From Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the Review Panel Re: Written

Fisheries and Oceans Peches et Oceans I+ Canada Canada

Regional Director General Directrice generale regionale Pacific Region Region du Pacifique Suite 200- 401 Burrard Street Piece 200 - 401 rue Burrard Vancouver, British Columbia Vancouver (C.-B.) V6C 3S4 V6C 3S4

APR 1 5 2019

Ms. Jocelyne Beaudet, Panel Chair Dr. David Levy, Panel Member Dr. Douw Steyn, Panel Member c/o Cindy Parker, Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22"d Floor Ottawa, ON, KIA OH3

Dear Ms. Beaudet:

Subject: Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Response to the Roberts Bank Terminal2 Project Review Panel's March 5, 2019 letter

Thank you for you March 5, 2019 letter addressed to Catherine Blewett, the former Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

As requested in your letter, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is providing a written submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project. The submission includes the Department's views on the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project, the predicted effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, the appropriateness of the proposed follow-up programs, and recommendations. As requested, an update on the status of the salmon populations and Conservation Units that utilize Roberts Bank is also provided.

If you, or anyone conducting work on your behalf, have questions regarding DFO's response, please contact Tessa Richardson at our Vancouver office by phone at 604-666-7047, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Rebecca Reid Regional Director General, Pacific Region

Attachment: Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Written Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canada Fisheries and Oceans Pêches et Océans Canada Canada

SUBMISSION OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA

TO THE REVIEW PANEL

FOR VANCOUVER FRASER PORT AUTHORITY

PROPOSED ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 PROJECT

Fisheries and Oceans Pêches et Océans Canada Canada

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 DFO’S MANDATE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND GUIDING LEGISLATION ...... 1

2.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 ...... 1

2.2 Fisheries Act ...... 2

2.3 Proposed Bill C-68 ...... 3

2.4 Species at Risk Act ...... 4

3.0 DFO PARTICIPATION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...... 5

4.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 7

5.0 FISH AND FISH HABITAT ...... 7

5.1 Overview ...... 7

5.2 Effects Mechanisms and Assessment Methods ...... 9 5.2.1 Direct Mortality ...... 10 5.2.2 Changes in the Light Environment ...... 10 5.2.3 Changes in the Acoustic Environment ...... 11 5.2.4 Modelling ...... 13 5.2.4.1 Hydrodynamic modelling ...... 13 5.2.4.2 Roberts Bank Ecosystem Model (Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace; EwE) ...... 14 5.2.5 Water Quality and Sediment ...... 17 5.2.5.1 Organic Matter ...... 17 5.2.5.2 Salinity ...... 19

5.3 Avoidance Measures ...... 21 5.3.1 Project Design ...... 22 5.3.2 Least Risk Timing windows ...... 22

5.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 23 5.4.1 Mitigation for Injury and Direct Mortality ...... 24 5.4.2 Mitigation for Changes in Acoustic Environment ...... 25 5.4.3 Mitigation for Changes in Water Quality and Sediment ...... 25 5.4.4 Mitigation for Changes in the Light Environment ...... 25 5.4.5 Mitigation for Changes in Habitat Availability (Offsetting) ...... 26

5.5 Characterization of Residual Effects to Fish and Invertebrates ...... 30 5.5.1 Pacific salmon ...... 30

Fisheries and Oceans Pêches et Océans Canada Canada

5.5.2 Pacific Herring ...... 33 5.2.3 Eulachon ...... 34 5.5.4 Pacific Sand Lance ...... 35 5.5.4 Flatfish ...... 36 5.5.5 Bivalve Shellfish ...... 37 5.5.6 Dungeness Crab ...... 37 5.5.7 Orange Sea Pen ...... 38

5.6 Fish and Fish Habitat Conclusions ...... 39

6.0 MARINE MAMMALS ...... 39

6.1 Acoustic Effects ...... 41 6.1.1 Acoustic Effects Assessment Methods ...... 41 6.1.1.2 Behavioural Response to Underwater Noise ...... 42 6.1.1.3 Acoustic Masking ...... 42 6.1.1.4 Population Consequence of Disturbance Model ...... 43 6.1.2 Mitigation of Acoustic Effects ...... 44 6.1.2.1 Project Construction ...... 44 6.1.2.2 Project Operation ...... 45 6.1.3 Southern Resident Killer Whale - Acoustic Effects ...... 47 6.1.4 Humpback Whale - Acoustic Effects ...... 47 6.1.5 Steller Sea Lion - Acoustic Effects ...... 48

6.2 Vessel Strikes ...... 49 6.2.1 Vessel Strike Assessment Methods ...... 49 6.2.2 Mitigation - Vessel Strikes ...... 49 6.2.3 Southern Resident Killer Whale - Effects of Vessel Strike ...... 50 6.2.4 Humpback Whale – Effects of Vessel Strikes ...... 51 6.2.5 Steller Sea Lion – Effects of Vessel Strike ...... 52

6.3 Effects to SRKW Critical Habitat ...... 52 6.3.1 Project Construction and Operation...... 54 6.3.2 Marine Shipping associated with the Project ...... 56

6.4 DFO-led Whale Initiatives ...... 57

6.4.1 Initiatives led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) ...... 58 Addressing Threats to the Southern Resident Killer Whale ...... 59 Increased Capacity for Prey Availability Research ...... 59 Whale Contaminant Research Program ...... 60 Fisheries Management Measures ...... 60 Enhancing Compliance and Enforcement ...... 61 Pacific Marine Mammal Response Program...... 61 Building Partnerships for Additional Action ...... 62 Additional Protection Measures ...... 62 Science to Assess the Effectiveness of Recovery ...... 66 6.4.2 Initiatives supported by the Canadian Coast Guard ...... 66 Haro Strait Voluntary Slowdown (July 1st to October 31st, 2018) ...... 67

Fisheries and Oceans Pêches et Océans Canada Canada

Juan de Fuca Voluntary Lateral Displacement (August 20th to October 31st, 2018) ...... 67 Vessel Traffic Management Measures for Underwater Noise Mitigation (Additional New Measures) ...... 67

7.0 FOLLOW UP PROGRAM ...... 68

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 69

9.0 REFERENCES ...... 71

10.0 APPENDIX: ...... 75 APPENDIX 1: CANADIAN PACIFIC SALMON SATUSES: WILD SALMON POLICY AND COSEWIC

APPENDIX 2: TECHNICAL REVIEW: POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE IMPACTS FROM PROJECT RELATED MARINE VESSELS ON SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE (TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT)

APPENDIX 3: SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE IMMINENT THREAT ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 4: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO PROTECT SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALES

APPENDIX 5: MARINE MAMMAL RESPONSE PROGRAM

APPENDIX 6: WHALE INNOVATION CHALLENGE

APPENDIX 7: COMPILATION OF DFO RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX 8: EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This submission to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Review Panel presents Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s views on the environmental effects of the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (the Project) on marine fish, marine invertebrates, marine mammals and their habitats.

2.0 DFO’s MANDATE, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND GUIDING LEGISLATION

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is the federal lead for safeguarding our waters and managing Canada's fisheries, oceans and freshwater resources. We support economic growth in the marine and fisheries sectors, and innovation in areas such as aquaculture and biotechnology. We help ensure healthy and sustainable aquatic ecosystems through habitat protection and sound science.

DFO has responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012), the Fisheries Act, and Species at Risk Act with respect to the conservation, protection, and sustainability of Canada’s aquatic ecosystems. DFO develops and implements policies and programs to ensure that Canada’s oceans and other aquatic ecosystems are protected from negative impacts.

The following is a description of the legislation and policies under the Department's responsibility that relate to the Project, marine shipping associated with the Project and the environmental assessment. The interest and expertise of the Department are linked to its legislative and regulatory responsibilities and the programs and policies it uses to discharge those responsibilities.

2.1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 In accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), DFO is participating in the Environmental Assessment of the Project as a federal authority, providing "specialist or expert information or knowledge" with respect to the Project to the Review Panel in relation to DFO's mandate. The Department provides advice and information to the Review Panel in relation to the following:

1. Potential effects of works, undertakings or activities associated with the Project on fish, including marine mammals and aquatic species at risk, and fish habitat; 2. Potential effects of the proposed increase in Project-related marine vessel traffic on fish, including marine mammals and aquatic species at risk, and fish habitat; and 3. The feasibility of proposed mitigation and avoidance measures pertaining to fish, including marine mammals and aquatic species at risk, and fish habitat.

However, consistent with the 2014 Order Designating the Minister of the Environment as the

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 1

Minister Responsible for the Administration and Enforcement of Subsection 36(3} to (6) of the Fisheries Act, the information DFO will provide in relation to the above items will not include advice related to the effects of deleterious substances on fish and fish habitat.

2.2 Fisheries Act The Fisheries Act (the Act) provides, among other things, broad powers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (the Minister) for the proper management and control of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. Included within the Act is the legal framework for regulating impacts associated with any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery in Canada, or to fish that support such a fishery. The Act defines "fish habitat" as "spawning grounds and any other areas, including nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes" and "serious harm to fish" as "the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat".

Subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act prohibits the carrying on of a work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery or to fish that support such a fishery. DFO’s Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013) interprets serious harm to fish as: • the death of fish; • a permanent alteration to fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration or intensity that limits or diminishes the ability of fish to use such habitats as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes; • the destruction of fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration, or intensity that fish can no longer rely upon such habitats for use as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes.

Proponents are responsible for avoiding and mitigating serious harm to fish that are part of or support commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries. When proponents are unable to completely avoid or mitigate serious harm to fish, their projects will require authorization under Subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act in order for the project to proceed without contravening the Act.

For projects where, after the application of avoidance and mitigation measures, there is likely to be residual serious harm to fish, project proponents may apply for an authorization under subsection 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act. The Applications for Authorization under Paragraph 35{2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations (2013) sets out the required information and documentation that a proponent must include in an application and the timelines for processing

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 2

an application. Applications must include an offsetting plan that will counterbalance unavoidable serious harm to fish and the loss of fisheries productivity resulting from the project.

The objective of offsetting is to counterbalance unavoidable serious harm to fish and the loss of fisheries productivity resulting from a project. Offsetting measures support and enhance the sustainability and ongoing productivity of fish that are part of or support a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.

In applying offsetting measures proponent’s should select measures that meet the following principles which are set out in DFO’s Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting (2013): • Offsetting measures must support fisheries management objectives or local restoration priorities; • Benefits from offsetting measures must balance project impacts; • Offsetting measures must provide additional benefits to the fishery; and • Offsetting measures must generate self-sustaining benefits over the long term.

Before taking a decision on issuing an authorization under subsection 35(2)(b) the Minister must consider the four factors set out in section 6 of the Act. These are: • the contribution of the relevant fish to the ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries; • fisheries management objectives; • whether there are measures and standards to avoid, mitigate or offset serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery or that support such a fishery; and • the public interest.

As per the 2014 Order Designating the Minister of the Environment as the Minister Responsible for the Administration and Enforcement of Subsections 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act, Environment and Climate Change Canada administers subsection 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish, unless authorized by regulations under the Fisheries Act or other federal legislation.

The Marine Mammal Regulations govern the harvesting, sale and transportation of marine mammals and provides for the protection of marine mammals in Canadian waters. The regulations prohibit disturbance or killing of marine mammals unless authorized by the Minister.

2.3 Proposed Bill C-68 As part of the Government of Canada’s Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard was mandated in 2015 to review the changes made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act. Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 3

On February 6, 2018, the Government of Canada introduced in Parliament Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in Consequence.

