - - - - - - 0.00025 C 0.0025 0.025 0.025 DW EPA 0.0000005 0.000001 0.000002

1-Methylnaphthalene mg/L 0.0055 0.055 - - - - - - 0.0011 C 0.011 0.11 0.055 DW BC - - -

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/L 0.015 0.15 - - - - - - 0.036 NC 0.0072 0.072 0.15 DW BC 0.0000007 0.0000013 0.0000027

Naphthalene mg/L 0.08 0.8 - - - - - - 0.0061 NC 0.00122 0.0122 0.8 DW BC 0.0000005 0.000001 0.0000021

Perylene mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phenanthrene mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0000077 0.000015 0.000031

Pyrene mg/L 0.1 1 - - - - - - 0.12 NC 0.024 0.24 1 DW BC 0.0000034 0.0000067 0.000013

Quinoline mg/L 0.00005 0.0005 - - - - - - 0.000024 C 0.00024 0.0024 0.0005 DW BC - - -

Retene mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notes:

(a) Values were preferentially selected from the BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) Summary Report for secondary recreational contact. If no recreational value was available, the drinking water guideline multiplied by 10 is show

Health-based drinking water guidelines were obtained from the BC Approved WQGs and Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada 2017), with the most conservative value selected preferentially

The US EPA (2017) tapwater regional screening levels (RSLs) are shown when a BC or Health Canada value was not available. The RSLs were adjusted to reflect a hazaard quotient (HQ) of 0.2 and an incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 10-5 (target risk levels for Canada

Value Exceeds the selected recreational screening criterion

References

(1) Contaminated Sites Regulation Schedule 3.2 for DW [accessed February 2018] available at: http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/375_96_08.

(2) The BC Approved WQG Summary Report [accessed February 2018] available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-quality/water-quality-guidelines/approved-water-quality-guidelines.

(3) Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality [accessed February 2018] available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/guide/index-eng.php.

(4) US EPA tapwater Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) [accessed February 2018] available at: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables-november-2017.

Selected

Recreational

Screening Criteriona

Notes

Estimated Concentration in Water (mg/L)

Assuming TSS at:

Parameter Units

CSR Schedule 3.21

Maximum BC Water Quality Guidelines2

Health Canada Guidelines - Drinking Water3

EPA Regional Screening Levels - Tap Water4

< = reported value is less than method detection limit (MDL); µS/cm = microseimens per centimeter; °C = degrees Celsius; CSR = Contaminated Sites Regulation; AO = Aesthetic objective;

BC = British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines; DW = Drinking Water Guideline (x10); EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; HC = Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada);

mg/L = milligrams per liter; mg N/L = milligrams Nitrogen per liter; mg P/L = milligrams Phosphorus per liter; NC = not calculated; NR = none required; NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit; OG = operational guidance value;

P = Phosphorus; ppt = parts per trillion





45

Given the relative hydrophobicity of PAHs and that predicted waterborne concentrations do not exceed water

quality objectives or guidelines, it is not likely that sediment disturbance as a result of dredging will result in

concentrations in the receiving environment that have the potential to adversely affect aquatic life or human health.

Therefore, potential effects to aquatic health and human health through this pathway are considered negligible,

and have not been considered for further mitigation.

Contaminant release may occur during the removal of existing marine infrastructure (e.g., removal of old piles may

release creosote) and in-water construction works (e.g., cementitious material release). Activities associated with

the operation and decommissioning phases are not expected to result in contaminant releases as Project site

water is expected to be managed on Site. No discharges to the municipal sewerage system are expected at this

time. Unintentional contaminant releases are discussed in Section 9.0, Accidents and Malfunctions.

Release of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Creosote-Treated Piles

Removal of old creosote-treated piles during the construction phase of the Project, specifically during site

preparation and removal of existing infrastructure, may result in release of creosote into the water. Creosote is a

distillate of coal tar, up to 80% of which is composed of PAHs (Hutton & Samis, 2000). High molecular-weight

PAHs can be carcinogenic, whereas the low molecular-weight PAHs are more likely to be acutely toxic to aquatic

life (Hutton & Samis, 2000). PAHs can also accumulate in sediment surrounding the piles, and when piles are

removed, sediment-bound PAHs can become temporarily suspended and transported in the water column.

Turbidity in the water column could also increase from the suspended sediment, and creosote could enter the

water column if the piles are not handled properly.

The effects of release of PAHs from creosote-treated piles on Water Quality have been considered for further

mitigation.

Release of Alkaline Material during Concrete Works

Cast-in-place concrete works and cuttings from removal of existing concrete may be undertaken near or in the

aquatic environment during the construction phase of the Project, specifically during site preparation and removal

of existing infrastructure, during in-river ground stabilization and pile works, and during construction of associated

Offshore Facilities. These activities can release cementitious material into the aquatic environment, which could

adversely affect surface water quality. Concrete, cement, mortars, grouts, and other construction materials

containing Portland cement or lime are alkaline and have the potential to result in adverse effects on aquatic life.

The effects of release of cementitious material during concrete works on Water Quality have been considered for

further mitigation.





46

Accidental Release of Deleterious Substances

Accidents and malfunctions that can result in the unintentional release of deleterious substances to the aquatic

environment have the potential to occur during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. Types

of accidents or malfunctions that have the potential to affect Water Quality include:

Spill of fuel or other hazardous materials on land or into water during construction, operation, and

decommissioning phases;

LNG release into water from the Project site during construction and operation phases;

Vessel to vessel collision or grounding of vessels during transport between Sand Heads and the Project site,

leading to LNG or fuel release into the Fraser River during construction and operation phases; and

Marine vessel allision with LNG terminal leading to LNG release during construction and operation phases.

Further discussion of accidents and malfunctions during Project construction, operation, and decommissioning

activities and potential residual effects on Water Quality are provided in Section 9.0, Accidents and

Malfunctions.

Mitigation Measures

The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and the Operational Environmental Management

Plan (OEMP) will be developed prior to the initiation of Project construction to provide details on surface water

quality mitigation measures, implementation methods, and schedule. Developing these management plans prior

to construction and operation is standard practice for projects. CEMPs and OEMPs are an effective method of

synthesising Project mitigation measures, detailing implementation of mitigation measures, and outlining methods

to measure and report mitigation measure effectiveness.

Mitigation measures expected to reduce or eliminate an adverse effect are described below and summarized in

Table 4.6-8. Selection of mitigation measures for surface water quality was informed by:

A review of mitigation measures and follow-up programs undertaken for similar developments;

Regulator, public, and Aboriginal group input;

Internal evaluation of technical and economic feasibility; and

Government policy and guidance documents.

A hierarchical approach was used to select and prioritize mitigation measures. Measures were selected in the

following order:

1. Avoidance: measures to avoid potential effects to the VC are generally undertaken during the Project design

and pre-construction planning phases





47

2. Minimization: when potential effects to the VC cannot be avoided, site-specific and activity-specific mitigation

measures and Best Management Practices would be implemented to reduce the potential effect

3. Restoration: when effects to the VC cannot be avoided or eliminated through project design or standard best

management practices, effected components would be restored or enhanced to pre-project conditions or better

4. Offsetting: Off-setting would be conducted when effects to the VC cannot be restored within a subject area.

Project Design Mitigation

The Project is in an industrial setting and makes use of an existing LNG facility and a previously disturbed site.

The Project site has historically been used as a log sort. In 2017, the Project design was reviewed and optimized

to further reduce the potential effects on water quality. Design modifications include the following:

The use of pre-fabricated concrete pads for scour protection along the marine infrastructure will reduce

sediment release related to vessel berthing and departure during the operation phase.

The use of piles instead of fill to support marine structures will reduce overall marine footprint and might

reduce sediment release.

Specific Mitigation for Water Quality

The following section outlines recommended mitigation strategies intended to reduce or prevent potential adverse

effects on water quality during construction. These measures are based primarily on BMPs presented in the

following documents:

Standards and Best Management Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004);

Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in British Columbia

(MOE, 2014);

Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat (DFO, 1992);

Habitat Conservation and Protection Guidelines, Second Edition (DFO, 1998);

Environmental Construction Standards (Vancouver Airport Authority, 1998);

Dredge Management Guidelines (FREMP, 2005); and

Environmental Management Strategy for Dredging in the Fraser River Estuary (FREMP, 2006).

