Risk Management of a Small Craft Harbour in British ColumbiaLIZANNE MELOCHE – GOLDER

CHRIS MCDONALD – FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA

10 May 2018

OUTLINE

Small Craft Harbour Management 01

Tool for Liability Estimation at SCHs 02

Case Study - Risk Management of a remote SCH in BC 03

Establishing Harbour Authorities 04

Questions 05

3

Small Craft Harbour’s goal is a sustainable national network of safe and accessible harbours that are:• fully operational• in good working condition• managed and maintained by self-

sufficient harbour authorities that represent the interests of users and communities

Fisheries and Oceans CanadaSmall Craft Harbours

• Across the country SCH operates and maintains approximately 1015 Harbours

• 721 of these are considered to be Core Harbours.

• Core Harbours: Harbours managed by a Harbour Authority and are critical to the Fishing Industry.

4

HARBOUR MANAGEMENT CONTAMINATED SITES

Small Craft Harbours are often located in small remote communities where:

• Management and maintenance of the Harbour can be a challenge.

• Harbour Authority and management is not clearly defined.

• Harbours can become a dumping ground for both local and transient users of the facility.

Common contaminated sites issues at Small Craft Harbours include:

• Waste dumping in the inter- and subtidal zones (commonly including batteries, boats, engines, fuel tanks and bottles…lots of bottles)

• Boat maintenance – deposit of metals, solvents, paint into the intertidal.

• Creosote treated pilings that, although considered a beneficial use, contribute PAH contamination to the waterlot.

Harbour Management Challenges

5

The general goal for contaminated sites management at Small Craft Harbours includes:

• Identifying suspected areas of contamination, sampling those areas to confirm if contamination is present,

• Establishing a liability, and

• Working to eliminate that liability via remediation, risk assessment or risk management.

Contaminated Sites

6

• Objective to develop a transparent and consistent approach to estimate liabilities for Small Craft Harbour (SCH) Sites in BC

• Tool was developed and applied to rank six SCH sites in coastal BC

• Applied to sites with limited data, provides high level liability estimate

• Relied on guidance in Risk Based Strategy for the Assessment and Management of Environmental Contamination at Fisheries and Oceans Canada SCHs

• Management considerations: SCHs are commercial facilities, similar in terms of physical setting and site activities, higher degree of risk tolerance

Liability Estimation Tool for Small Craft HarboursM A R C H 2 0 1 6

7

Conceptual Site Model – Small Craft Harbours

Boat grid (metals, TBT)

Wharf Infrastructure (PAHs, metals)

Debris under wharf/floats (metals, PAHs, PHCs)

Boat maintenance (metals, PAHs, PHCs, TBT)

Moored vessels on wharf/floats or shoreline (metals, PAHs, PHCs)

Groundwater Transport

Stormwateroutfall (metals, PAHs, PHCs)

Leaching

Poor quality fill (metals, PAHs, PHCs)

a. Fish and birds are considered as receptors if biomagnyfing COPCs are identified

a

a

Surface Runoff

Contaminant Sources

receptors

Leaching

8

• Available chemistry data were screened against ‘low threshold’ and ‘high threshold’ screening values

• Sites were categorized as negligible to low, moderate, or high risk based on the number and magnitude of exceedances

• Negligible to low risk sites: did not warrant future action (COPC below their respective thresholds)

• Moderate risk: recommended for risk assessment/risk management (exceedances were lower magnitude and/or not widespread)

• High risk: recommended for physical remediation (for costing purposes)

Liability Estimation for SCHs

C AT E G O R I Z AT I O N O F S I T E S

9

• Standardized costs assigned for risk assessment• Weight of evidence approach assumed for ecological receptors• Tissue samples added if biomagnifying contaminants identified• Human Health Risk Assessment added if contamination identified in intertidal area

• Dredging costs estimated based on area exceeding ‘upper threshold’• Used some parameters from sediment costing tool developed by Golder (FCSAP

costing tool) • Assumed transport of sediment to waste facility via tug boat and covered scow

Overall reduction in liabilities at all six sites using this approach versus previous methods

Liability Estimation for SCHsC O S T I N G A N D R E S U LT S

10

• SCH located in a remote community in coastal BC (population of approx. 400)

Case StudyS M A L L C R A F T H A R B O U R – C O A S TA L B C

• A sediment investigation and risk assessment were conducted in 2016 as a first step to determine whether physical remediation was warranted and if so, to what extent.