The proposed amendments include: • Provisions to modernize the Fisheries Act; • Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples; • Fish and fish habitat protection provisions: o Prohibitions against causing the death of fish (other than by fishing) and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat o New tools are enabled including ecologically significant areas, as well as measures relating to authorization and permitting of works, undertakings and activities, establishment of standards and codes of practice, creation of fish habitat banks by a proponent of a project, and establishment of a public registry. o Factors that a Minister must consider prior to exercising powers related to authorizations, permits, orders or Ministerial regulations, including cumulative effects and Indigenous knowledge.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently in the process of program revitalization and developing regulations, policies and other program instruments to support the modifications to the Fisheries Act should Bill C-68 receive Royal Assent. Engagement with Indigenous groups, provinces, territories, partners, stakeholders and other Canadians on these proposed amendments will continue in order to ensure that the proposed fish and fish habitat protection provisions of an amended Fisheries Act achieve the right balance.

2.4 Species at Risk Act While the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada has primary responsibility for the administration of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is the competent minister for aquatic species at risk. SARA provides legislated protection for wildlife species at risk and their critical habitats in Canada. If a species is listed as endangered, threatened, or extirpated on Schedule 1 of the SARA, no person shall: • kill, harm, harass, capture, or take an individual of the species (subsection 32(1) of SARA); • possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of the species, or any of its parts or derivatives (subsection 32(2) of SARA); or • damage or destroy the residence of one or more individuals of a species that is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, or that is listed as an extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada (subsection 33 of SARA).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 4

SARA requires that critical habitat be identified for species listed as endangered or threatened in a recovery strategy or action plan and the critical habitat be protected against destruction. SARA defines critical habitat as the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a species.

For aquatic species at risk, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may enter into an agreement or issue a permit to a person authorizing the person to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat or the residences of its individuals under section 73 of SARA for the following activities: • scientific research related to conserving a listed species, conducted by qualified persons; • activities that benefit a listed species or enhance its chances of survival in the wild; or • activities that incidentally affect a listed species.

Before issuing a permit, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must be of the opinion that all preconditions listed under subsection 73(3) have been met, including that: • all reasonable alternatives have been considered; • all feasible measures have been taken to minimize the impact of the activity; and • the survival or recovery of the species is not jeopardized.

Section 74 of SARA allows for a Fisheries Act authorization to have the same effect as a SARA permit provided that the requirements of SARA subsections 73(2) to (7) are met. Consideration of potential effects on aquatic species at risk are incorporated into DFO’s review of applications for authorization under subsection 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act. Fisheries Act authorizations can be issued for works, undertakings or activities near water that affect aquatic species at risk if the conditions for issuing a permit under SARA are met. Under section 75 of SARA, specific terms and conditions may be added to a Fisheries Act authorization in order to protect a listed wildlife species.

3.0 DFO PARTICIPATION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DFO is participating in the environmental assessment of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (the Project) by providing specialist or expert information or knowledge in relation to fish, fish habitat and marine mammals to the Review Panel. DFO has reviewed the information provided by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA; the Proponent) in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; CEAR #181) and Marine Shipping Supplemental Report (MSS; CEAR #316) and in supplemental information that relates to fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and their habitats, in relation to Project effects, mitigation and offsetting measures, and proposed monitoring and follow up programs.

DFO has provided technical information on the Proponent’s assessments of potential effects to fish and fish habitat as part of the sufficiency review of the EIS and MSS. DFO is aware that VFPA submitted the reports: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Container Vessel Call Forecast Study (Mercator

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 5

2018; CEAR document #1362) and RBT2 Project Operational Scenario Underwater Noise Update (Jasco Applied Sciences; CEAR document #1363) in November of 2018. DFO has not reviewed or provided comments on these reports as they not include any updates to the assessment of effects on marine mammals.

This following DFO information is available on the CEA Registry:

• Comment on the Completeness of the Environmental Impact Statement, CEAR #207 • Comment on the Completeness of the Marine Shipping Addendum, CEAR #346 • Comments on the information relating to the environmental assessment of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, CEAR #577 • Technical Review of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Assessment: Section 9.5 - Coastal Geomorphology by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, CEAR #893 • Technical Review of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Assessment: Section 10.3 - Assessing Ecosystem Productivity - by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, CEAR #900 • Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Technical Review of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Impact Statement and Marine Shipping Supplemental Report: Effects on Marine Mammals, CEAR #919 • Response to Information Requests issued by the Review Panel on April 5, 2017, CEAR #959 • Response to Information Requests issued by the Review Panel on May 18, 2017, CEAR #988 • Response to Information Requests issued by the Review Panel on July 17, 2017, CEAR #1057 • Report on the Evaluation of the Scientific Evidence to Inform the Probability of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures in Reducing Shipping-Related Noise Levels Received by Southern Resident Killer Whales, CEAR #1068 • Response to Information Requests issued by the Review Panel on September 27, 2017, CEAR #1102 • What We Heard report on the Southern Resident Killer Whale Symposium held in Vancouver, British Columbia in October 2017, CEAR #1155 • Response to Information Requests issued by the Review Panel on May 17, 2018, CEAR #1221 • Comments on the Sufficiency of Information, CEAR #1289 • Recovery Strategy for the Offshore Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada, CEAR #1354 • Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada, CEAR #1374 • Comments on the Sufficiency of Information, CEAR #1423

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 6

4.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority proposes to construct and operate a new three-berth container terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, British Columbia. The Project is located next to the existing Deltaport and Westshore Terminals. In addition to construction of the new terminal, the north side of the existing Roberts Bank causeway will be widened from its east-end connection with the mainland to the entrance to the new terminal. The existing tug basin, connected to the north side of Deltaport Terminal, will be expanded. The new marine terminal is expected to process up to 260 container ship calls per year at full capacity, with the assistance of two or three large berthing or escort tugs to manoeuver ships into or away from assigned berths.

The main Project components have a proposed combined marine footprint area of approximately 175.5 hectares (ha), listed below by specific component:

. Marine Terminal: 130 ha, including terminal (116.1 ha) and dredged berth pocket and marine approach areas (13.9 ha) . Widened Causeway: 42.4 ha . Expanded Tug basin: 3.1 ha

The construction phase of the Project is expected to last five-and-a-half years, with the facility in operation within 6 months after completion of construction. No decommissioning phase is proposed for the Project.

5.0 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

5.1 Overview Canada’s fish and fish habitat are a shared resource that provide great social economic and environmental benefits but they are also finite and vulnerable. They must therefore be protected and managed to maintain these benefits for present and future generations. Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s programs and policies contribute to the conservation, protection, and sustainability of Canada’s aquatic ecosystems through the management of risks that affect species, oceans, and fish habitats.

Development activities taking place in or near water may affect the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries by adversely affecting fish or fish habitat. DFO policy defines ongoing productivity as the potential sustained yield of all fish populations and their habitat that are part of or support commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. In order to manage risks to this important resource, an understanding of the impacts projects are likely to cause, and the measures that would be taken to avoid and mitigate impacts to the extent possible is required.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 7

Roberts Bank, in the Fraser River estuary, consists of complex intertidal and subtidal habitats, including eelgrass beds, marsh and mudflat, which are productive feeding and rearing habitats for many commercially valuable fish and invertebrate species, as well as marine mammals. The environmental conditions at Roberts Bank are dynamic, and are influenced by a variety of riverine, oceanographic and atmospheric factors including the Fraser River freshwater and sediment plume discharge, diurnal tidal cycles and currents, and prevailing storm-generated wind and wave activity.

The proposed terminal and dredged berth pocket, widened causeway and expanded tug basin would result in the death of fish and invertebrates and the permanent alteration and destruction of fish and invertebrate habitat as a result of the placement of approximately 116 ha of subtidal fill, 42 ha of intertidal fill, and 17 ha of dredging. As reported in the Proponent’s Table IR11-13-1 (CEAR document #1360), the following fish habitat types are located within the Project footprint:

Area directly Habitat type affected by Project (ha) rock 5.83 sand 38.26 mud 0.21 biofilm 0.01 ulva 18.96 native eelgrass 6.06 non-native eelgrass 2.97 intertidal marsh 12.26 kelp 0.03 dense sea pen 15.6 sparse sea pen 73.08 Total 173.27

Predicted effects outside of the Project footprint include a 5.8 ha area of scour around the northwest corner of the terminal, a 20 ha depositional area near the west edge of the terminal, a 50 ha area of accelerated tidal channel, a 40 ha area of increased deposition of fines at the shoreward side of the terminal, a 70 ha area of decreased wave energy on the north side of the terminal and 1 ha area of scour at the east face of the terminal. These areas are shown in Figure 1 below.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 8

Figure 1: Spatial Extent of potential changes associated with the project footprint and overview of proposed onsite habitat concept locations (Proponent’s figure IR7-27-A2; CEAR document #1360).

The Proponent predicts decreases in the productive potential of the Project area for some fish and invertebrate species. Following mitigation measures, including onsite offsetting, the Proponent concludes that there may be residual effects to forage fish, flatfish, bivalve shellfish, Orange Sea Pens, and Dungeness Crab (Sections 12.0 and 13.0 of the EIS; CEAR document #181).

5.2 Effects Mechanisms and Assessment Methods The Proponent’s assessment of environmental effects of the Project on marine fish and invertebrates focusses on representative species. Predicted effects to representative species are intended to represent effects to other taxa/species with biological and ecological similarities, as well as similarities in the potential pathways of effects from construction and operation of the Project. The Proponent explains how species that were not directly assessed in the EIS were assessed by proxy using representative species in IR-7.31.15-09 (CEAR document #314).

Given the number of species that may occur at Roberts Bank for all or part of their life cycles, the Proponent’s approach to selecting representative species on which to focus the assessment appears reasonable for the purpose of an environmental assessment. However, the approach does result in limitations to understanding the effects of the Project on species that were not

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 9

selected as representative species, and this is particularly true for species whose life history differs from that of selected representative species.

Overview of the ecological function, population characteristics and key habitat features of the representative fish and invertebrate species is provided in Section 12.0 and 13.0 of the EIS (CEAR document #181). Flowcharts and tables highlighting studies conducted by the Proponent to support the environmental effects assessment are provided in Appendix IR5-29-A (CEAR document #1185) .

Potential Project-related effects to marine fish and invertebrates for the construction and operation phases of the Project are identified by the Proponent and include: direct mortality from entrainment, burial or physical disturbance associated with dredging and land development; changes in water quality; changes in the acoustic environment; changes in the light environment; changes in sedimentation and coastal processes; changes in habitat availability; and changes in biotic interactions. Potential effects of marine shipping associated with the Project on fish and fish habitat are identified by the Proponent in Section 8.1 of the MSS (CEAR document #316) and include erosion of shoreline habitats by vessel wake and underwater vessel noise. DFO comments on these pathways of effects and assessment methods are provided below.

5.2.1 Direct Mortality Direct mortality to fish and invertebrates due to Project construction activities is likely to result from entrainment, burial or physical disturbance associated with dredging and land development.

The Proponent has not provided estimated numbers of individuals of species in the Project area that may be subject to mortality. However, sessile species, such as bivalves and Orange Sea Pen are predicted to have 100% mortality within the Project footprint. Death of sensitive life phases of mobile species, such as Surf Smelt and spawning Pacific Sand Lance may also result from the Project footprint (e.g. causeway widening). Entrainment during cutter suction dredging may result in death of sessile and motile invertebrate and fish species, such as juvenile salmon, Pacific Sand Lance, early reef fish life stages, all life stages of flatfish, three-spined stickleback and Pacific Staghorn Sculpin larvae, and post-larval and juvenile Dungeness Crab. Highly mobile species and life stages such as adult Pacific salmon, Rockfish, pelagic forage fish, Lingcod, and adult Dungeness Crab are less susceptible to construction related mortality.

5.2.2 Changes in the Light Environment Changes in light conditions, from shading during the day or artificial lighting at night from terminal infrastructure, moored vessels, and construction activities have the potential to affect fish. The Proponent concludes that changes in the light environment are anticipated to have a minor negative effect on forage fish and Pacific salmon productivity, and that with mitigation, no residual effect from changes in the light environment is anticipated. Uncertainties regarding

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 10

effects of changes in the light environment on fish behaviour and predator-prey relationships are identified by DFO in CEAR document #1289 and highlighted below.