Mitigation measures will be compliant with relevant environmental protection legislation, regulations, and

standards, and will be implemented as recommended during the environmental review of the Project. Mitigation

measures and their implementation, as well as guiding principles will be outlined in the CEMP and OEMP once

prepared (Section 14, Management Plans).





48

The mitigation measures identified for Water Quality are generally those related to minimizing the potential effects

on water and sediment quality, and therefore on aquatic health. Most Project activities occur directly in the Fraser

River, and therefore avoidance of potential effects to Water Quality is not possible for most project activities.

However, mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce effects to water quality, such as erosion and

sediment control and limiting construction activities during least risk windows. These mitigation measures are

included in management plans. Restoration is the process of replacing or improving existing habitat while offsetting

is the construction of new habitat. Neither of these types of mitigation measures are applicable to this VC,

Mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to Water Quality include scheduling

activities to coincide with least risk windows, implementing best management practices, and developing

management plans to predict, monitor, and adapt to interactions between the Project and Water Quality. Mitigation

measures to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to Water Quality are included in Section 14.0

Management Plans. These measures are expected to be effective in reducing the interaction between the Project

and Water Quality by planning for and managing potential interactions prior to construction and operation. Unless

otherwise stated, these mitigation measures will be effective immediately because they will be implemented prior

to the onset of construction.

Mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.6.4.3.2.1 for Site Management are expected to highly effective in

reducing interactions with the Project and Water Quality by placing restrictions on when, where, and how on-site

construction activities are conducted to avoid or minimize the release of soil and sediment either directly or

indirectly (through surface runoff) into the Fraser River. Mitigation measures described for Site management will

avoid or minimize potential project related impacts on water quality.

Specific plans proposed as mitigation measures in Sections 4.6.4.3.2.2 to 4.6.4.3.2.9, are also expected to be

highly effective in reducing interactions with the Project and Water Quality and thus minimize potential project

related impacts on water quality. As outlined in Sections 4.6.4.3.2.2 to 4.6.4.3.2.9, these plans incorporate BMPs

and measures for adherence to applicable environmental legislation, jurisdictional bylaws, and dredging guidelines

developed for the Fraser River. These are considered standard mitigation measures and are expected to be highly

effective in avoiding or reducing the interactions with the Project and Water Quality in the following ways:

minimize sediment disturbance and release of suspended solids during construction and operations

minimize effects related to the release of suspended solids either directly or indirectly to the Fraser River.

prevent deleterious substances vis-à-vis the Fisheries Act from entering the aquatic environment

prevent pollution vis-à-vis the EMA in the downstream receiving environment

Thus, the mitigation measures described in the proposed plans will minimize the potential project related impacts

on water quality.





49

Mitigation Measure M4.6-1 Site Management

WesPac will include mitigation measures for site management in the CEMP. Consistent with Section 4.2, Fish

and Fish Habitat. The following mitigation measures relevant to water quality will be included in the CEMP:

Applications for all necessary permits, approvals, licences, authorizations, and/or notifications will be

submitted to the appropriate provincial or federal regulatory agency for review in a timely manner, well in

advance of construction.

Environmentally sensitive “no work” areas will be delineated on construction drawings and at construction

sites. In the latter case, high-visibility fencing or other markers will be used so that site works are contained

and no unnecessary encroachment occurs in adjacent foreshore areas or watercourses.

Riparian setback areas from drainage channels and watercourses will be identified in accordance with the

Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat (DFO, 1992), unless a site-specific

assessment of environmental effects has been undertaken and acceptable mitigation measures have been

developed.

Prior to construction, protocols will be developed for the proper on-site storage of all hazardous materials,

spill prevention and control, use of secondary containment for machinery/equipment fuelling, and equipment

washing and maintenance. A Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan (SPERP) will be developed.

With the exception of equipment used during over-water work to be undertaken from barges anchored near

the front of the bulkhead wall, no equipment or machinery refuelling or servicing will be permitted within 30

m of any watercourse or surface water drainage.

No construction activities will be conducted in the foreshore or intertidal/subtidal areas except for

installation/construction of the barge load-out jetty, walkway, and conveyor system; upgrade of the barge

ramp; removal of the old access dock and other debris; and removal of old dolphins (as necessary).

When appropriate, construction activities conducted in the foreshore or intertidal/subtidal areas will be

conducted in the dry during favourable tide cycles.

Mitigation Measure M4.6-2 Stormwater Management Plan

WesPac will include a Stormwater Management Plan in the Project design with the following considerations

relevant to water quality:

Surface drains and ditches constructed as part of the Project will be graded according to BMPs and vegetated

or lined to minimize erosion and increase the retention time of runoff.

Particular attention will be given to the construction methodology and design of new or upgrades to access

roads to avoid the potential to alter existing drainage patterns by collecting overland drainage and

concentrating it at specific locations, which may result in localized erosion.

Water collected in temporary sediment control structures will either be discharged to ground or discharged

off site to the municipal storm water system or the Fraser River. Based on the volume of water expected, the





50

Project assumes that this water will be discharged to ground. If discharge off site is needed, then the water

will be analyzed and its quality determined. Two options will be considered for off-site discharge:

▪ If water quality meets the expectation of the City of Delta’s bylaw (No. 5786, 2000), and the necessary

permit(s) are obtained from the City of Delta, then the water will be discharged to the municipal stormwater

system.

▪ If water quality meets expectations under the Fisheries Act and the EMA, it will be discharged into the

Fraser River; otherwise it will be treated prior to discharge. For effluent discharges to aquatic receiving

environments in BC, there are two common expectations under the Fisheries Act and the EMA:

− The effluent at the point of discharge should not be acutely lethal to fish, which is often operationally

defined by ECCC as 96-hour LC50 ≥100%.

− The effluent will not cause chronic or sublethal effects outside an initial dilution zone (IDZ), a three-

dimensional zone around the point of discharge where mixing of the effluent and the receiving water

occurs. Where long-term average (chronic) WQGs are met at the edge of the IDZ, chronic effects

outside the IDZ would not be expected. The IDZ is set on a site-by-site basis.

Mitigation Measure M4.6-3 In-Water Works Management Plan

WesPac will prepare and implement an In-Water Works Management Plan to minimize sediment disturbance

during construction and prevent discharge or runoff containing high total suspended solids (TSS), concrete wash

water, and fuel from entering the aquatic environment. The plan will be included in the CEMP and will contain (but

not be limited to) mitigation measures described in Section 4.2, Fish and Fish Habitat as well as details regarding

frequency of monitoring

Mitigation measures relevant to water quality to be included in the In-Water Works Management Plan are

summarized below:

Selecting the least harmful materials, equipment, and construction methods, where practicable (i.e., where

available or suitable for project requirements);

Developing and following contingency plans and response measures;

Providing suitable training to on-site personnel regarding environmental values and measures to be used to

avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects;

Erecting protective fencing and signage to identify environmentally sensitive areas that are to be avoided

during construction;

Effective on-site environmental management, monitoring, and reporting will be incorporated into all aspects

of site preparation, construction, and site restoration. Construction operations will be monitored by a qualified

Environmental Monitor who will be on site during the high-risk construction and demolition activities to

determine whether the works are resulting in any adverse effects on aquatic environment. Reporting will

comply with relevant reporting requirements of the Fisheries Act (Duty to Report provisions) and the provincial

Spill Reporting Regulation.





51

In-water works will be conducted during the least risk fisheries work window specified by DFO for the region.

If the work window cannot be followed, additional mitigation measures including the advice provided by (DFO,

2013) will be implemented. The work window for the Fraser River Estuary, from the mouth upstream to the

George Massey Tunnel, and also from the George Massey Tunnel upstream to the Mission Bridge, is July

16 to February 28 (DFO, 2014).

All works will be conducted in a manner to prevent the discharge or introduction, either direct or indirect, of

soil, sediment, or sediment-laden water, turbid water, or any other deleterious substance into the aquatic

environment. All discharges from construction activities shall meet expectations under the Fisheries Act and

the EMA for discharge.

Construction materials, excavation wastes, overburden, sediment, or other substances potentially deleterious

to aquatic life shall be disposed of off site in accordance with regulatory requirements, or placed in such a

manner by the contractor, to prevent their entry into the aquatic environment.