• The risk assessment consisted of an aquatic weight of evidence assessment and a human health risk assessment

11

Case Study - Risk AssessmentS U M M E R 2 0 1 6 F I E L D P R O G R A M

Co-located samples for chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community

Intertidal sediment sample collection

• Field work conducted August 2016.• Co-located samples collected for chemistry,

toxicity, and benthic taxonomy to support the weight of evidence assessment

• Intertidal sediment samples collected for the human health risk assessment

• Auxiliary parameters also measured as indicators of bioavailability (e.g. AVS, SEM, TOC).

• Grabs were difficult to obtain in some locations – debris noted in underwater camera footage

12

Case Study – Risk AssessmentH U M A N H E A LT H R I S K A S S E S S M E N T

• HHRA evaluated risks to recreational receptors of all ages using the SCH for swimming or wading

• Sediment data were screened against soil quality guidelines protective of human health to select contaminants of potential concern (COPCs)

• No COPCs were identified in the intertidal data –risks were considered acceptable for the intertidal zone

• Ingestion of suspended sediment while swimming was retained as a potential exposure pathway for metals and PAHs in subtidal sediments

• Based on the calculated exposure doses under a conservative exposure scenario, risks were considered acceptable for swimmers. Swimmers at the SCH August 2016

13

Case Study - Risk AssessmentA Q U AT I C W E I G H T O F E V I D E N C E A S S E S S M E N T

• Aquatic risk assessment evaluated risks to benthic invertebrates as the primary ecological receptors as they are in direct contact with sediment at all times

• A weight-of evidence (WOE) approach was used:• Sediment chemistry: Comparison to BC

sediment criteria, bioavailability considered in evaluation

• Toxicity – 20 day survival and growth using a marine polychaete

• Benthic Community – Abundance, Richness, Diversity

• Lines of evidence assigned weightings a priori• Comparisons made to a reference station

Assessment Endpoint: Maintain a healthy benthic community that is productive and diverse and able to support fish and wildlife

14

Case Study - Risk AssessmentA Q U AT I C W E I G H T O F E V I D E N C E A S S E S S M E N T

Sediment Toxicity Line of Evidence Results:

• No significant effect on mortality• Some minor effects to growth in one

sample (sulphide was elevated at test initiation in porewater at both reference and SE006 – potential confounding factor)

Sample ID Survival (%)(Mean ± SD)Average Individual Dry

Weight (mg)(Mean ± SD)

Control 100 ± 0.0 12.8 ± 1.5

SE015 (reference) 100 ± 0.0 7.1 ± 1.5*

SE003 96 ± 8.9 9.9 ± 1.9*

SE004 96 ± 8.9 11.2 ± 2.0

SE006 92 ± 11.0 4.9 ± 1.5*

SE009 100 ± 0.0 11.0 ± 1.5

SE011 100 ± 0.0 9.2 ± 2.7*

* Statistically significant reduction in endpoint compared to control20-50% reduction compared to reference, but not statistically significant

20-day survival and growth of the marine polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata

15

Case Study - Risk AssessmentA Q U AT I C W E I G H T O F E V I D E N C E

Benthic Community Line of Evidence Results:

20%-50% reduction compared to reference SE015>50% reduction compared to referenceSE015

• SE015 was considered an appropriate reference sample for comparison• SE003, 011 ≥ 20% reduction in abundance or richness, but all major taxa

groups present• SE004, 006, 009 > 50% reduction, abundance highly impacted • Grain size and TOC not very different between reference and WOE samples,

not likely confounding factor

Station Total Abundance Total Richness

SE015 (reference) 295 45

SE003 331 29

SE004 6 4

SE006 3 2

SE009 62 7

SE011 235 3320%-50% reduction compared to reference SE015>50% reduction compared to referenceSE015