In relation to potential impacts of artificial lighting affecting the feeding success of small fish, the Proponent concludes that the impacts may be both positive and negative. However, the potential ecological impacts of artificial lighting at night are likely quite complex and are poorly understood (Bolton et al. 2017; Becker et al. 2012). In addition, when the artificial lighting is associated with other potential effects (cumulative) such as noise, physical structures and their movements (such as boats, equipment, floating docks, etc.), discerning the cause and effect is further complicated (Rooper et al. 2015; Becker et al. 2012).

Above water lighting during night periods does attract fish such as Herring (Hourston 1957, McConnell et al. 2010), potentially from nearshore shallower water protective habitats, such as eelgrass beds. By drawing forage fish out of night rearing refuge areas to hunt in lit surface waters (and or in deeper waters penetrated by light), the forage fish would be expected to be more accessible to a wider range and larger amount of predators (seals, adult salmonids, rockfish, etc.). The degree to which terminal lighting may attract juvenile and adult Herring at night from darker protected waters is unknown. There is also uncertainty as to whether young of year Eulachon or sub-adult pre-spawning Eulachon would be attracted to the terminal lights to forage on plankton. If predators such as seals are drawn to the terminal area to capitalize on night hunting with the use of lights, the seasonal concentrations of predators at or near the terminal and estuary may have an indirect impact on Eulachon using the area as a migratory corridor to spawning grounds.

Permanent lighting over or adjacent to potential suitable Sand Lance burying habitat has the potential to result in Sand Lance avoidance of the seabed. This would result in higher energy expenditure, higher predation rates, and no opportunity to develop gonads, leading to a negative impact on the Sand Lance population in the area. In the North Sea, work completed in the 1970’s for the congeneric Sand eel has found that light levels around 100 lux near the seabed triggered release of Sand eels from the seabed sediments. To assess the likelihood of Project related effects of artificial light on Sand Lance during burying, an assessment of the anticipated light levels at the seabed at different depths and during different seasons would be necessary.

5.2.3 Changes in the Acoustic Environment Potential effects of underwater noise on fish ranges from behavioural effects to injury and mortality. Potential effects of underwater noise was assessed by the Proponent based on modelling of sound propagation during Project construction and operation. Modelled construction activities included vibratory piling, impact piling, vibro-densification, and dredging and modelled operation activities included berthing and transiting of container ships and tugs.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 11

It is important to point out that no Canadian regulations or guidelines presently exist with regards to noise impacts on fish. The limited criteria for potential effects of underwater noise on all fishes have often been assumed, or have been derived from inadequately designed and controlled studies. Popper et al. (2014) have established sound exposure guidelines for fish as part of an American National Standards Institute-accredited Standard Committee, but their report cautions against the lack of scientific validation for many species. It is also important to note that dBht (decibel hearing threshold) is not an absolute sound level unit, but a weighted measure purported to provide a prediction of the perceived loudness of sound to a specific animal. The application of weighting requires reliable measures of hearing sensitivity versus frequency (audiograms) for each species, but these are only available for a few species. Confidence in the validity of audiograms for many species is also limited because of the poor acoustic conditions surrounding the experiments and the methodologies applied to determine thresholds. Popper et al. (2014) also caution on the application of weighting to sounds that are potentially injurious. Sounds outside the hearing range of the animals may be capable of causing damage to tissues (Halvorsen et al. 2011). For example high frequency sounds associated with rapid rise-times may bring about or exacerbate injury. For these reasons it would be premature to apply any weighting in the development of guidelines. In addition, the metrics used to describe sounds from different sources have often been inappropriate for fishes, as they have been based on sound pressure rather than particle motion (Popper and Hawkins 2018, Hawkins and Popper 2017). It is also worth noting that even the most state-of-the-art sound propagation models employed to assess the distances over which effects might occur have rarely been validated by actual measurements and are especially poor at dealing with transmission under shallow water conditions, close to or within the seabed, or near the surface. Finally, almost nothing is known about fish behavioural responses to any man-made sound.

With these limitations in mind, the Proponent has used the information available to come up with reasonable noise threshold criteria and assessed the effects of underwater noise on marine fish based on modelling of sound propagation, using one of the best models available, during cases of construction and marine terminal operation; including different piling operations, dredging, berthing and transiting of container ships and tugs. The results of this work suggest minor decreases in productivity resulting from direct mortality and disturbance from underwater noise during Project construction only. However, as pointed out above, there are large uncertainties with regards to these conclusions, due to lack of available data at the present time.

Even less is known about potential effects of underwater noise on invertebrates and no noise guidelines currently exist for these animals. The Proponent correctly points out that there is a lack of understanding concerning the underwater hearing abilities of invertebrates and on any change in behavior as a result of underwater noise, making it very difficult to directly assess potential effects of Project noise on marine invertebrates. Based on the information available, the Proponent concludes that measureable effects of underwater noise on invertebrate populations are unlikely. This is a reasonable result based on our present understanding of impacts of underwater noise on marine invertebrates. Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 12

Acknowledging the uncertainty associated with methods to determine potential acoustic effects of Project construction and operation on fish and invertebrates, the conclusion of minor decreases in fish productivity resulting from direct mortality and disturbance from underwater noise prior to mitigation is reasonable. The conclusion that measureable effects from underwater noise on invertebrate populations are unlikely is reasonable based on the present understanding of impacts on underwater noise on marine invertebrates.

5.2.4 Modelling 5.2.4.1 Hydrodynamic modelling The Proponent’s hydrodynamic and morphodynamic models are presented in Section 9.5 of the EIS (CEAR document #181) and in supplementary information (CEAR document #547). The Proponent’s modelling approach is described in DFO and NRCan’s initial technical review of the models (CEAR document #893).

DFO and NRCan’s technical review identified that the models chosen are appropriate for this study. Inadequacies in the modelling procedures and assumptions, as well as in the assessment of uncertainties were identified. DFO and NRCan concluded that some results and conclusions presented in the Proponent’s analysis, as well as the associated uncertainties, were not fully substantiated.

In response to IR2-01, the Proponent provided additional information regarding validation of the hydrodynamic model (CEAR document #961). The conclusions of DFO’s evaluation of the hydrodynamic model validation (CEAR document #1289) are that the validation of the water levels, wave heights, and river flow is acceptable; however, the validation of the ocean currents is incomplete based on the following:

• The work presented addresses the speed but not the direction. Following the Proponent’s analysis scheme, this can be addressed by comparing the direction of the first principal components for the observed and the modelled currents. It could also be addressed by comparing the tidal ellipses for the observed and modelled currents. • The Proponent attributes the differences in modelled versus observed currents to differences in freshwater inputs. Clarification would be required to determine whether salinity was included in the simulation for this section. Salinity can have important impacts on the currents.

In response to IR2-14 (CEAR document #961), the Proponent provided additional information in relation to the spin-up period for the coastal geomorphology model. The Proponent has demonstrated that the 2 week spin-up time is sufficient for the configuration of the model without salinity. This has not been successfully demonstrated for the configuration with salinity, since the approach taken by the Proponent (i.e. comparison of salinity profiles in June 20 from Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 13

simulations with different start dates) does not guarantee the establishment of statistical equilibrium after 2 weeks. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the salinity profiles to be compared for this analysis (as well as for the model validation) are presented on different plots, making it difficult to ascertain the similarity of the profiles. A discussion on the modelled salinity is included in section 5.2.4.2 of this document.

DFO has previously noted that numerical model results are highly dependent on the assumptions and simplifications incorporated in the model formulation and the input parameters. Given that the results of the morphodynamic model are used to inform the ecosystem models (Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace), these uncertainties should be taken into account in their assessment (CEAR document #893).

5.2.4.2 Roberts Bank Ecosystem Model The Proponent developed the Roberts Bank spatial ecosystem model (Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace; EwE) to evaluate the effects of physical changes to Roberts Bank resulting from the Project. This model incorporates both direct and indirect physical effects of the Project as well as trophic changes that may occur as a result of these physical effects. Results of the model inform the Proponent’s assessment of the effects of changes in sedimentation and coastal processes, changes in habitat availability and biotic interactions on the selected valued marine ecosystem components.

The Proponent adopted an ecosystem approach as a common foundation upon which to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the Project on the productivity of the Roberts Bank ecosystem. An important point is that any effects on the system during the construction phase or from expansion of the tug basin were excluded from this modelling process, the focus instead being a comparison of modelled system productivity before and after the proposed terminal and expanded causeway is in place. The chosen ecosystem simulation model was Ecopath with Ecosim and its spatial version Ecospace (EwE model). This modelling approach was recommended by a prior Productive Capacity Technical Advisory Group, comprised of representatives of technical experts from government agencies, academia, non-governmental organizations, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and its consultants, convened by the Proponent, and which also recommended a selection of focal species for the model. DFO provides an overview of the model approach in CEAR document #900. The model is not configured to provide information on possible changes in the ‘quality’ of the food (defined for example by the ratios of essential nutrients within floral and faunal prey) as a result of the Project.

In the context of this EIS, specifying depth, salinity, bottom currents, wave height and sediment type conditions without the Project, and changes with the Project were achieved by construction of hydrodynamic and sediment transport models. DFO and NRCan initial assessment of these models is provided in CEAR document #893 and CEAR document #1289. The outputs from these models, in combination with the identified environmental preferences for the various biological

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 14

groups, were then used as inputs to the Ecospace model to define the spatial distributions of these functional groups. As stated above, it should be acknowledged that numerical model results are highly dependent on the assumptions and simplifications incorporated in the model formulation and the input parameters. Given that the results of the morphodynamic model are used to inform the ecosystem models (Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace), these uncertainties should be taken into account in their assessment (CEAR document #893).

The EwE model developed for the Roberts Bank Ecosystem is a complex spatial ecosystem model, constructed for a relatively small and open (in the sense of considerable exchange with adjacent non-modelled areas) system. Many assumptions have been made based on poor or missing data. Taking all these considerations into account, the model does the best job possible of comparing the biomass and productivity of the Roberts Bank ecosystem with and without the Project. The EwE model, as implemented in this Project is a useful first-order framework to organise information and derive initial estimates of how the system may respond to perturbations.

The stated objective of the Roberts Bank ecosystem model was not to provide an assessment of Project impacts for each functional group at a fine temporal scale, but to estimate longer term changes in the productive potential of each functional group that may result from the Project by incorporating ecosystem considerations (IR11-20, page 3; CEAR document #1333). This implies that the EwE model outputs are not intended to be used to forecast responses of any particular functional group, but to forecast the effect of the Project on the overall productivity of the entire ecosystem.

The ecosystem model appears to capture the main area that the Project is predicted to affect, in particular considering the model was designed to evaluate the total productivity of the Roberts Bank ecosystem rather that the productivity of any specific functional group.

Every ecosystem model is only one possible representation of the true ecosystem, defined by the model’s structure and the values chosen for its many parameters. The key point is how well the model represents the real system, how that fit can be measured, and the sensitivity of model outputs to variability in the selected parameter values (CEAR document #900). The presentation of the model results is focused on the biomass ratio with/without Project. While the overall conclusion that the ‘productivity changes from the Project are likely to be relatively small’ is robust to the uncertainty captured in the input parameters of the model based on the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis, there is additional uncertainty concerning other input parameters, for example the proportion of the diets of the modelled functional groups that is imported from outside of the model domain (CEAR document #1102).

The Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in the input parameters did not lead to much difference in model estimates of biomass and productivity with or without the Project. However, this conclusion does not describe how well the EwE model represents the Roberts Bank system or how the uncertainty in the input parameters affects understanding of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 15

the ecosystem. Model results were presented as the ratio of productivity before and after the Project, but the base models, and their uncertainty, were not rigorously evaluated. Therefore how well this model represents the Roberts Bank system is challenging to evaluate due to data limitations and therefore it is challenging to provide clear statements with respect to the limitations of this model.