The contractor shall follow Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations (BCMPDCA

and DFO, 2003).

Vessels and other equipment involved in pile driving and construction activities will be positioned in a manner

that prevents damage to the riverbed and foreshore.

Where required, turbidity monitoring will be implemented during all pile drilling/driving activities, to determine

that turbidity levels in the aquatic environment do not exceed established water quality regulatory criteria

during Project works at the edge of an established work zone.

The following water quality criteria will be applied at the edge of an established work zone based on BC

WQGs, with regard to discharge or introduction of sediment or sediment-laden water in the aquatic

environment:

▪ Turbidity

− Change from background of 5 NTU when the background level is between 8 and 50 NTU during high

flows or in turbid waters; and

− Change from background of 10% when the background level is more than 50 NTU during high flows

or in turbid waters.

▪ TSS (equivalent to the FRWQO):

− Change from background of 10 mg/L when the background level is between 25 and 100 mg/L during

high flows or in turbid waters; and

− Change from background of 10% when the background level is more than 100 mg/L during high flows

or in turbid waters.

If the criteria outlined above are exceeded as a result of Project-related activities, these works or activities

will be halted until measures that will result in compliance with the criteria outlined above are put in place.

Where the water quality criteria cannot be practically met, the work areas and activities contributing to these

conditions will be isolated from tidal and flowing waters.





52

For dredging activities, the following mitigation measures will be followed:

▪ Prior to dredging, the perimeter of the Dredge Area will be identified, so that work occurs within the

confines of the Project area. Tools such as real-time kinematic positioning controls (e.g., differential GPS)

may be used to assist in positioning.

▪ Sediment containment and water filtering devices will be employed on the barge should downstream

conditions exceed the TSS and turbidity criteria outlined above. This may require containment and

treatment of barge dewatering effluent that exceeds the criteria.

▪ Water quality monitoring will be implemented during dredging works to verify that the turbidity and TSS

criteria are being met and enable management decisions to be made in the event that the performance

criteria are not met at the edge of an established work zone.

▪ The contract specifications will include operational controls to minimize disturbance of substrates

(e.g., making additional dredge passes rather than dragging a bucket or beam to level the dredge surface,

not stockpiling material underwater, controlling the rate of ascent and descent of the bucket).

▪ To minimize loss of dredged material from the barge and to prevent barge listing or instability, the dredged

material barge will not be overloaded beyond the top of the side rails.

The barge will not come to rest on the riverbed (no grounding) (spuds may be used to anchor the barge).

Mitigation Measure M4.6-4 Creosote Pile Removal Management Plan

WesPac will prepare and implement creosote pile removal and storage mitigation measures as part of the CEMP

consistent with BMPs outlined in DFO’s Guidelines to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat from Treated Wood Used in

Aquatic Environments in the Pacific Region (Hutton and Samis 2000). These measures will include but may not

be limited to the following:

A reasonable attempt should be made to remove the entire creosote-treated pile.

Pile will be removed by a slow, steady pull to minimize disturbance of riverbed habitats and to avoid bringing

creosote-contaminated sediments to the surface. If the pile breaks off below the biologically active zone in

the sediment, it may not be advisable to dredge the remainder out, depending on the sensitivity of the habitat

at the site.

Debris from pile removal will be stored on land in an appropriate waste management facility (Hutton and

Samis 2000).

A sediment containment system may be installed as appropriate during pile removal to prevent the dispersion

of suspended sediments.

Creosote pile removal will be conducted during the least risk fisheries work window as specified in Section

4.6.4.3, which extends from June 16 to February 28, unless a self-assessment determines that the work will

not cause serious harm to fish or their habitat.





53

Mitigation Measure M4.6-5 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

WesPac will develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) as part of the CEMP and

OEMP. Existing applicable guidelines will be followed as appropriate to mitigate erosion and sediment transport

and will include the following:

Environmental Protection and Management Guide (OGC, 2018);

Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat (DFO, 1992);

Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in British Columbia

(MOE, 2014); and

Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004).

The following erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented at the site during the construction and

decommissioning phases and included in the ESCP (refer to Part E – Management Plans and Follow-up

Programs):

Activities within the riparian management area, a 30 m wide area along the Fraser River, will be minimized.

Erodible material will not be stockpiled in these areas and no refuelling will occur within these areas.

Vegetation cover will be maintained wherever possible. Disturbed areas adjacent to a watercourse will be

revegetated in a timely manner to minimize surface erosion or sediment transport

Erosion and sediment control measures, including silt fences, filter fabric, straw bales, sedimentation ponds,

perimeter ditches, or other water quality management measures, will be selected, implemented, monitored,

maintained, and repaired as required. However, due to the relatively high flow velocities present year-round

in the Fraser River, it will not be feasible to use turbidity curtains as a mitigation measure.

Sediment pond(s) will be incorporated as required, and appropriately designed in accordance with current

guidelines to meet site conditions and requirements. Sediment ponds will be maintained until construction or

decommissioning is completed and the affected areas are sufficiently stabilized and revegetated to minimize

erosion risk or sediment transport.

Construction wastes, overburden, soil, or any other substances potentially deleterious to riparian, aquatic, or

marine habitat will be stored or disposed of in such a manner as to prevent entry to riparian, aquatic, or

marine areas.

No erodible materials will be stockpiled within riparian management areas. Soil stockpiles will be diked,

sloped, and seeded or appropriately covered to minimize erosion. If temporary stockpiles are constructed,

then appropriate erosion prevention measures will be installed and regularly maintained until these stockpiles

are decommissioned or seeded. Spoil will be managed in accordance with the appropriate Project-specific

regulatory approvals or applicable legislation, regulations, and guidelines prior to the completion of

construction activities.





54

Erosion and sediment control measures will be maintained, and any required changes made promptly to

ensure they are working effectively. An inspection and maintenance program will be developed and followed

as part of the ESCP.

Water collected in temporary sediment control structures will either be discharged to ground or discharged

off site to the municipal storm water system or the Fraser River. Based on the volume of water expected, the

Project assumes that this water will be discharged to ground. If discharge off site is needed, then the water

will be analyzed and its quality determined. Two options will be considered for off-site discharge:

▪ If water quality meets the expectation of the City of Delta’s bylaw (No. 5786, 2000), and the necessary

permit(s) are obtained from the City of Delta, then the water will be discharged to the municipal stormwater

system.

▪ If water quality meets expectations under the Fisheries Act and the EMA, it will be discharged into the

Fraser River; otherwise it will be treated prior to discharge. For effluent discharges to aquatic receiving

environments in BC, there are two common expectations under the Fisheries Act and the EMA:

− The effluent at the point of discharge should not be acutely lethal to fish, which is often operationally

defined by ECCC as 96-hour LC50 ≥100%.

− The effluent will not cause chronic or sublethal effects outside an IDZ, a three-dimensional zone

around the point of discharge where mixing of the effluent and the receiving water occurs. Where long-

term average (chronic) WQGs are met at the edge of the IDZ, chronic effects outside the IDZ would

not be expected. The IDZ is set on a site-by-site basis.

Mitigation Measure M4.6-6 Scour Protection Plan

In addition to the installation of scour protection infrastructure, WesPac will include a Scour Protection Plan in the

CEMP and the OEMP that will include the following mitigation measures relevant to water quality:

Vessels, barges and barge support vessels involved in pile driving and construction activities will be

positioned in a manner that will minimize re-suspension of riverbed sediments.

Maneuvering of work vessels in shallow areas should be minimized to avoid propeller scour and potential re-

suspension of sediments.

Mitigation Measure M4.6-7 Concrete Works Management Plan

Cementitious material is alkaline and thus has the potential to be harmful to aquatic organisms. WesPac will

include a Concrete Works Management Plan as part of the CEMP. The following mitigation measures will be

included in this plan to mitigate potential effects to water quality from concrete works:

The complete or partial filling of the new steel pipe-piles with concrete, the forming and casting of concrete

pile caps, and the construction of the export platform include examples of key over-water work activities that

may involve concrete. To minimize the risks to fish and other aquatic species associated with exposure to





55

uncured concrete during these activities, it is recommended that, wherever possible, the design specify the

use of pre-cast rather than cast-in-place structures.