16

Case Study - Risk AssessmentA Q U AT I C W E I G H T O F E V I D E N C E A S S E S S M E N T

• WOE results suggested a low to moderate risk for benthic invertebrates within the waterot

• Impacts were not correlated with contamination

• Risks were driven by impacts to benthic community at some locations near the wharf structure – more likely attributable to presence of debris (e.g. habitat alteration)

• Physical remediation of sediment not recommended

• Recommended removal of debris

17

• Reconnaissance – divers, side scan sonar

• Removal of debris, focus on hazardous items

• Collection of benthic samples• Risk communication• Partnership with local First

Nations (assistance with field work, waste disposal)

Case Study - Risk Management D E B R I S R E M O VA L – O C T O B E R 2 0 1 7 / M A R C H 2 0 1 8

Scope of work

18

• Divers observed a wide variety of debris during reconnaissance and coverage was extensive

• Domestic debris dominant around first finger (cans, plastics, bicycles etc)

• Fishing debris (nets, traps, boat parts) was dominant around second and third finger

• Several batteries observed• Eel grass beds observed closer to foreshore• Removal focused on hazardous items

(batteries)• Cleared five larger areas (10 x 10 m) to

monitor recovery of benthic community

Case Study - Risk ManagementD E B R I S R E M O VA L - R E C O N N A I S S A N C E

19

• Based on sidescan sonar results and diver observations, waterlot was classified into areas of ‘high’, ‘moderate’, and ‘low’ magnitude of debris presence

Case Study – Risk ManagementD E B R I S R E M O VA L

high

moderate

low

20

• With the assistance of the local First Nation, Golder and DFO removed a total of 18 m3 of debris from the SCH waterlot including:

• 30 lead-based batteries• A portable generator• Outboard motor• Oil canisters and a fuel pump • 15 abandoned crab and prawn traps

• Benthic community samples were collected from five cleared areas at the SCH and two reference areas. These stations be resampled in one year to monitor recovery

Case Study – Risk ManagementD E B R I S R E M O VA L

21

• Golder, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and members of community met in March 2018 to discuss strategies for risk management of the SCH, specifically reducing the input of debris and improving stewardship of the waterlot

• Some strategies that will be explored include:

Case Study – Risk Management R I S K C O M M U N I C AT I O N

• Educational campaigns directed toward local school• Use of underwater video footage as an educational prop • Involvement of school groups in the next round of benthic

sampling – children can learn about the local biology and develop an interest in maintaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem

• Ongoing work with Fisheries and Oceans to establish a local harbour authority

22

HARBOUR AUTHORITIES

Establishing a Harbour Authority

The creation of Harbour Authorities helps the Small Craft Harbour program to:• provide essential services to harbour users• keep essential harbour facilities in good repair• establish and enforce rules, and represent the needs of

users at the community level.

• Currently the SCH does not have a Harbour Authority established.

• DFO and the community are working together to establish a Harbour Authority to manage the SCH.

23

• DFO and the community are working together toestablish not only the education plan for site usersoutlined earlier but also to become the Authority andHarbour Manager for the site.

• To make this happen, the community is working todevelop a business plan,

• Establish site-use rules that will meet the needs of thecommunity and also ensure a safe and clean harbour.

• SCH is providing support to the First Nation to participatein the abandoned and wrecked vessels removalprogram, clean harbour initiatives and other requiredmanagement activities.

Establishing a Harbour Authority

24

• The environmental liability established at the site was the trigger for further work to assess and clean up the Harbour.

• Upon further assessment it was decided that the scope of this work extends beyond simple remediation of site debris.

• Establishing a local harbour authority and educating site users is essential to the ongoing site clean-up activities and to ensuring the site is not re-contaminated in the future.

To SummarizeR I S K M A N A G E M E N T C A S E S T U D Y

25

Thank you.