Ecosystem model results indicate that most functional groups will have some potential biomass loss with the Project, with biomass loss defined as any model run with negative outcomes (i.e. in which biomass with the Project was less than biomass without the Project). The Proponent’s summary (EIS, Appendix 10-C, page ii (CEAR #181); see also CSAS Science Response 2016/050 page 19 (CEAR #900)) of changes in productivity potential are mixed, with most (33 out of 35) valued components showing minor decreases to minor increases (defined as 6 to 30% changes in productive potential with the Project compared to without the Project).

The EwE model, as currently configured, does appear to have the capacity to capture the potential Project impacts on the majority (90%) of the biomass on Roberts Bank (CEAR document #1102), since 90% of the model biomass is composed of functional groups that are largely associated with bottom environments. These include: green algae, infaunal bivalves, omnivorous and herbivorous zooplankton, macrofauna, phytoplankton, biofilm marine, biofilm freshwater, carnivorous zooplankton, meiofauna, tidal marsh, biomat and polychaetes.

Overall the model predicts the distribution of most habitat forming groups with fair to moderate accuracy and native eelgrass with ‘substantial’ accuracy, but it predicts green algae distributions poorly. Functional groups linked to the benthos (infaunal bivalves, macrofauna, epifaunal grazers, meiofauna, and polychaetes) are also likely represented well by the model domain and their biomass is largely determined by their habitat preferences. For the 13 functional groups at lower trophic levels linked to the benthos, which compromise 75% of the modelled biomass, abundance is largely determined by their habitat preferences.

Since the population structure and range of many of the other 45 functional groups at higher trophic levels are at larger scales than the model area of 54.68 km2, it is unlikely that changes in productivity or species composition at the lower trophic levels will be limiting to these groups unless the Roberts Bank area is a key feeding or nursery area for a specific life stage or migratory component of the population. For these groups the other lines of evidence provided in the EIS should be taken into account as depicted in Appendix IR3-01-A (CEAR document #984 and CEAR document #1102). Overall, DFO concludes that the model is useful for evaluating integrated ecosystem productivity aspects, especially for benthic lower trophic groups (e.g. infaunal bivalves, polychaetes, epifaunal grazers, macrofauna and meiofauna) but less appropriate for evaluating highly migratory functional groups such as salmon (CEAR document #900).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 16

5.2.5 Water Quality and Sediment 5.2.5.1 Organic Matter Organic matter is an important component of this system which may not be well-represented by the ecosystem model. While organic matter can be delivered from the Fraser River and by shoreward movements of sediment deposited along the outer edge of the Bank, it can also be generated from bio-mediated processes within quiescent, low-energy, silt-laden tidal zones. The potential impacts of organic matter accumulation will depend on the following: 1) the extent or rate of an organic enrichment process within various tidal zones (e.g. existing northern port- induced organic-rich, low-oxygen high-silt depositional zone); and 2) the development of both predicted and unforeseen new depositional zones. The production of suitable prey (biofilm, meiofauna, macrofauna) for migrating shorebirds and inshore and seaward migrating fish may depend on the balance between grazing rates, sedimentation processes, and associated organic enrichment, which results in low-oxygen, sulfidic depositional zones in the area (CEAR document #1102).

In the absence of biotic factors (e.g. organic particulates), the ecosystem model has not considered the potential for benthic organic enrichment, which coincides with siltation processes within the upper tidal flats. Unexpected changes in sediment topography and organic/nutrient enrichment have been observed to occur in association with previous port projects on Roberts Bank. For example, the northern tidal flat corner bordered by the Delta-dyke and Deltaport causeway has served as a catchment area for the Fraser River plume (e.g. silt/clay) since the development of the original Deltaport causeway in the 1969 (Sutherland et al. 2013). The continual supply and deposition of Fraser River silt over the years has increased tidal-flat elevation and promoted organic-enrichment, resulting in an elevated, organic-rich bench against the low-energy northern border of the original port causeway (Sutherland et. al 2013; CEAR document #1102). The proposed position and orientation of the new terminal placed at the seaward termination of the Deltaport causeway may extend the original silt-catchment barrier to produce a crescent-shaped feature in the path of the Fraser River Plume. This feature has the potential to act as a more efficient silt trap that will further promote siltation and benthic organic enrichment.

The ecosystem model does not include environmental variables that assess the potential development of eutrophication and benthic organic enrichment events within pelagic and benthic environments, respectively. For example, organic and redox indicators, traditional measures of environmental assessments, are used to determine changes in functional group responses. Benthic anoxic events based on organic enrichment are known to be strong drivers of community composition and exclusion across a variety of substrate types. The environmental variables included in the recent Deltaport Third Berth environmental assessment are appropriate for detecting eutrophication and benthic organic enrichment (e.g. pelagic: chlorophyll, dissolved nutrients; benthic: sediment carbon/nitrogen content, redox state [pore-water sulfide concentration]).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 17

The Proponent states “However, given that the area is in the lower intertidal zone (approximately less than 1 m CD and is frequently inundated and exposed to tidal currents, the potential for deposition of organic-rich fine sediments, which have a low bed-shear stress threshold for mobilization, is considered to be unlikely”. In order to take a precautionary approach, it is important to assess the uncertainty around this statement and consider other relevant local environmental factors (e.g. sediment cohesion, wave shadow effects, biofilm adhesion, eelgrass influence on sediment stability, differential sediment/organic transport, and unforeseen events) that may promote sediment deposition, accumulation, and organic enrichment. These factors are described in DFO’s evaluation of the Proponent’s response to IR12-13 (CEAR document #1423).

Given the impact of an unanticipated rise in tidal elevation (DP3 tug-turning berm construction) on water ponding, epiphytic growth, eelgrass decay, and eutrophication conditions, one might anticipate a similar situation regarding 1) the raised tidal flat elevation required to support dike construction needs; and 2) further accumulation of fine sediments and organic matter associated with these conditions around the Project perimeter dike, especially that of the depositional “elbow zone”.

In order to take a precautionary approach, eutrophication/anoxia should be anticipated in association with 1) increases in tidal-elevation promoted by Project perimeter dike/berm construction that may influence water drainage within the sheltered “elbow” zone (e.g. DP3 construction of tug-turning berm increased tidal elevation, water ponding, and subsequent eutrophication event); and 2) other significant water drainage areas that may be cut off, redirected, or experience suppressed water flow by the Project and promote silt accumulation and organic matter enrichment (e.g. northern causeway-dike corner, wave-shadow zone, “mumblies” zone (ridge and runnel complex)). For example, a visible drainage channel that runs parallel to the causeway and through an eelgrass meadow before intersecting the Project footprint may have its drainage flow altered (decreased), while receiving a continual silt source from the high intertidal zone as well as organic matter from the eelgrass bed (EIS-Appendix 9.6A; Figure 9A; EIS-Appendix 9.5A; Figure 18). These potential scenarios should be identified and considered in the design and evaluation of proposed offsetting habitat concepts for the Project.

The Proponent’s follow-up monitoring should focus on regional-scales defined by tidal-flat provinces classified as sensitive, critical, or similar characteristics (e.g. biofilm zone, “mumblies (ridge and runnel complex)”, gel-mud depositional zone, etc.). The latter approach will increase the ability to detect “change” as it will not be referenced against LSA-wide variation spanning 3 distinct and diverse tidal banks (Sturgeon Bank, Roberts Bank, and Boundary Bay) that are influenced by different environmental pressures and anthropogenic inputs.

The study design of the follow-up monitoring program should include various spatial and temporal scales specific to 1) both near- and far-field scales; 2) sensitive and critical habitats (e.g. Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 18

eelgrass habitats, Dungeness Crab nursery); 3) sedimentary provinces; 4) predicted zones of deposition; 5) drainage channels, etc.). While the spatial frequency associated with the instrument-based survey of physical water properties across the LSA is high (EIS-Appendix 9.6A; Figures 34-35 (CEAR document #181)), the spatial frequency of water chemistry (quality) sampling (dissolved nutrients, particulate matter, etc.) on Roberts Bank (EIS-Appendix 9.6A; Figure 36 (CEAR document #181)) is very limited and would not be sufficient for assessing near- field, regional, or large-scale effects.

Monitoring of sediment, and organic and redox indicators (i.e. pelagic: chlorophyll, dissolved nutrients; benthic: sediment grain size, porosity and bulk organic content, TOCarbon and nitrogen, sediment porewater sulfides and redox, and trace elements), are traditional measures used to determine changes in functional group responses and are recommended to be included in the proposed follow-up monitoring program to verify the accuracy of the environmental effects predictions in the EIS.

Recommendation 1 Design of any future offsetting habitat concepts should consider potential eutrophication/anoxia and changes in water drainage that could occur as a result of Project construction.

Recommendation 2 Monitoring of sediment, and organic and redox indicators is recommended to be included in the follow-up monitoring program to verify the accuracy of the environmental effects predictions. Monitoring should include various spatial and temporal scales specific to 1) both near- and far-field scales; 2) sensitive and critical habitats (e.g. eelgrass habitats, Dungeness Crab nursery); 3) sedimentary provinces; 4) predicted zones of deposition; 5) drainage channels, etc.).

5.2.5.2 Salinity DFO provided input on the Proponent’s salinity modelling in its response to DFO IR-20 and DFO IR-21 specifically regarding salinity conclusions (CEAR document #1221).

In these reports, DFO assessed that the general pattern of salinity change predicted by the model is reasonable. However, it was noted that insufficient information was provided to assess the uncertainty in the magnitude of the predicted changes in salinity from the Project. Specifically, DFO found that changes in salinity in the intertidal zone brought about by the expansion of the terminal could be smaller or larger than those predicted by the model and illustrated in Figures 9.7-9 and 9.7-10 of EIS Volume 2, Section 9.7 (CEAR document #181).

DFO stated that greater confidence could be placed in the model if it were demonstrated that it is capable of representing existing conditions accurately (CEAR document #1221). However, it

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 19

was noted that no comprehensive assessment of the capability of the model to represent existing conditions had been undertaken, particularly for the intertidal area. The limited comparisons with observations presented by the Proponent (Proponent’s response to IR2-01 and IR2-02; CEAR document #961) were inadequate to permit an assessment of the model; it was also remarked that there appeared to be insufficient observational data to allow such an assessment.

DFO also expressed concern regarding modelling choices made by the Proponent, in particular the use of flow conditions from October-December to predict changes in salinity for the early spring period (April to early May). It was noted that this choice introduces uncertainties in the results that are difficult to estimate. In addition, it was noted that the model results were based on a simulation for 2012, a year in which the Fraser River discharge was comparatively large and had a late peak. DFO recommended that additional simulations would be required to quantify changes in salinity for other years in which the discharge is closer to the long-term average (CEAR document #1221).

The Proponent responded to these concerns in a report dated 20 December 2018, entitled “Roberts Bank Salinity Model Results Verification: Comparison of 2012 Modelled Salinity to 2016 & 2017 Measured Salinity” (CEAR document #1379). This work brings to bear more salinity data gathered from the intertidal zone in 2016-17 than had been evident in previous submissions. These data are used to assess the performance of the model under existing conditions, thus responding to DFO’s call for a more comprehensive comparison with data.

Specifically, in this report, the functional relationship between weekly-averaged salinity from observations and the model simulation is examined at a set of nine near-shore monitoring stations. The comparison demonstrates that the model produces reasonable results in weekly- averaged salinity at most of these stations. At certain stations, however, the model salinity displays a statistically significant offset from the observations. For example, at station I/L near Brunswick Point the model displays systematically higher salinity values at low to medium flow rates. The Proponent states that ‘The inability of the numerical model to reproduce the patterns using the observations at stations F, I/L, J, and X may be a function of some simplifications that were made in the digital elevation model (DEM) that describes the area.’ As discussed by the Proponent’s December 2018 report, a small channel that was not included may be a source of the model-data mismatch at Station I/L. That small-scale topographic features in the DEM may matter to the success of the model-data comparison underscores the difficulties inherent in modelling the intertidal zone.