In the event that cast-in-place rather than precast construction methods are necessary, concrete-tight forms

should be used to isolate the concrete from the receiving environment. Concrete would be placed into the

forms using a concrete pumper truck. As set out in the Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works

(MWLAP, 2004), all uncured concrete and grout will be isolated from the fish-bearing waters of the Fraser

River for a minimum of 48 hours if ambient air temperature is above 0°C and for a minimum of 72 hours if

ambient air temperature is below 0°C.

Work on structures located below the high water mark will be conducted in dry conditions during a low tide,

low water period. Suitable precautions will be taken when moving equipment used during concrete works,

including the pumper truck and hose, to prevent the accidental discharge of fresh concrete or grout to the

river or adjacent intertidal areas. As described in the Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works

(MWLAP, 2004), a carbon dioxide tank with regulator, hose, and gas diffuser should be readily available on

site during all concrete work and all members of the on-site construction crew should be trained in the use of

this equipment.

Appropriate BMPs for storage, preparation, handling, containment, monitoring, and spill response, including

measures described by the former Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP, 2004), DFO, and the

former Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (DFO, 1992), will be detailed in the CEMP to be prepared

prior to construction.

When pouring concrete, all spills of fresh concrete will be prevented from entering into the aquatic

environment at the site.

If the concrete is being placed with a concrete pump, all hose and pipe connections will be sealed and locked

properly so that lines will not leak or uncouple.

All concrete forms will be constructed in a manner that prevents fresh concrete or cement-laden water from

leaking into the surrounding water.

If fresh water is used to cure concrete, the runoff will be monitored for acceptable pH levels. If the pH levels

are outside the normal ranges provided in the BC AWQGs (MOE 2018), then the runoff water will be

contained and neutralized.

During inclement weather, uncured concrete will be protected or covered in a manner that minimizes the

creation of high pH water.

Barriers will be used as appropriate to prevent splashing over forms and into the water.

Equipment and tools that have come in contact with concrete will be washed in a designated area away from

the aquatic environment and drainages, so that concrete-affected water is prevented from entering

watercourses (tidal water, streams, storm drains).

If it is necessary to pour concrete within the wetted area (e.g., pile installation), contact between cementitious

materials and surrounding water will be avoided to the extent possible.

When grinding cured concrete, water pH and TSS levels will be monitored and will not exceed allowable limits

from the effect of dust and fines. In the event that the levels are outside the acceptable ranges, preventative





56

measures will be introduced. This may include introducing silt curtains to contain the solids and to prevent

fish from entering a contaminated area or constructing catch basins to recover the runoff and neutralizing it

prior to disposal.

Excess or spilled concrete will be contained, immediately cleaned up, and disposed of in an environmentally

acceptable manner.

Mitigation Measure M4.6-8 Dredging Management Plan

Mitigation measures to prevent accidental discharge of deleterious materials and to reduce effects to water quality

during dredging activities will be addressed during detailed design as well as by BMPs. These measures will be

captured in the Dredging Management Plan to be included in the CEMP and the OEMP. Capital dredging will be

required during construction, and during operations periodic maintenance dredging may be necessary in deep

water to maintain a suitable under keel clearance (UKC) for larger vessels. This work would likely be subject to

terms and conditions of permits to be obtained by Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC).

Dredging in the lower Fraser River carried out by the VFPA is conducted following the Environmental Management

Strategy for Dredging in the Fraser River Estuary (FREMP, 2006) and the Dredge Management Guidelines

(FREMP, 2005). The CEMP will include mitigation measures consistent with those described in the FREMP

(FREMP, 2005), including the following that are relevant to water quality:

If suction dredging is used, then the suction-head must be operated within 1.5 m of the river bottom.

Dredging practices that minimize the release of suspended sediments to the water column will be used.

However, it will not be feasible to use turbidity curtains as a mitigation measure during dredging because of

the relatively high flow velocities present year-round in the Fraser River.

A water quality monitoring program with decision criteria and management actions will be developed. The

program is intended to verify that dredging practices employed are sufficient to protect the surrounding

environmental values outside of the work zone and to meet pre-specified criteria at an operational compliance

point within the work zone (where turbidity is no longer controlled). For this project the following is assumed:

▪ Work zone—a three-dimensional zone around the Dredge Area after which the receiving environment is

located. An assessment point is located at the edge of the work zone and the beginning of the receiving

environment (100 m from the Dredge Area).

▪ Operational compliance point— located within the work zone at an established set-back or safe working

distance from active dredging operations. The operational compliance point does not represent the

receiving environment.

The program will provide a feedback mechanism for implementing management actions during construction

and maintenance dredging activities and will rely on turbidity measurements that can be measured on site,

in real and near-real time. The decision framework for implementing management actions during open-water

dredging is composed of a series of steps to allow for adaptive management of dredging that will be

responsive to environmental protection goals without unnecessary disruption to the operational needs of the

Project.





57

▪ Management actions that might be employed during dredging if triggered by the management plan

include confirmatory monitoring, slowing the dredge cycle. The decision framework will include the

provision that the dredging operation be stopped if deemed necessary.

Return water from any dredge material placed upland will be returned to the Fraser River via a pipe that

extends far enough offshore that water is discharged beneath the water surface

Return water from any dredge material placed upland will be treated using sedimentation basins to remove

suspended sediment prior to discharge. Water collected in these temporary sediment control structures will

be analyzed and its quality determined. If water quality meets expectations under the Fisheries Act and the

EMA, it will be discharged into the Fraser River; otherwise, it will be treated prior to discharge in order to meet

these expectations.

Mitigation measures associated with the potential environmental effects of accidents or malfunctions are

addressed in Section 9.0, Accidents and Malfunctions.

Mitigation Measure M4.6-9 Waste Management Plan

WesPac will include a Waste Management Plan for hazardous and non-hazardous waste such that waste

generation is reduced and that waste is properly stored and disposed of. Mitigation measures to be implemented

in the Waste Management Plan relevant to water quality are:

Hazardous Wastes:

▪ The Hazardous Waste Regulation (Government of BC, 1988) under the EMA will be followed for

containment, storage and handling, disposal, and transportation of substances identified as hazardous

waste.

▪ Where activities involve the handling, storage, and removal of hazardous waste, the following records will

be maintained:

− Inventories of types and quantities of hazardous waste generated, stored, or removed;

− Manifests identifying hazardous waste haulers and disposal destinations; and

− Disposal certification documents.

Non-hazardous Wastes:

▪ Solid waste materials that are not acceptable under the existing landfill permit will be transported off site

by barge for disposal to an appropriate designated disposal or recycling facility

▪ Whenever possible, the materials used in construction will be reused and recycled. Recyclable materials

will be separated and transported off site

▪ Clearly labelled garbage bins with lids and recycling containers will be made available for food waste and

recyclables.





58

Summary of Mitigation Measures

A summary of mitigation to address adverse Project effects on Water Quality is provided in Table 4.6-12.

Table 4.6-12: Summary of Mitigation Measures to Address Adverse Project Effects on Water Quality

Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Mitigation

ID #

Effectiveness

Surface Water Quality, Sediment Quality, Aquatic Health

Construction

Increased

suspended

sediment due to

sediment

disturbance

Site Management M4.6-1 High

Stormwater Management Plan M4.6-2 High

In-Water Works Management Plan M4.6-3 High

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and

Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan

(SPERP)

M4.6-5 High

Scour Protection Plan M4.6-6 High

Dredging Management Plan M4.6-8 High

Contaminant

release due to

project activities


Creosote Pile Removal Management Plan M4.6-4 High



(SPERP)

M4.6-5 High

Concrete Works Management Plan M4.6-7 High


Accidental release

of deleterious

substances



(SPERP)

M4.6-5 High

Waste Management Plan M4.6-9 High

Operation

Increased

suspended

sediment due to

sediment

disturbance



Accidental release

of deleterious

substances



(SPERP)

M4.6-5 High






59

Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Mitigation

ID #

Effectiveness

Decommissioning

Increased

suspended

sediment due to

sediment

disturbance

Site Management M4.6-1 High

Stormwater Management Plan M4.6-2 High




(SPERP)

M4.6-5 High



Accidental release

of deleterious

substances



(SPERP)

M4.6-5 High


Residual Project Effects

In recognition of potential interactions between Project components and activities identified in Section 4.6.4.1 and

mitigation measures discussed in Section 4.6.4.3.2, the assessment identified that the following residual effects

may occur due to Project activities during the construction, operation, and/or decommissioning phases.