The new results provided in the Proponent’s December 2018 document do lend confidence in the general ability of the model to represent existing conditions, at least in a weekly-averaged sense. However, the new results do not remove the uncertainties associated with using flow conditions in the fall period to assess conditions in early spring, and with verifying the model based on a simulation for 2012 with data gathered in 2016-17. The approach taken by the Proponent effectively assumes that salinity over the inter-tidal zone is entirely determined by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 20

instantaneous river discharge, and that it has essentially no ‘memory’ of the earlier discharge history. The extent to which this is the case is not clear. For example, on flood tide the inter-tidal zone is flushed with water from the Strait of Georgia whose salinity would be influenced by the earlier history of river discharge. This could certainly influence the extremes in salinity seen at locations over the inter-tidal zone. Also, in sharp contrast with the model, the observed salinity from the inter-tidal zone (Figure 6 of the Proponents December 2018 report) shows very substantial variability at low flow rates. It’s possible that this scatter is due, at least in part, from combining data from both spring and fall (i.e., the times when the river discharge is weaker). Factors that appear to have been omitted from the model, such as wind forcing and fluctuations in river discharge originating downstream of Hope could also contribute to this scatter.

To remove these sources of uncertainty, the Proponent should conduct new simulations to compare with the data based on the actual Fraser River discharge for the years in which the data were gathered. Also, modelled salinity changes due to the Project over the intertidal zone should be calculated for early spring, the seasonal period of greatest concern.

It would also be very useful if the magnitude of the changes in salinity due to the Project were quantified based on simulations with the following river discharges: (i) average river discharge (i.e., a discharge based on the long-term mean), (ii) above average discharge (long-term plus one standard deviation) and (iii) below average discharge (long-term mean minus one standard deviations). This would provide some insight into the range of expected changes due to the Project under naturally varying flow conditions.

Recommendation 3 To remove sources of uncertainty in the salinity model, the Proponent should conduct new simulations to compare with the data based on the actual Fraser River discharge for the years in which the data were gathered. Also, modelled salinity changes due to the Project over the intertidal zone should be calculated for early spring, the seasonal period of greatest concern.

Recommendation 4 The Proponent should quantify the magnitude of the changes in salinity due to the Project based on simulations with the following river discharges: (i) average river discharge (i.e., a discharge based on the long-term mean), (ii) above average discharge (long-term plus one standard deviation) and (iii) below average discharge (long-term mean minus one standard deviations).

5.3 Avoidance Measures Efforts should be made to design projects and activities or adopt standards to prevent impacts from occurring. Avoidance measures may include: • Location of the project; • Design of the project; and

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 21

• Timing considerations.

The Proponent identifies avoidance measures as Project placement and design, use of least risk timing windows to protect fish, and incorporation of refuge habitat in the caisson face of the new terminal.

5.3.1 Project Design By locating the proposed terminal primarily in subtidal waters and minimizing the causeway expansion footprint in the high intertidal zone, the Proponent has endeavored to avoid a substantial area of direct effects to sensitive intertidal habitats. Additionally, the northwest corner of the terminal was designed to reduce the area of scour predicted landward of the terminal. The inclusion of refugia openings in the seaward face of the new terminal would provide hard substrate that could be colonized by invertebrate species and accessed by fish.

The Proponent’s decision to propose the terminal on a deeper, sub-tidal location instead of on inter-tidal areas closer to shore is the key mitigation measure in reducing the significance of adverse effect on fish habitats. A more shore-ward terminal location would have affected larger areas of more productive fish habitats.

5.3.2 Least Risk Timing windows Timing windows are general mitigation measures intended to provide in water work windows to minimize impacts on marine species. The complexity of species and sensitive life stages make these windows a challenge in the marine environment.

DFO recommends that proponents time work in or around water to respect identified timing windows to protect fish, including their eggs, juveniles, spawning adults and/or the organisms upon which they feed. Timing windows are one of many measures used to protect fish and fish habitat when carrying out a project near water.

DFO’s published timing window of least risk for the Roberts Bank Area is August 16 – February 28th. The Proponent identifies that to the extent feasible, it would conduct work, above -5m chart datum (CD), within this timeframe to protect juvenile salmon. However, it is uncertain if - 5m CD sufficiently aligns with maximum depths typical for migrating juvenile salmon. Additionally, to avoid impacts to female crab during egg brooding (during winter when the female crabs remain inactive, buried in bottom sediments, protecting and aerating their eggs), the Proponent identifies work at depths below -5m CD would be conducted from March 31 to October 15.

DFO agrees that the proposed timing for works based on the -5 m CD depth is a reasonable approach to minimizing impacts from in water work on these sensitive life stages (juvenile salmon and egg-brooding Dungeness Crab) at Roberts Bank. DFO notes that sensitive life phases for both salmon and Dungeness Crab would be present between March 1 to March 31. This should be considered in the development of construction and mitigation plans. Therefore, as timing of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 22

works does not avoid all risk for these sensitive life phases, DFO recommends additional mitigation measures, in addition to timing of work, should be considered in the Proponent’s construction mitigation plans in order to ensure harm or mortality is minimized as much as possible. The effectiveness of use of timing windows to avoid Project interactions with juvenile salmon and gravid female Dungeness Crab should be monitored during construction. Contingency measures should be identified if timing windows are found not be effective.

The Proponent acknowledges that some species with sensitive life periods outside these temporal windows may still be affected following implementation of this avoidance/mitigation measure. An overview of the timing of sensitive life periods of invertebrate and fish and potential interactions with Project activities is provided in the Proponent’s response to IR4-18 (CEAR document #1051). This is a useful reference that can be used in the planning of in water work in order to minimize risk of harm and mortality to fish and invertebrates. The Proponent’s response explains that the potential Project-related effects on sensitive life phases of species that may occur outside of the least risk windows are considered in the fish and invertebrates effects assessments.

Recommendation 5 Additional mitigation measures, in addition to timing of work, should be considered in the Proponent’s construction mitigation plans in order to ensure harm or mortality is minimized as much as possible.

Recommendation 6 The Proponent should monitor the effectiveness of use of timing windows to avoid Project interactions with juvenile salmon and gravid female Dungeness Crabs during Project construction. Contingency measures should be identified and employed if identified least risk timing windows are found to not be effective.

Recommendation 7 Detailed construction mitigation plans should be developed with consideration to sensitive life phases of fish and invertebrates that are not protected by the identified least risk timing windows.

5.4 Mitigation Measures When avoidance is not possible, impacts to fish and fish habitat should be mitigated through best available practices to reduce the extent, intensity and duration of impacts.

Mitigation measures include: • Locating physical disturbances where impacts are minimized; • Employing best practices that minimize harm • Undertaking measures to stabilize disturbed sites; and Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 23

• Timing certain activities.

An overview of plans that will be developed and implemented to mitigate effects from construction of the Project is provided in Section 33 of the EIS. The applicability of these plans to invertebrates and fish are identified in sections 12.7 and 13.7 of the EIS. The plans identified by the Proponent are the types of plans that are typically developed to guide mitigation of construction-related effects.

Discussion of mitigation of effects to fish and invertebrates from Project-related injury and direct mortality, changes in the acoustic environment, changes in water and sediment quality, changes in the light environment, and changes in habitat availability (i.e. offsetting), is provided below.

5.4.1 Mitigation for Injury and Direct Mortality The proposed conceptual Marine Species Salvage Plan includes removal of fish prior to infilling containment dykes, removal of crabs prior to all Project activities that have the potential to cause direct mortality of Dungeness Crab, and transplantation of a portion of Orange Sea Pen outside of terminal footprint.

Dungeness Crab salvage efforts are predicted by the Proponent to be effective for adult crabs with less efficacy for recently settled and early instar juvenile Dungeness Crab. DFO anticipates crab salvage would also be less effective for gravid female crabs that may not enter traps; soft shell crabs that could be injured with handling; and crabs that are too small to be entrained in traps. While fish and crab salvage would not mitigate all potential mortality, it is a feasible measure to reduce mortality during Project construction.

To minimize potential for re-entry of fish and crabs into areas prior to construction activities, salvage activities should occur immediately prior to construction works. This would be of less consequence in fully isolated areas provided isolation is effective for the full tidal cycle.

Orange Sea Pen transplant is proposed in order to reduce mortality within the terminal footprint. Feasibility of transplanting sea pens as a mitigation strategy is being examined by the Proponent in a pilot program and some results are available in the Orange Sea Pen Transplant Pilot and Monitoring Program Report (CEAR document #1145). This report noted stable densities and evidence of recruitment at two of the three transplant sites. The report also discusses factors which may influence the success of transplant such as environmental parameters and predation and describes the likelihood of success of future Orange Sea Pen transplants as moderate.

This transplant strategy is a novel approach to mitigate direct mortality of Orange Sea Pens from construction of the terminal. As such, there is uncertainty as to its effectiveness; however, given some positive results of the pilot study, Orange Sea Pen transplant appears to be a feasible mitigation strategy to reduce mortality of sea pens due to the proposed terminal placement.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 24

The Proponent notes that it would not be logistically feasible to transplant the entire sea pen aggregation out of the Project footprint. Monitoring success of sea pen transplant is proposed as a follow-up program element.

Recommendation 8 To maximize the effectiveness of fish and crab salvage mitigation, salvage should be conducted immediately prior to construction-related disturbance.

5.4.2 Mitigation for Changes in Acoustic Environment The proposed conceptual Underwater Noise Management Plan would include measures to reduce potential effects of pile driving and other construction activities on fish. Underwater noise mitigation during pile driving are standard practices and are generally successful at preventing injury and mortality to fish if best practices are followed and mitigation measures function as intended. Monitoring of underwater noise during pile driving activities is included in the conceptual Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan. Should monitoring reveal that mitigation measures are not effectively reducing underwater noise to levels that would prevent injury and mortality of fish, contingency measures should be identified and employed.

Recommendation 9 The Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan should detail contingency measures that would be employed should monitoring reveal that mitigation measures are not effectively reducing underwater noise to levels that would prevent injury and mortality of fish.

5.4.3 Mitigation for Changes in Water Quality and Sediment The Proponent identifies that detailed monitoring program requirements and mitigation measure options to reduce the introduction of sediment-laden water to the marine environment will be developed as outlined in the conceptual Construction Environmental Management Plan and supporting plans.

DFO notes that as per the 2014 Order Designating the Minister of the Environment as the Minister Responsible for the Administration and Enforcement of Subsections 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act, Environment and Climate Change Canada administers subsections 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibit deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish, unless authorized by regulations under the Fisheries Act or other federal legislation.

5.4.4 Mitigation for Changes in the Light Environment The proposed conceptual Light Management Plan would include measures to reduce light exposure to sensitive habitats. The Proponent indicates this plan will include orienting lights downward and away from marine areas; using shielding to minimize light trespass; controlling

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 25

light levels and limiting light use to areas where activities area occurring; and ensuring dredge lighting system shields light from spilling outside the basic working footprint of the dredge.

Minimizing artificial light intrusion to the marine environment is prudent given the uncertainty surrounding potential effects to behavior of fish and their predators. The proposed plan appears to consider all feasible ways to minimize light disturbance to fish during construction activities and terminal operation.

5.4.5 Mitigation for Changes in Habitat Availability (Offsetting) Following efforts to prevent (avoid) impacts and efforts to minimize (mitigate) impacts, any residual impacts to fish, invertebrates and their habitats should then be addressed by offsetting.

Offsetting refers to measures taken to counterbalance impacts to environmental values associated with development projects. The described purpose of the Proponent’s offsetting framework is to further reduce potential longer-term effects to productivity that remain after implementation of mitigation measures. The conceptual offsetting framework proposed consists of on-site habitat enhancements as mitigation for effects to fish and invertebrates.

The concepts presented for offsetting adverse effects to fish and fish habitat include: Intertidal marsh (5-10 ha), eelgrass transplants (up to 3 ha), rocky reef (up to 2 ha), sandy gravel beach (4.5-10 ha), and mudflat (4.5 ha in quiescent areas along widened causeway). These concepts are habitat enhancements involving the physical manipulation of existing habitat to improve habitat function and productivity. The proposed enhancement concepts would all increase the value of habitat to fish provided they are focused in areas of lower relative value to fish.

The creation of eelgrass, tidal marsh, and rocky reef offsets are commonly seen by DFO to offset project effects in the marine environment and DFO has observed many examples of successful construction of these habitat types. Mudflat and sandy gravel beach are not commonly proposed as offsets and as such there is greater uncertainty as to whether these habitats are likely to be successful. The benefit of constructing mudflat over existing habitats would not be as great as construction of more productive habitats such as eelgrass or marsh because mudflat is considered to be lower relative productivity than other inter-tidal marine habitats. Conceptually, DFO is supportive of the creation of sandy gravel beach to provide substrate for forage fish spawning. However, beaches with natural erosion processes supplying appropriate sized gravels are an optimal state for spawning Surf smelt and Sand Lance. Extant backshore vegetation and marine riparian zones maintain natural soil erosion rates, filter storm water, and overhanging shade increases the survivability of spawned embryos (de Graff 2017). The success of constructed sandy gravel beach adjacent to terminal infrastructure may be limited by the lack of natural erosion processes to supply sediments and lack of overhanging vegetation.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 26

Environmental conditions are an important consideration in the design and ultimate success of constructed habitats. For the VFPA’s Deltaport 3rd Berth Project, successful offsets included log removal and tidal channel restoration at Roberts Bank, refugia openings in the terminal caissons, subtidal reef, and offsite marsh creation and enhancement. Constructed enhancements along the east side of the existing Roberts Bank causeway did not function as intended. Five habitat types were constructed in 2010 along the east causeway, including marsh lagoons, marsh bench, sandy gravel beach, sand/silt beach and upland riparian. Compliance monitoring after 2010 indicated that the majority of the east causeway constructed habitats were underperforming due to erosion, and eelgrass wrack and woody debris accumulation. Following monitoring, the Proponent determined establishment of a forage fish spawning beach in this area would require annual maintenance and is unlikely to be feasible because the inter-causeway area is comprised of soft silt and fine sand and is not suitable for replenishing a coarse sand beach. To address the lack of performance of these constructed habitats, habitat remediation was undertaken by VFPA in 2017. Remediation included the modification of marsh lagoons and construction of new marshes. The VFPA will monitor these offsets and DFO expects to receive the first year monitoring report in fall 2019.

Generally a quantitative analysis is conducted to determine the extent to which proposed offsetting will counterbalance losses; this is usually referred to as equivalency analysis. For the Project, the Proponent uses biomass of 57 functional groups as an equivalency metric; these are then summed to a total biomass estimate. This is an unusual approach as most equivalency analyses focus on specific taxa or habitat feature of interest, chosen because of their relevance to conservation, cultural or harvest values. Total biomass will be dominated by primary producers, which may or may not be a useful surrogate for taxa or functional groups of greatest interest. Primary production and total biomass may be useful as food web indicators, but would not be a suitable metric for offsetting measures designed to provide other forms of ecological benefit such as habitat complexity.

DFO provides a more detailed technical review of the Proponent’s equivalency analysis in its response to DFO IR-17, DFO IR-18 (CEAR document #1057), and in analysis of the Proponent’s responses to IR7-26, IR7-30 and IR11-14 (CEAR document #1423). DFO comments regarding the Proponent’s offsetting equivalency analysis include: • The Proponent uses summed biomass of 57 EwE model functional groups for its offsetting equivalency analyses. However, given the complexity of the Roberts Bank ecosystem, it is likely that no single equivalency metric will be adequate. It may be better to focus on a few key metrics or functional groups, which include a range of trophic levels; using primary producers alone may not encompass all potential impacts. The use of a few equations such as the framework used by Minns (2007) may be helpful for the presentation of their results. In addition, a table that focusses solely on the offsetting benefits may be informative.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 27

• A key assumption that has not been addressed in the Proponent’s equivalency analysis is the use of the upper 0.02% of modelled biomass estimates of existing habitats as the prediction of the gain expected to result from offsetting. DFO previously identified that evidence is needed to support that the decision that the 99.8 percentile is used to define productivity of habitats, since there are other options, such as the use of mean productivity over space which may be more representative. In addition, use of the 99.8 percentile approach may overestimate the benefits of offsetting because it assumes that the productivity of the offsetting habitats will be similar to the most productive habitats of the same type. Justification for this approach should include reference to existing monitoring programs on similar offset habitats. This information has not been provided by the Proponent. • In modelling the potential impacts of the Project, the EwE modelling approach was only one line of investigation. It is recommended that more than one approach also be used to assess offsetting, for example estimating the production per functional group per habitat type as a simpler method.

In addition to the limitations of the method used to calculate predicted benefits of offsetting concepts, there is further uncertainty on whether the proposed offset concepts would counterbalance residual adverse effects of the Project on invertebrates, fish and their habitats. The areas of uncertainties are: • Use of the ecosystem model to predict effects of the Project resulted in some predicted benefits to productivity in the LAA; however, there is uncertainty as to whether these predicted benefits would be realized and the extent to which these benefits can be considered in the accounting of residual effects of the Project on fish, invertebrates and their habitats. • The ecosystem model’s instantaneous productivity snapshot of pre- and post- construction on either hard or soft-substrate types does not include oceanographic, sedimentation, and biochemical processes that may take time to develop. Potential disturbances during Project construction, and recognition of time lag responses after construction should be taken into account in the development of the offsetting plan. • The ecosystem model does not capture all potential impacts of the Project, notably construction related effects and effects related to expansion of the tug basin. Adverse effects associated with construction and tug basin expansion would need to be considered in the development of the offsetting plan and any supporting equivalency analysis. • Offsetting measures should be increased in order to manage uncertainty associated with the successful design and construction of the proposed offsets and uncertainty associated with the offset meeting desired outcomes. • All reasonable efforts should be taken to avoid time delays between the impacts and the functioning of the offsetting measures. When a time delay is unavoidable, the offset must make up for fisheries productivity that has been lost because of the delay. The Proponent

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 28

has proposed an approach that incorporates avoidance of productivity losses from time lags, minimizing productivity losses from time lags, and committed to quantify any remaining losses of fisheries productivity and provide additional offsetting for these losses (Proponent’s response to IR7-27; CEAR document #1360). Actual time lag between Project impacts and function of offsetting measures have not yet been identified. • The Proponent’s method of evaluating offsetting equivalency focusses on ecosystem productivity. The Proponent’s response to IR7-30 (CEAR document #1360) indicates that ‘it is anticipated that predicted shortfalls in some functional groups/focal species will be balanced through the surplus productivity and indirect productivity benefits in others.’ Given that there are predicted gains and losses at the species level, further discussion of spatial and species trade-offs would be necessary in the development of the offsetting plan. • Views of Indigenous groups should be considered in development of the final offsetting plan. DFO will consult with potentially affected First Nations prior to making a decision on issuance of any Fisheries Act authorization, which would include consideration of offsets.

Based on the Project information to date - including the large-scale destruction of fish habitat, the high degree of uncertainty in predictions of incidental benefits and the small-scale of proposed offset concepts – DFO’s view is that the goal of sustaining the ongoing productivity of fisheries will not be achieved. Either the scale of Project impacts should be reduced or the scale and scope of offsetting should be substantially increased. DFO recommends the Proponent reconsider Project design options in order to reduce impacts on fish and fish habitat or additional offsetting. Any opportunities to reduce the scale of impacts to fish and fish habitat will reduce the risk and uncertainty associated with an application for authorization under the Fisheries Act, and thereby reduce the offsetting measures required to achieve the policy goal.

Recommendation 10 In developing the final offsetting plan, the Proponent should use more than one approach to assess the benefits of offsetting.

Recommendation 11 Additional offsite opportunities within the Fraser River estuary to remediate, create, or enhance fish and invertebrate habitats should be included in the final offsetting plan.

Recommendation 12 The final offsetting plan should be developed in consultation with potentially affected Indigenous groups and DFO to be consistent with DFO’s offsetting policy.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 29

5.5 Characterization of Residual Effects to Fish and Invertebrates The following comments relate to the Proponent’s prediction of residual effects to marine fish and marine invertebrate representative species presented in section 12.8 of the Marine Invertebrates Effects Assessment and section 13.8 of the Marine Fish Effects Assessment (CEAR document #181).

5.5.1 Pacific salmon Potential effects of the Project on Pacific salmon include changes in productivity due to direct mortality during construction, changes in the acoustic environment, changes in the light environment, and changes in habitat availability and biotic interactions due to the Project footprint. The Proponent predicts that with mitigation and offsetting, residual effects of Project construction and operation on Pacific salmon are negligible.

The Proponent’s assessment of potential effects to Pacific salmon is focussed on Chinook and Chum Salmon. The selection of Chinook and Chum as representative species considered the social, economic, and cultural importance of these species; the dependence of these species on the estuary; conservation concerns around these species, and their importance as prey for the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale. The selection of Chinook and Chum Salmon to represent Pacific salmon in the environmental effects assessment appears reasonable.

Reduced prey availability is identified as a key threat to the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale. While the year-round diet of Resident Killer Whales is not well known, at certain times of the year salmon, particularly Chinook and Chum, are known to be important prey. Chinook Salmon is the predominant prey species taken by both Northern and Southern Resident communities during May-August, but Chum Salmon is more prevalent in September-October. The movement patterns of Resident Killer Whales are influenced by the availability of their preferred prey. During the summer and fall months, Resident Killer Whale distribution is associated spatially and temporally with the migratory routes of Chinook Salmon as this important prey species returns to natal streams to spawn (CEAR document #1374).

As a consequence of their anadromous life history, salmon are sensitive to changes in both the marine and freshwater ecosystems. Salmon are an ecologically important species supporting complex food webs in oceanic, estuarine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems. Each salmon stock is genetically adapted to the environment in which it resides, and exhibits unique characteristics such as life history, migration route, migration timing, and productivity.

The Fraser River is the most productive salmon river on Canada’s Pacific coast; however a number of Fraser River salmon populations have been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) which has determined that 12 populations of Chinook salmon, 15 populations of Sockeye Salmon, 1 population of Coho Salmon and 2 populations of Steelhead Trout are at risk. As requested in the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 letter to DFO,

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 30

information on British Columbia salmon stocks and their conservation status is provided in Appendix 1.

DFO comments on the Proponent’s assessment of effects to Pacific salmon in relation to availability of prey for Southern Resident Killer Whale is available in CEAR document #919. DFO’s evaluation of the Proponent’s response to IR11-14 related to the effects assessment for juvenile Chinook and Chum Salmon is available in CEAR document #1423. DFO’s main findings are presented below.

Project Construction and Operation The Proponent used the results of the Roberts Bank ecosystem model to inform its assessment of effects of potential Project-related changes in sedimentation and coastal processes, changes in habitat availability, and biotic interactions.

As discussed in section 5.2.4.2 above, the Roberts Bank ecosystem model is useful for evaluating integrated ecosystem productivity aspects, but is less appropriate for evaluating highly migratory functional groups such as juvenile salmon. However, the Proponent’s analyses of the impacts of the Project on the productivity of juvenile Chinook and Chum also used non-model sources. The Proponent concludes that all other mechanisms (injury and direct mortality; changes in the acoustic environment, water quality, sedimentation, light, and habitat availability) indicate minor losses, which contrast with the minor positive impacts forecast for juvenile Chinook and Chum Salmon by the ecosystem model. Their conclusion is therefore for a minor negative impact of the Project on the productivity of Chinook and Chum Salmon. This indicates the ecosystem model results for these groups did not play a major role in the final assessment by the Proponent. The Proponent’s conclusion of minor negative impacts of the Project on the productivity of Chinook and Chum Salmon prior to mitigation and offsetting is reasonable based on the data presented, independent of the outcome projected by the ecosystem model. However, there are also uncertainties associated with the non-model methods as discussed in section 5.2, mitigation measures as discussed in section 5.4 and conclusions. Further discussion is provided below.