Potential change in surface water quality through re-suspension of sediments from sediment disturbance

during dredging activities, non-dredging construction activities, or vessel activity during berthing and

departures. Potential for a change in surface water quality to result in adverse effects on aquatic health;

Potential change in surface water quality and sediment quality associated with release of PAHs from

creosote-treated pile removal and the potential for a change in surface water quality to result in adverse

effects on aquatic health; and

Potential change in surface water quality and sediment quality associated with release of alkaline materials

during concrete cast-in-place works and the associated effect on aquatic health.

After the application of mitigation measures, potential residual effects to Water Quality are predicted to be none or

negligible. Rationale for these residual effect predictions for this VC is provided below.





60

Increased Suspended Sediment Due to Riverbed Disturbance

Construction

Capital Dredging

Dredging is expected to be the primary activity with the potential to affect surface water quality related to increased

suspended sediment (also referred to as TSS or turbidity) due to sediment disturbance. Other construction

activities occurring on the shoreline or intertidal area may also affect surface water quality in this way, but the

effects are expected to be minor in relation to dredging.

Given the inherent natural variability in background suspended sediment concentrations in the lower Fraser River,

the magnitude of the increased suspended sediment related to sediment disturbance during dredging is predicted

to be low. Any change in surface water quality is not expected to be distinguishable from existing conditions

accounting for inherent variability due to tidal cycles and river discharge. The proposed mitigation measures

include following a Dredging Management Plan based on established guidance for dredging in the Fraser River.

The capital dredging program will also be consistent in approach with navigational dredging that currently occurs

in the river and is planned to occur within the same time window.

Effects on surface water quality are expected to be limited to within the LAA, short term (duration only for the time

necessary to dredge), infrequent (occurring over one or two months during the construction phase), and reversible

as induced turbidity or TSS will be reversed once dredging ceases. The Fraser River naturally carries a high

sediment load and the aquatic biota in the river have adapted to this condition. Thus, the river is considered to

have high resilience to increases in suspended sediment such as may occur during dredging.

Effects on aquatic health are anticipated to have the same residual effects classification as for surface water

quality. Consistent with ongoing navigational dredging, capital dredging will be undertaken within the least risk

window as specified by DFO for this section of the lower Fraser River to minimize potential effects to fish and other

aquatic life. The likelihood is high that increases in turbidity will occur, but because aquatic life is expected to be

adapted to seasonal and diurnal cycles of increased turbidity in the lower Fraser River, and because dredging will

occur during the least risk fisheries window, the likelihood of effects on aquatic health is low.

There is high confidence that the residual effect will not be greater than predicted due to:

A reasonable understanding of natural variability in turbidity and TSS levels in the river under existing

conditions;

Conservatism in the assessment approach; and

An understanding of uncertainty in the predicted signal of turbidity/TSS that dredging may have, which, like

that from navigational dredging, is expected to be with the observed range of concentrations within the river

under existing conditions.

This configuration of classification leads to the conclusion that, given the high resilience of the Fraser River to

increased turbidity and the application of the proposed mitigation measures, the residual effect of increased

suspended sediment on Water Quality is expected to be negligible.





61

Site Preparation, Removal of Existing Infrastructure, In-river Ground Stabilization and Pile Works, Construction of

Offshore Facilities, Shoreline Enhancements

Given the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures related to non-dredging construction activities, the

predicted magnitude of increased turbidity due to sediment release is predicted to be negligible. Releases of

sediment to the river environment will be reduced or eliminated through limiting construction activities to periods

of low water (i.e., low tides) and implementation of erosion and sediment control measures. Changes in surface

water quality are expected to be too small to be detectable within the range of existing conditions for turbidity and

TSS characterized within the LAA. Effects on surface water quality are expected to be localized to the immediate

area of riverbed disturbance (site-specific geographic extent), temporary (short-term duration), infrequent

(occurring sporadically during the construction phase), and reversible.

As described for capital dredging, the lower Fraser River has a relatively high resilience to increases in suspended

sediment created by these non-dredging construction activities. Effects on aquatic health are expected to have

the same residual effects classification as for surface water quality. Given the proposed mitigation measures

including timing of the construction activities, and the temporary, localized nature of the impacts, the likelihood that

increased turbidity will result in effects on surface water quality and aquatic health is low.

There is high confidence that the effect will not be greater than predicted because of the low magnitude of any

sediment releases compared to the known sediment load in Fraser River and the effectiveness of the proposed

mitigation measures. This configuration of classification leads to the conclusion that, given the application of the

proposed mitigation measures, the residual effect of increased suspended sediment on Water Quality is expected

to be negligible.

Operation

Maintenance Dredging

Given the inherent natural variability in background turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations in the lower

Fraser River, the magnitude of increased turbidity related to sediment disturbance during maintenance dredging

is predicted to be low. A change in surface water quality may be detected but this change is not expected to be

distinguishable from existing conditions accounting for inherent variability due to tidal cycles and river discharge.

The proposed mitigation measures include following a Dredging Management Plan that is based on established

guidance for dredging in the Fraser River. The dredging program will also be consistent with navigational dredging

that currently occurs in the river and is planned for the same time period. However, some increased turbidity as a

result of dredging is expected and is consistent with what happens during navigational dredging in the river.

Effects on surface water quality is expected to be limited to within the LAA, short-term (duration only for the time

necessary to dredge the pocket), frequent (occurring annually during the operation phase), and reversible such

that the increase in turbidity will be reversed once dredging ceases. The lower Fraser River has high inherent

resilience to increases in suspended sediment that might be created by maintenance dredging during operations.

Effects on aquatic health are expected to have the same residual effects classification as for surface water quality.

Consistent with ongoing navigational dredging, capital dredging will be undertaken within the least risk window as





62

specified by DFO for this section of the lower Fraser River to minimize potential effects to fish and other aquatic

life. The likelihood is high that increases in turbidity will occur, but because aquatic organisms are likely to be

acclimated to seasonal and diurnal cycles of increased turbidity in the lower Fraser River, and because dredging

will occur during the least risk fisheries window, the likelihood of effects on aquatic health are low.

There is high confidence that the residual effect will not be greater than predicted due to:


conditions;

Conservatism in the assessment approach; and

An understanding of uncertainty in the predicted signal of turbidity/TSS that dredging may have, which like

that from navigational dredging, is expected to be with the observed range of concentrations within the river

under existing conditions.




Berthing and Departure of Vessels

Given the inherent natural variability in background turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations in the Fraser

River, and the constant boat traffic that already exists in the river, the magnitude of the increased turbidity related

to sediment disturbance from berthing and departure of vessels is predicted to be negligible. A change in surface

water quality related to vessel activity is not expected to be distinguishable from existing conditions accounting for

variability due to tidal cycles and river discharge. Furthermore, the use of scour protection along the foreshore will

protect the marine infrastructure from scour and will reduce sediment suspension. Other mitigations such as use

of BMPs for vessel maneuvering, including the use of tug boats for maneuvering large vessels such as LNG

vessels, will reduce propeller wash and potential scouring.

Effects on surface water quality is expected to be limited to within the LAA, medium-term (duration occurring

throughout the life of the Project), frequent (occurring repeatedly during the life of the Project), and reversible such

that induced turbidity will be reversed once propeller activity ceases. The Fraser River naturally carries a high

sediment load and the aquatic biota in the river have adapted to this condition. Thus, the river is considered to

have high resilience to increases in suspended sediment created by these boating activities. Berthing and

departure of vessels will occur throughout the year and will not be confined to the least risk window as specified

by DFO for this section of the Fraser River.

Effects on aquatic health are expected to have the same residual effects classification as for surface water quality.

Given that the expected vessel activity will be similar to that experienced in other areas of the RAA, and that

aquatic life is likely to be acclimated to elevated turbidity related to vessel activities in the lower Fraser River, the

likelihood that increased turbidity will result in effects on surface water quality and aquatic health is low.





63

There is moderate confidence that the effect will not be greater than predicted due to:


conditions;

An expectation that vessel activity related to the Project will not result in greater sediment disturbance outside

the observed range of TSS concentrations in the river; and

Conservatism in the assessment approach.