Inferences are made about the losses of Pacific salmon in terms of numbers of adult fish in Section 16 of the EIS (CEAR document #181). These losses are derived from ecosystem model predictions in an effort to convert the projected changes in Pacific salmon productive potential “with” the Project into numbers of adult fish. The Proponent’s approach suggests that only a small fraction of adult fish are expected to be lost compared to average annual escapement data. The Proponent’s conclusion is that losses of adult salmon would be small and would remain within the range observed through natural variation. However, this conclusion cannot be substantiated because the comparison used is inappropriate. The ecosystem model results represent only a snapshot change in abundance at two theoretical time points and cannot be compared to annual estimates of abundance.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 31

The Proponent indicates that direct mortality related to entrainment during dredging and underwater noise during impact pile driving will be minimized through mitigation. A quantitative estimate direct mortality associated with Project construction is not available. However, the Proponent indicates that it anticipates little overlap between dredging activities and the temporal and spatial distribution of juvenile salmon in the affected area. Additionally, potential effects of underwater noise would be mitigated using standard best management practices. To reduce injury and direct mortality during juvenile migration of Chinook and Chum Salmon out of the Fraser River, mitigation in the form of a timing window has been incorporated into the construction schedule.

The Proponent identifies that construction of permanent dykes around terminal basins has a “high” potential effect rating, with the potential to disturb outmigration behavior of juvenile Pacific salmon, including shifts in predator/prey interactions, as a result of changes to habitat and changes to the light environment. Quantification of effects of terminal placement on outmigration behavior of juvenile salmon is not available. As such, the magnitude of permanent effects of the terminal on juvenile salmon migration is uncertain. To verify the Proponent’s assessment of effects of the Project on juvenile salmon migration, follow-up monitoring should include an assessment of the effect of terminal placement on juvenile salmonid distribution at Roberts Bank.

The Proponent concludes that positive indirect effects of the Project on juvenile salmon habitat and their prey, and proposed offsetting concepts would counterbalance potential effects on juvenile salmon migration, and the overall effects following mitigation and offsetting are predicted to be negligible. As noted above, there is uncertainty surrounding the magnitude of effects of terminal placement on juvenile salmon migration. Additionally, DFO notes that the conclusion of negligible effects to juvenile salmon relies on efficacy of mitigation measures to address direct mortality, acoustic effects and changes to the light environment. The conclusion further relies on the realization of predicted indirect benefits of the Project and offsetting.

The Project would result in loss of large areas of Fraser River estuary habitat and it is uncertain whether predicted incidental benefits and offsets would preserve fisheries productivity. Fraser River Chinook Salmon are very dependent on the estuary for a critical juvenile growth period before entering the ocean. Twelve populations of Fraser River Chinook Salmon have been determined to be at risk by COSEWIC – 7 Endangered, 4 Threatened and 1 Special Concern. Given the dependence of this species on estuary habitat, the Proponent may have underestimated the significance of effects on fish and fish habitat, specifically effects on Chinook Salmon.

Marine Shipping Pacific salmon was chosen as one of four subcomponents (other sub-components were intertidal habitat, Herring and shellfish) to assess the effects of marine shipping associated with the Project on marine fish and fish habitat. A modelling exercise was used to determine whether noise from Project-associated vessels could be expected to exceed published behavioural thresholds for Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 32

Pacific salmon. The effect of underwater noise was rated as negligible because noise associated with Project operation (i.e., vessel traffic) is not predicted to exceed injury thresholds for marine fish.

At present, the nature and extent of behavioural effects of underwater noise on marine fish are not well understood (Popper and Hastings 2009, Slabbekoorn et al. 2010, Halvorsen et al. 2011). Currently, no standard behavioural criteria or thresholds have been established in Canada or elsewhere, mainly due to a lack of scientific data on harmful exposures (Thomsen et al. 2006), especially on a species-by-species basis (Popper et al. 2014). While there are limitations to using a generalised guideline, in the absence of an accepted quantitative threshold, 90 dBht (Nedwell et al. 2007) was used in this assessment as an indicator threshold for potential behavioural effects resulting from underwater noise. The MSS report then concludes that vessel noise will not reach the behavioural avoidance threshold (i.e., 90 dBht) for Pacific salmon and therefore that effects of underwater noise are considered negligible. However, DFO notes that the uncertainty about the validity of this avoidance threshold for Pacific salmon should be acknowledged.

Recommendation 13 The follow-up monitoring program should be designed to verify the environmental effects predictions related to indirect effects of the Project of fish, invertebrates and their habitats including the predicted positive indirect effects on juvenile salmon habitat and prey.

Recommendation 14 The final offsetting plan should include habitats that support productivity of Pacific salmon and be developed in consultation with potentially affected Indigenous groups and DFO to be consistent with DFO’s offsetting policy.

Recommendation 15 To verify predictions of potential effects of terminal placement on the ability of juvenile salmon to access important feeding and rearing grounds in the inter-causeway area, follow up monitoring should include monitoring of distribution of juvenile salmon across Roberts Bank following terminal placement.

5.5.2 Pacific Herring Predicted residual effects of Project construction and operation to Pacific Herring following mitigation and offsetting include minor behavioural disturbance from underwater sound. Similarly, the MSS report identifies that sound levels from transiting vessels are expected to reach levels beyond which Herring initiate avoidance behaviour within the immediate vicinity (less than 20 m) of vessels. The Proponent describes this effect as negligible because, among other reasons, potential effects do not include injury or mortality and would be expected only for short durations within the immediate vicinity of a transiting vessel.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 33

As discussed in section 5.2.3 and 5.5.1 above, given that at present, the nature and extent of behavioural effects of underwater noise on marine fish are not well understood, uncertainty in this conclusion should be acknowledged.

DFO notes that in the Proponent’s response to IR5-25, it states citing several references, that the terminal area does not appear to be an important Herring spawning area. While the terminal site is not known to be an important spawning site for Herring, the terminal is in close proximity to a local Herring spawning population known as the Cherry Point stock. In addition, the Fraser River plume may be an important rearing habitat for Herring larvae and juveniles of the Cherry Point stock and other nearby Herring (NOAA 2006, Snauffer 2013). Herring eggs have frequently been collected in plankton samples in and around the Fraser River estuary suggesting nearby spawning (unpublished data, Linnea Flostrand pers. comm.).

Pacific Herring plays a critical, foundational role in the ecosystem and are a food source for a variety of important species, including seabirds and Chinook Salmon. Herring fisheries are also extremely important to BC First Nations, both commercially and as traditional food (DFO IFMP, 2017-2018).

Recommendation 16 Development of construction mitigation plans should consider the potential presence of spawning Herring during construction.

5.2.3 Eulachon Eulachon was not chosen as a representative species for assessment in the EIS. However, in response to IR5-15 (Table IR5-15-A1) the Proponent describes rationale for assessing effects of the Project on Eulachon using surf smelt and Pacific Herring as representative species. This rationale includes similarities in behavior of these species and predicted similarity of mechanisms affecting productivity. The Proponent assesses that surf smelt are more likely to interact with the Project due to higher local abundance and dependence on intertidal spawning habitats in the LAA. Pacific Herring have a high sensitivity to underwater noise and as such effects of underwater noise would be greater to Pacific Herring than Eulachon. The Proponent’s response notes how results of the effects assessment for forage fish were considered in relation to Eulachon. Potential effects are identified as minor, and mechanisms of effects include injury and direct mortality and changes in the acoustic and light environment. Mitigation measures proposed include the use of timing windows, an underwater noise management plan, and light management plan.

DFO notes that in relation to injury and direct mortality, the Proponent states that ‘eggs and larvae are not at risk of entrainment as Eulachon spawn beyond LAA boundaries and hatched larvae rear in the Strait of Georgia off the Gulf Islands’. This statement is not substantiated because although there is uncertainty as to the extent in time and space that Eulachon larvae and juveniles occur (and that of other fish species) in marine waters around the estuary (including

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 34

Roberts Bank and the Project area), the Project area is part of their estuarine and nearshore nursery grounds. Small mesh bottom trawl surveys conducted in January, February and March of 2018 in the waters of the Fraser River plume have confirmed sub-adult or adult Eulachon catches off the Fraser River delta. The survey observations are limited by boundaries imposed by the survey design (US border, high traffic areas, and sensitive habitat to bottom trawling) but Eulachon would also be expected to occur in waters near and around the Project (CEAR document #1289.

While the Proponent considers that Project related changes to habitat availability for Eulachon to be of less magnitude than for other forage fish (e.g. Pacific Sand Lance), given the importance of Eulachon to the food web and Indigenous groups, as well as their Endangered COSEWIC status, DFO recommends that development of construction mitigation plans should consider the potential presence of Eulachon during construction.

Eulachon have historically been and continue to be important to First Nations who harvest them for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Eulachon populations coast-wide have experienced a sharp downward trend with populations on some river systems becoming nearly extirpated or severely depleted. The Fraser River population has been at extremely low levels since the mid- 2000s. Fraser River Eulachon has been assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as Endangered.

Recommendation 17 Development of construction mitigation plans should consider the potential presence of Eulachon during construction.

5.5.4 Pacific Sand Lance The Proponent predicts that following mitigation and offsetting, there will be loss of suitable habitat for Pacific Sand Lance due to the Project footprint.

Sand Lance use suitable low silt (<1% by weight), high medium coarse (>60% by weight) sand substrates to bury in during the night during spring and summer (they lack a swim bladder and require light to forage in the water column between sunrise and sunset). These low silt medium coarse sand burying habitats become important energy-saving refugia. Sand Lance will leave sediments on bright moonlit, cloudless nights in spring/summer to resume foraging in the water column. Furthermore and more importantly, Sand Lance will remain buried in the surface sediments of suitable habitat (aestivation) for several months in late autumn and early winter. It is during this period of aestivation that gonads are developed whilst in the sand.

The full extent of sub-tidal burying habitat in and around the proposed Project footprint is unknown or not adequately assessed. Sediment grain size classes of 0.125-0.25mm, and 0.25- 5.0mm are potentially suitable as Sand Lance burying habitat in the Strait of Georgia and Haro

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 35

Strait, the presence of these size classes could be confirmed for the Roberts Bank area with more detailed acoustic backscatter mapping and sediment grain size analysis. Note that the visual absence of Sand Lance or lack of catch from an area does not equate to unsuitable habitat or non-use of habitat. The habitat assessment should be based on the sediment properties and other characteristics such as water depth.

Important Sand Lance foraging habitat has been identified on the seaward edge of Roberts Bank as identified through by-catch sampling from DFO juvenile salmon surface surveys. Given that the estimated seabed in the Strait of Georgia containing suitable burying habitat is patchy and uncommon (< 6-7%), any loss of potential local burying habitat or loss of the effective use of available habitat will have implications on Roberts Bank Sand Lance populations, and on the vertebrate predators that ultimately depend on them. The loss of nearby burying habitat or a loss of the use of available habitat may result in the absence of foraging schools adjacent to Roberts Bank, with subsequent implications to vertebrate predators feeding in the area (e.g., Chinook and Coho Salmon).

As discussed in section 5.2.2 above, permanent lighting over or adjacent to potential suitable Sand Lance burying habitat has the potential to result in Sand Lance avoidance of the sea bed. This activity would result in higher energy expenditure, higher predation rates, and no opportunity to develop gonads, leading to a negative impact on the Sand Lance population in the area.