Decommissioning

Removal of Offshore Facilities

Removal of Offshore Facilities is expected to have the same residual effect as non-dredging construction activities

because the proposed mitigation measures are the same. The effect on surface water quality and therefore aquatic

health will be negligible in magnitude, site specific, short term, infrequent, and reversible. Timing of

decommissioning activities will occur during the least risk fisheries window to minimize potential effects to fish and

other aquatic life. Overall, the likelihood of effects to surface water quality and aquatic health will be low and the

confidence in this prediction is high because of the low magnitude of any sediment releases when compared to

the known sediment load in Fraser River and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. This

configuration of classification leads to the conclusion that, given the application of the proposed mitigation

measures, the residual effect of increased suspended sediment on Water Quality is expected to be negligible.

Release of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Creosote-Treated Piles

Potential release of PAHs from creosote-treated piles is only expected to occur during the construction phase,

when historically placed piles are removed as the removed piles will be replaced with steel piles.

Given the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures related to removal of creosote-treated piles, the

predicted magnitude of any PAH release during this activity is predicted to be negligible. Release of PAHs during

pile removal will be reduced by implementing the following measures:

Techniques to remove the piles intact and avoid bringing creosote-contaminated sediments to the surface;

Storage of contaminated piles on land with protection against leachate entering the marine environment;

Disposal of old piles at an appropriate on-land facility; and

Spill equipment on site such as absorbent booms or pads in the event that a visible sheen is observed.





64

Changes in PAH concentrations in surface water and sediment are not expected to be detectable; therefore, the

magnitude of the residual effect on surface water quality and sediment quality is negligible. Effects on surface

water quality and sediment quality are expected to be localized to the immediate area of riverbed disturbance (site-

specific geographic extent), temporary (short-term duration), infrequent, and reversible. The river system is

considered to have moderate resilience to a potential effect. Effects on aquatic health are expected to have the

same residual effects classification as for surface water quality and sediment quality. In addition, all construction

activities will be done within the least risk window as specified by DFO for this section of the Fraser River, and

therefore, potential effects to fish and other aquatic life are expected to be minimal. Given the proposed mitigation

measures including timing of the construction activities, and the temporary, localized nature of the impacts, the

likelihood that increased turbidity will result in effects on surface water quality and aquatic health is low. There is

high confidence that the effect will not be greater than predicted because of the effectiveness of the proposed

mitigation measures. This configuration of classification leads to the conclusion that, with the application of the

proposed mitigation measures, the residual effect of release of PAHs from creosote-treated piles on Water Quality

is expected to be negligible.

Release of Alkaline Materials from Concrete Works

Potential release of alkaline materials from concrete cast-in-place works is only expected during the construction

phase, for example, when the export and bunker platforms are constructed. Once the concrete is cured, no

leaching of alkaline materials is expected. Thus, the proposed mitigation measures include limiting contact

between uncured concrete and receiving environment water.

Given the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures related to concrete cast-in-place works, the

predicted magnitude of the alkaline material release during this activity is predicted to be negligible. Release of

alkaline materials will be reduced by working during low tide and protecting uncured concrete from contact with

surrounding water. Reduction in pH in water and the associated effects on sediment porewater is not expected to

be detectable, therefore, the magnitude of the residual effect on surface water quality and sediment quality is

negligible.

Effects on surface water quality and sediment quality are expected to be localized (site-specific geographic extent),

temporary (short-term duration), infrequent, and reversible. The river system is considered to have moderate

resilience to a potential effect. The effects on aquatic health are expected to have the same residual effects

classification as for surface water quality and sediment quality. Given the proposed mitigation measures including

timing of the construction activities, and the temporary, localized nature of the impacts, the likelihood that

decreases in pH through release of alkaline materials will result in effects on surface water quality and sediment

quality, and therefore effects on aquatic health, is low. There is high confidence that the effect will not be greater

than predicted because of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. This configuration of

classification leads to the conclusion that, with the application of the proposed mitigation measures, the residual

effect of release of alkaline materials from concrete works on Water Quality is expected to be negligible.





65

Summary of Residual Effects

The assessment described above and summarized in Table 4.6-13 considered existing conditions and proposed

mitigation measures that included timing of the construction activities and the temporary, localized nature of

potential impacts. Although dredging may increase suspended sediments in the LAA, the magnitude of the effect

is expected to be low and any changes in surface water quality are not expected to be distinguishable from existing

conditions, accounting for inherent variability due to tidal cycles and river discharge. The Fraser River naturally

carries a high sediment load, and aquatic biota in the river have adapted to this condition. Thus, the river is

considered to have high resilience to increases in suspended sediment. Changes in water quality or sediment

quality due to release of PAHs from removal of creosote-treated piles or release of alkaline materials from concrete

works are not expected to be detectable; therefore, the magnitude of the residual effect is negligible. Effects are

expected to be localized to the immediate area of riverbed disturbance. Confidence that residual effects will not

be greater than predicted is moderate to high given the understanding of suspended sediment dynamics in this

river, elements of conservatism in the assessment approach, and the assumed effectiveness of the proposed

mitigation measures.

The assessment therefore concluded that after application of the proposed mitigation measures, residual effects

on the Water Quality VC and its subcomponents associated with the Project (i.e., surface water quality, sediment

quality, and aquatic health) are predicted to be negligible and are thus not carried forward into a significance

determination or cumulative effects assessment.





66

Table 4.6-13: Summary of Effects Characteristics for Water Quality

Subcomponent Potential Adverse Residual Effect

Contributing Project Activity or Physical Works

Mit

iga

tio

n #

Dir

ec

tio

n o

f

Eff

ec

t

Residual Effects Classification

Ov

era

ll

Res

idu

al

Eff

ec

t

Ma

gn

itu

de

Ge

og

rap

hic

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

Fre

qu

en

cy

Tim

ing

Rev

ers

ibilit

y

Co

nte

xt

Construction

Water quality and aquatic health

Increase in water column turbidity due to sediment release

Dredging the Dredge Area M4.6-8 N L LAA ST I W RV HR N


Site preparation, removal of existing abandoned marine infrastructure, in-river ground stabilization and pile works, shoreline enhancements, construction of Offshore Facilities

M4.6-1 M4.6-2 M4.6-3 M4.6-5

N N SS ST I W RV HR N

Water quality, sediment quality, and aquatic health

Increase in water column concentrations of PAHs related to creosote-treated piles

Removal of existing marine infrastructure, specifically creosote-treated piles

M4.6-3 M4.6-4

N N SS ST I W RV MR N

Increase in water column pH related to release of cementitious material during concrete works

Construction of Offshore Facilities, specifically cast-in-place works

M4.6-7 N N SS ST I W RV MR N

Operation



Maintenance dredging M4.6-8 N L LAA ST F W RV HR N


Berthing and departure of vessels M4.6-6 N N LAA MT F O RV HR N





67

Subcomponent Potential Adverse Residual Effect

Contributing Project Activity or Physical Works

Mit

iga

tio

n #

Dir

ec

tio

n o

f

Eff

ec

t

Residual Effects Classification

Ov

era

ll

Res

idu

al

Eff

ec

t

Ma

gn

itu

de

Ge

og

rap

hic

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

Fre

qu

en

cy

Tim

ing

Rev

ers

ibilit

y

Co

nte

xt

Decommissioning



Removal of Offshore Facilities M4.6-3 N N SS ST I W RV HR N

Notes: Direction: P = positive; N = negative Magnitude: N = negligible; L = low; M = moderate; H = high Geographic Extent: SS = site-specific; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area, B = Beyond the RAA Duration: ST= short-term; MT = medium-term; LT = long-term; P = permanent Frequency: I = infrequent; F = frequent; CT = continuous Timing: W = within least risk window; O = outside least risk window Reversibility: RV = reversible; PRV = partially reversible; I = irreversible Context: LR = low resilience; MR = moderate resilience; HR = high resilience Overall Residual Effect: Y = overall residual effect; N = no overall residual effect PAHs = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons





68

Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects

After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project is not predicted to result in residual effects to Water Quality. Where no residual effects, or

negligible potential residual effects are predicted, the significance of those effects is also none or negligible and therefore no further evaluation is required.

Proposed project mitigation measures, predicted effectiveness of mitigation measures, and overall residual effects determination are summarized below

(Table 4.6-14).

Table 4.6-14: Summary of Predictions of Potential Residual Effects on Water Quality

Potential Adverse Effect Project Phase Contributing Project Activity or Physical

Works Mitigation Number

Effectiveness Level of Confidence

Residual Effect (Y/N)

Increase in water column turbidity due to sediment

release

Construction

- Site preparation and removal of existing marine infrastructure

- In-river ground stabilization and piling works

- Dredging - Construction of Offshore Facilities - In-river ground stabilization and pile

works

M4.6-1 High

High N

M4.6-2 High

M4.6-3 High

M4.6-5 High

M4.6-6 High

M4.6-8 High

Operation - Maintenance Dredging - Berthing and departure of vessels - LNG carrier and/or barge loading

M4.6-6 High High N

M4.6-8 High

Decommissioning

- Removal of associated Offshore Facilities

M4.6-1 High

High N

M4.6-2 High

M4.6-3 High

M4.6-5 High

M4.6-6 High

Increase in water column concentrations of PAHs related to creosote-

treated piles

Construction

- Site preparation and removal of existing marine infrastructure

- Removal of associated Offshore Facilities

M4.6-1 High

High N M4.6-3 High

M4.6-4 High

M4.6-5 High





69

Potential Adverse Effect Project Phase Contributing Project Activity or Physical

Works Mitigation Number

Effectiveness Level of Confidence

Residual Effect (Y/N)

Increase in water column pH related to release of cementitious material

during concrete works

Construction

- Construction of associated Offshore Facilities

M4.6-7 High High N





70

Monitoring and Follow Up Programs

Environmental monitoring plans will be developed by qualified environmental professionals to achieve compliance

with EAC Commitments and Assurances and with terms and conditions of regulatory permits and approvals, and

monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Two types of water quality monitoring are proposed: operational

(or compliance) monitoring and effects monitoring.

Operational Monitoring

Monitoring will occur during all phases of the Project according to environmental management plans developed

for the Project. Environmental management plans are developed to facilitate WesPac and its contractors adhering

to applicable environmental legislation and commitments made within this EAC Application. The plans provide

performance-based environmental requirements, standard protocols, and mitigation measures to avoid and

reduce the potential for environmental effects from the Project. The management plans will also include specific

requirements and best practices for site management, stormwater management, in-water works management,

erosion and sediment control, creosote-treated pile removal, waste management, and dredging strategy. Where

possible, adaptive management approach will be used to modify management plans as needed based on the

results of the monitoring program. These results may also trigger management actions according to pre-

determined decision criteria outlined in the relevant plans.

Effects Monitoring

Monitoring is designed to verify the effects predictions, reduce uncertainty, determine the effectiveness of Project

design features and mitigation, and provide appropriate feedback to operations for modifying or adopting new

mitigation designs, policies, and practices. A monitoring program will be established to monitor potential changes

in water quality in the Fraser River receiving environment during the construction works to verify the prediction of

negligible effects on water quality. The receiving environment will be defined as the area outside of the work zone

established for the project. The edge of the work zone is assumed to be 100 m from the Dredge Area. The

monitoring plan will be developed during the permitting process in consultation with relevant permitting agencies,

local governments, and local Aboriginal groups. The plan will address analytical parameters to be measured and

analyzed, stations to be sampled, and frequency of measurements and sampling.

It is expected that effects monitoring data will be evaluated against benchmarks developed for the project in

consideration of applicable water quality guidelines and objectives, as well as existing ambient conditions in the

LAA. Monitoring results will be assessed according to pre-determined decision criteria that may trigger

management actions within a decision framework. These results will also feed into the overall adaptive

management approach to be adopted by the Project.





71

References for Water Quality Effects Assessment

Anderson, P. G., Taylor, B. R., & Balch, G. C. (1996). Quantifying the effects of sediment release on fish and their

habitats. Rept. #2346. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Management Division, Vancouver.

BCEAO (British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office). (2013). Guideline for the Selection of Valued

Components and Assessment of Potential Effects. Retrieved from http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/files/EAO-

Guidance-Selection-of-Valued-Components.pdf

BCMPDCA (British Columbia Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association), & DFO (Fisheries and Oceans

Canada). (2003). Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations. Retrieved from

https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/document/5887e34fad20ac134d916367/fetch

Berg, L., & Northcote, T. G. (1985). Changes in Territorial, Gill-flaring, and Feeding Behavior in Juvenile Coho

Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following Short-term Pulses of Suspended Sediment. Canadian Journal

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 42(8), 1410–1417.

Bilby, R. E., & Bisson, P. A. (1992). Allochthonous versus autochthonous organic matter contributions to the trophic

support of fish population in clear-cut and old growth forested streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and

Aquatic Sciences, 49(3), 540–551.

Birtwell, I. K. (1999). The effects of sediment on fish and their habitat. Prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada,

Science Branch, Marine Environment and Habitat Sciences Division, Freshwater Environment and Habitat

Sciences Section, West Vancouver Laboratory, West Vancouver, BC. Canadian Stock Assessment

Secretariat Research Document 99/139.

Bisson, P. A., & Bilby, R. E. (1982). Avoidance suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management, 2(4), 371–374.

Brewer, R., Sylvestre, S., Sekela, M., & Tuominen, T. (1999). 3.5 Sediment Quality in the Fraser River Basin. In

C. Gray & T. Tuominen (Eds.), Health of the Fraser River Aquatic Ecosystem – A Synthesis of Research

Conducted under the Fraser River Action Plan. Vancouver, BC: Aquatic and Atmospheric Sciences

Division, Environment Canada.

Bull, J. (2004). Status of water, sediment and fish quality in the Lower Fraser River (Hope to the mouth), from 1971

to, 2003 (p. 78). Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection, March 2004.

Caux, P. Y., Moore, D. R. J., & MacDonald, D. (1997). Ambient water quality criteria for turbidity, suspended and

benthic sediments in British Columbia: Technical appendix. Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks, Water Quality Branch, Victoria, BC.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). (1999). Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines

Summary Table. Winnipeg, MB, Canada. Retrieved from

https://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/canadian_environmental_quality_guidelines/index.html. Accessed

January 2018.





72

CCME. (2002). Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Total particulate matter. In:

Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,

Winnipeg.

Chapman, D. (1992). Water quality assessment. A guide to the use of biota, sediments and water in environmental

monitoring. Chapman & Hall, London.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). (1992). Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat.

Complied and edited by Barry Chilibeck, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Geoff Chislett and

Gary Norris, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-

mpo.gc.ca/Library/165353.pdf

DFO. (1998). Habitat conservation and protection guidelines, 2nd edition. Ottawa, Ontario, 19 pp.

DFO. (2013). An Applicant’s Guide to Submitting an Application for Authorization under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the

Fisheries Act. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/reviews-revues/application-eng.html

DFO. (2014). Projects near Water - British Columbia Marine/Estuarine Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish

and Fish Habitat - South Coast and Lower Fraser Area. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-

ppe/timing-periodes/bc-s-eng.html#area-28

ECCC (Environment and Climate Change Canada). (2017). Water Quality Data from Fraser River (Main Arm) at

Gravesend Reach. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-

change/services/freshwater-quality-monitoring/overview.html#longterm

EIFAC (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission). (1964). Water quality criteria for European freshwater

fish. Report on finely divided solids and inland fisheries. European Inland Fisheres Advisory Commission.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. EIFAC/1. 21p.

ENKON (ENKON Environmental Limited). (2009). Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program: 2007 Fish Sampling.

Prepared for Metro Vancouver. Surrey BC: ENKON Environmental Limited.

ENKON. (2016). Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program – 2016 Water Monitoring. Surrey, BC: Prepared for

Metro Vancouver, November 2016.

ENKON . (2016). Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program – 2016 Sediment Monitoring. Surrey, BC: Prepared

for Metro Vancouver, December 2016.

FRAP (Fraser River Action Plan). (1999). Section 3.5 - Sediment Quality in the Fraser River Basin. Retrieved from

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/ffip/brewer_r1999.pdf. Accessed April 2018.

FRAP. (1999). Section 3.2 - Water Quality in the Fraser River Basin. Retrieved from

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/ec/En47-119-1999-5-eng.pdf

Fraser River Pile and Dredge Inc. (2018, March). Personal Communication. Communication between Fraser River

Pile and Dredge Inc. and Golder Associates Ltd. March 2018.





73

FREMP (Fraser River Estuary Management Program). (2005). Dredge Management Guidelines – Revised 2005.

Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=A3B965109F9C024D56B1324BC5A1DEEB?d

oi=10.1.1.357.3994&rep=rep1&type=pdf

FREMP. (2006). Environmental Management Strategy for Dredging in the Fraser River Estuary. Retrieved from

Available at:

http://www.bieapfremp.org/fremp/pdf_files/Environmental%20Management%20Strategy%20for%20Dred

ging%20FINAL%20FINAL.pdf

FREMP. (1996). The Fraser River Estuary Environmental Quality Report. Fraser River Estuary Management

Program, Burnaby, B.C. Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/ffip/brewer_r1999.pdf.

Accessed April 2018.

Gall, C. (2016). Métis Nation British Columbia’s comment on the Draft Aboriginal Consultation Report 1 – WesPac

Tilbury Marine Jetty Project. Comments prepared by Métis Nation British Columbia. 14p.

Golder. (2015). Foreshore Characterization of The Lease Area of the Future Tilbury LNG Project Area Technical

Memorandum.

Golder. (2018). Annacis Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Transient Mitigation and Outfall Project: Stage 2

Environment Impact Study (No. 1525010-119- R- Rev0). Retrieved from

https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Appendix-K.2-Part-A-Stage-2-

Environmental-Impact-Study-Report-Annacis-Outfall.pdf

Government of BC. (1988). Hazardous Waste Regulation. B.C. Reg 63/99 under the Environmental Management

Act. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/63_88_00

Government of BC. (2002). Reviewable Projects Regulation. B.C. Reg. 370/2002 under the Environmental

Assessment Act. Includes amendments up to B.C. Reg 41/2016, February 29, 2016. Current to August

14, 2018. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/13_370_2002

Government of BC. (2003). Environmental Management Act. SBC 2003, Chapter 53. Current to August 8, 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/03053_00

Government of Canada. (1985) Fisheries Act. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-

14/FullText.html

Government of Canada. (2012). Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Retrieved from http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/index.html. Accessed 17 April 2018.

Hutton, K. E., & Samis, S. C. (2000). Guidelines to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat from Treated Wood Used in

Aquatic Environments in the Pacific Region.

Jones, B., & McLaren, D. (2016). Kwantlen Land Use and Occupation in the Vicinity of Tilbury Island. Report

prepared for Kwantlen First Nation and Seyem’ Qwantlen. 11 p.





74

Kefford, B. J., Zalizniak, L., Dunlop, J. E., Nugegoda, D., & Choi, S. C. (2010). How are macroinvertebrates of

slow flowing lotic systems directly affected by suspended and deposited sediments? Environmental

Pollution, 158(2), 543–550.

Keystone (Keystone Environmental Ltd.). (2011). Report of Findings – Fraser River Ambient Monitoring Program

– 2011 Sediment Sampling. Submitted to Metro Vancouver, Document number: 10898 111222 Final

Fraser Sediment Monitoring.doc.

Marshall, D. (2017). Patullo Bridge Replacement Project – Cowichan Nation Alliance Strength of Claim Report.

Report prepared by Pacific Reach Consulting Ltd. 30 p. + appendices.

McLeay, D. J., Ennis, G. L., Birtwell, I. K., & Hartman, G. F. (1987). Response of Arctic grayling (Thymallus

arcticus) to acute prolonged exposure to Yukon Placer mining sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences, 44(3), 658–673.

MOE (British Columbia Ministry of Environment). (2014). Develop with Care 2014: Environmental Guidelines for

Urban and Rural Land Development in British Columbia. Retrieved from

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/devwithcare/index.html#Main. Accessed February 2016.

MOE. (2017). British Columbia Working Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife and Agriculture. Water

Protection & Sustainability Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Retrieved from

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/wqgs-

wqos/bc_env_working_water_quality_guidelines.pdf

MOE. (2018). British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines: Aquatic Life, Wildlife & Agriculture Summary

Report. Water Protection & Sustainability Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Retrieved

from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/air-land-water/water/waterquality/wqgs-

wqos/approved-wqgs/wqg_summary_aquaticlife_wildlife_agri.pdf

Morin, J. (2016). Tsleil-Waututh Nation Traditional Use Study Review in Relation to the WesPac Tilbury Marine

Jetty Project. Report prepared for Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Treaty, Lands and Resources Department. 14-

211, 38 p.

Muck, J. (2010). Biological effects of sediment on bull trout and their habitat – Guidance for evaluating effects.

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, WA. July 13,

2010.

MWLAP (Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection). (2004). Standards and best practices for instream works

(WLAP BMP Series). Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Ecosystem Standards

and Planning.

Nelitz, M et al. (2018). Impacts of marine vessel traffic on acess to fishing opportunities of the Musqueam Indian

Band. Prepared by M. Nelitz, H. Stimson, C. Semmens, B. Ma and D. Robinson for the Musqueam Indian

Band.

Newcombe, C. P., & Jensen, O. T. (2011). Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative

assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16(4), 693–727.





75

Newcombe, C. P., & MacDonald, D. D. (1991). Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 11(1), 72–82.

Nordin, R. N. (1985). Water Quality Criteria for Nutrients and Algae: Technical Appendix. Victoria BC: Ministry of

Environment and Parks, British Columbia, Water Quality Unit, Resource Quality Section, Water

Management Branch.

OGC (BC Oil & Gas Commission). (2018). Environmental Protection and Management Guideline. Retrieved from

https://www.bcogc.ca/node/5899/download

Robertson, M. J., Scruton, D. A., & Clarke, K. D. (2007). Seasonal effects of suspended sediment on the behaviour

of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136(3), 822–828.

Servizi, J. A., & Gordon, R. W. (1990). Acute lethal toxicity of ammonia and suspended sediment mixtures to

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,

44(4), 650–656.

Servizi, J. A., & Martens, D. W. (1991). Some effects of suspended Fraser River sediments on sockeye salmon

(Oncorhynchus nerka). Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 96, 254–264.

Shaw, P. D., & Tuominen, T. (1999). 3.2 Water Quality in the Fraser River Basin. In C. Gray & T. Tuominen (Eds.),

Health of the Fraser River Aquatic Ecosystem – A Synthesis of Research Conducted under the Fraser

River Action Plan. Vancouver, BC: Aquatic and Atmospheric Sciences Division, Environment Canada.

Singleton, H. J. (1985). Water quality criteria for particulate matter: Technical appendix. British Columbia Ministry

of the Environment Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC.

Smith, A. (2015). Receiving Environment Monitoring Program for Metro Vancouver’s Fraser River Wastewater

Treatment Plants: 2013 Initial Dilution Zone Boundary Monitoring (p. 188 pp + Appendices). Prepared for

Metro Vancouver, Burnaby, BC by ENKON Environmental Limited, Surrey, BC.

Swain, L., Walton, D., Phippen, B., Lewis, H., Brown, S., Bamford, G., … Lundman, I. (1998). Water Quality

Assessment and Objectives for the Fraser River from Hope to Sturgeon and Roberts Banks (First Update).

Victoria, BC: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Sylvestre, S., Brewer, R., Sekela, M., Tuominen, T., & Moyle, G. (1998). Survey of contaminants in suspended

sediment and water in the Fraser River basin from McBride to Vancouver (1996) (p. 55). Vancouver, BC:

Aquatic and Atmospheric Sciences Division Environmental Conservation Branch Pacific and Yukon

Region Environment Canada. Retrieved from

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/ffip/Sylvestre_S1998.pdf

Tam, J. et al. (2018). xwməθkwəy̓əm Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study: WesPac Midstream’s

Proposed LNG Marine Jetty Project, prepared by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc.

with the Musqueam Indian Band, October 9, 2018.





76

Tam, J. et al., Olson, R., & Firelight Research Inc. (2016). Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study.

Prepared for the Proposed George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olsen

and Firelight Research with Musqueam Indian Band.

Vancouver Airport Authority. (1998). Environmental Construction Standards YVRAA-EN-STD-0000-0001. Revised

2017.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION … · The summary of existing conditions was used...

Documents

Transcript of ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION … · The summary of existing conditions was used...