Given the year round potential for Sand Lance to be present in suitable burying habitats and uncertainties surrounding the extent of suitable burying habitat in the LAA, development of the Dredging and Sediment Discharge Management plan should consider the potential for Sand Lance to be present in sediments during dredging activities.

Recommendation 18 For the protection of Sand Lance, terminal lighting should not result in lighting of 100 lux or greater near the sea bed.

Recommendation 19 The final Dredging and Sediment Discharge Management plan should include measures to reduce the potential direct mortality of Sand Lance during dredging activities.

5.5.4 Flatfish Predicted residual effects following mitigation and offsetting include loss of suitable habitat for flatfish due to Project footprint. Species chosen to represent flatfish in the environmental assessment are English Sole and Starry Flounder.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 36

Construction mitigation such as fish salvage would help to reduce negative impacts to flatfish. The Proponent indicates that no offset is feasible to mitigate the loss of suitable habitat for flatfish. Given this, further discussion of spatial and species trade-offs would be necessary in the development of the offsetting plan.

5.5.5 Bivalve Shellfish Predicted residual effects following mitigation and offsetting to bivalve shellfish are construction- related mortality; and, loss of habitat due to the Project footprint, changes in salinity, and reduction in suitable habitat shoreward of the terminal footprint. Bivalve shellfish identified by the Proponent in the Local Assessment Area are heart cockle, Pacific Littleneck Slam, Macoma spp., Pacific Oyster, and Bay Mussel. No bivalve harvesting currently occurs at Roberts Bank due to sanitary and biotoxin closures.

No mitigation is proposed for mortality of bivalves associated with Project construction. Proposed mitigation for loss of habitat includes the conceptual offsetting framework. Identified offsetting concepts include eelgrass, tidal marsh, mudflat, sandy gravel beach and subtidal rock reef, which would be expected to provide suitable habitat for bivalve shellfish; however, while proposed offsets may reduce productivity losses for bivalves, residual loss of productivity for bivalve shellfish is predicted. As it is not feasible to construct new subtidal sand habitat to replace lost subtidal sand habitat, further discussion of spatial and species trade-offs would be necessary in the development of the final offsetting plan.

5.5.6 Dungeness Crab Predicted residual effects to Dungeness Crab following mitigation and offsetting is attributed to loss of suitable habitat due to the Project footprint. Loss of suitable habitat for adult, juvenile and gravid female Dungeness Crab is predicted within the footprints of the terminal, causeway, berth pocket and tug basin.

Dungeness Crab occupy ecological niches in both marine and estuarine waters and are ecologically important as both prey and predator at all life stages. Dungeness Crab populations are sustained by larvae originating over a large geographical area. Crab populations and recruitment are generally controlled by marine environmental conditions and therefore naturally experience year-to-year fluctuations, but are generally cyclical over time with periods of higher abundance followed by periods of lower abundance.

During spring months, adult males and females generally move inshore into shallower water and then back into deeper water in late summer or early winter. Females are relatively inactive during the winter; they do not feed and remain buried in the bottom sediment for much of the time. Adult Dungeness Crabs inhabit substrates comprised of sand, mud or silt, and eelgrass beds. When incubating their eggs, females prefer sandy substrate. Sub-adults require near-shore

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 37

habitats as important foraging areas. Larvae often settle out in favourable inshore intertidal and subtidal habitats, which are often estuaries with freshwater input.

DFO identifies limitations of baseline information for the habitat use by juvenile and gravid female Dungeness Crab and Dungeness Crab biomass estimation in CEAR document #577 and CEAR document #1102. Key limitations of the assessment include a lack of information on whether gravid female crab exhibit site fidelity at the proposed terminal location and the exclusion of external factors, such as shifts in fishing, in biomass estimates used in the Roberts Bank ecosystem model.

The Proponent anticipates that injury and mortality would be effectively reduced through timing of construction activities and crab salvages. While crab salvage is a feasible measure to reduce crab mortality during Project construction, DFO does not anticipate that salvage would mitigate all potential mortality.

Offsetting concepts proposed include eelgrass and tidal marsh which would be expected to provide habitat for Dungeness Crab; however, whether to conceptual offsetting plan would offset loss of fisheries productivity resulting from the Project is highly uncertain. Further discussion on offsets requirements to balance the predicted productivity loss of Dungeness Crab would be necessary in development of the final offsetting plan.

Dungeness Crabs (Cancer magister) are the most important species of crab harvested in British Columbia and are exploited by Indigenous, commercial, and recreational fisheries coast wide. This is a valuable fishery and Roberts Bank is a major crab fishing area for Indigenous, commercial and recreational crab harvesters. Fisheries resources have particular importance to Indigenous communities and Dungeness Crab are harvested for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. The terminal footprint will result in an loss of crab fishing area and the proposed expansion of the navigation closure area may result in a loss of access to fishing opportunities. Potential impacts on access to this fishery resource by Indigenous groups should be addressed by the Proponent.

Recommendation 20 Potential impacts on access to the Dungeness Crab fishery resource by Indigenous groups should be addressed by the Proponent.

5.5.7 Orange Sea Pen Predicted residual effects to Orange Sea Pen following mitigation and offsetting are direct mortality associated with construction of the Project and loss of habitat due to the Project footprint. The primary function of Orange Sea Pen at Roberts Bank is likely structural habitat for fish and invertebrates as described in the Proponent’s response to IR5-07 (CEAR document #1145).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 38

As Orange Sea Pen are sessile animals direct mortality due to Project footprint is unavoidable. The Proponent proposes to transplant a small portion of Orange Sea Pen to mitigate some losses due to Project footprint. There is uncertainty of the effectiveness of sea pen transplantation; however, given some positive results of the Proponent’s pilot study, this could be a feasible strategy to mitigate direct mortality to a small portion of sea pens at Roberts Bank. To verify effectiveness of this mitigation measure, the Proponent proposes to conduct monitoring of Orange Sea Pen at transplant sites (EIS Appendix 33-A CEAR document #181; Proponent’s response to IR13-30 CEAR document #1331).

5.6 Fish and Fish Habitat Conclusions The Proponent concludes overall that residual effects of the Project on marine fish would be of low magnitude (measurable but within the range of natural variability of the population and will not affect population integrity) and limited to the LAA. For marine invertebrates, the overall conclusion is that residual effects of the Project on marine invertebrates would be of moderate magnitude (measurable change outside natural variability that may affect population integrity OR function, but not both) and limited to the LAA.

DFO cautions that these overall conclusions are generalized statements drawn using professional opinion of the authors of the EIS. Though the assessment provides consideration of temporary and permanent Project-related effects to many fish and invertebrate species, it does not provide an accounting of the range of natural variability of the assessed populations nor does it establish species specific thresholds of disturbance where integrity or function of fish and invertebrate populations would occur. The Proponent identifies in its response to IR5-11 that for most populations at Roberts Bank, quantitative information on the range of natural variability is not available.

The Project would result in loss of large areas of Fraser River estuary habitat and it is uncertain whether predicted incidental benefits and offsets would preserve fisheries productivity. Fraser River Chinook Salmon are very dependent on the estuary for a critical juvenile growth period before entering the ocean. Twelve populations of Fraser River Chinook Salmon has been determined to be at risk by COSEWIC – 7 Endangered, 4 Threatened and 1 Special Concern. Given the dependence of this species on estuary habitat, the Proponent may have underestimated the significance of effects on fish and fish habitat, specifically effects on Chinook Salmon.

6.0 MARINE MAMMALS

The Proponent assesses the potential Project-related effects and cumulative effects on marine mammals in Section 14.0 of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the potential effects of marine shipping associated with the Project in Section 8.2 of the Marine Shipping

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 39

Supplemental Report (MSS). Representative species were chosen for each of the marine mammals subcomponents as follows:

• Toothed whales – represented by Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs) • Baleen whales – represented by Humpback Whales • Seals and sea lions – represented by Steller Sea Lions

The Proponent’s selection of SRKWs, Humpback Whales and Steller Sea Lions as representative species for the major marine mammal subcomponents – toothed whales, baleen whales, and seals/sea lions – is reasonable (CEAR document #919).

The marine mammal Local Assessment Area (LAA) for the assessment is shown on Figure 14-1 and Figure 14-2 of the EIS and is based on the zone of audibility for all representative species from modelled underwater noise from Project construction and operation. The Regional Assessment Area (RAA) for SRKWs includes the Strait of Georgia and adjacent inshore US waters to the entrance to Puget Sound, as well as Juan de Fuca Strait. The RAA of the EIS for Humpback Whales and Steller Sea Lions has mostly the same boundaries but does not include Juan de Fuca Strait west of Victoria. The assessment of potential effects of marine shipping in the MSS report considers a larger geographic area that includes waters out to 12 nautical miles beyond the entrance to Juan de Fuca Strait. The boundaries for the various spatial assessment areas considered in the EIS and the MSS report are well reasoned and adequate (CEAR document #919).

Potential effects of Project construction and operation, and marine shipping associated with the Project are: hearing injury and acoustic disturbance; reduction in prey through habitat loss or reduced quality; increased contaminant uptake; and vessel strike.

The methods used to assess potential effects on marine mammals in the MSS report are generally the same as in the EIS. Most of the focus in the assessment is on Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs) and their Species at Risk Act (SARA) designated critical habitat. The primary pathway of potential significant effects of the Project is through increased underwater noise which could affect SRKWs by causing: acoustic injury; behavioural effects, including potential displacement or avoidance of a portion of habitat; and acoustic masking of communication calls or feeding echolocation. Potential effects of increased underwater noise is also assessed for North Pacific Humpback Whales and Steller Sea Lions. An evaluation of potential physical disturbance from vessel strikes is provided for SRKW, Humpback Whales, and Steller Sea Lions.

DFO’s Technical Review of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Impact Statement and Marine Shipping Supplemental Report: Effects on Marine Mammals (CEAR document #919) presents DFO’s initial views on the Proponent’s characterization of potential effects of Project construction and operation, and marine shipping associated with the Project on marine mammals. This report highlights uncertainty associated with some of the data and methods that

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 40

the Proponent uses to support its conclusions. Additional DFO comments on the marine mammal effects assessments are provided in CEAR document #988 and CEAR document #1289.

As previously stated, DFO is aware that VFPA submitted the reports: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Container Vessel Call Forecast Study (Mercator 2018; CEAR document #1362) and RBT2 Project Operational Scenario Underwater Noise Update (Jasco Applied Sciences; CEAR document #1363) in November of 2018. DFO has not reviewed or provided comments on these reports as they not include any updates to the assessment of effects on marine mammals.

DFO’s main comments on the assessment methods, proposed mitigation measures and residual effects to marine mammals associated with the acoustic environment and vessel strikes are provided below.

6.1 Acoustic Effects 6.1.1 Acoustic Effects Assessment Methods The assessments used estimates of underwater noise that were based on sound levels and propagation during construction and operation phases of the Project described in Section 9.8 of the EIS. Thresholds for acoustic injury followed established criteria used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and recommended by Southall et al. 2007. Noise level thresholds for behavioural disturbance were those used by NOAA. Rather than using this generic threshold for SRKW, the Proponent developed SRKW-specific behavioural disturbance thresholds and behavioural responses were scored based on severity scores described in Southall et al. 2007. From these estimates, the overall spatial and temporal magnitudes of behavioural disturbance responses were estimated. In addition, estimates were also developed for the spatial and temporal extent of potential acoustic masking by ship noise that may reduce the functionality of SRKW echolocation in foraging.

The cumulative number of low, medium and high severity behavioural disturbance responses and their cumulative durations were modelled for each individual SRKW. Also, the estimated duration of exposure to acoustic masking (aside from behavioural disturbance) was estimated for each individual SRKW (Appendix 14-B). These results were then used in a Population Consequence of Disturbance (PCoD) model, simplified to compensate for data gaps, which is intended to predict the long-term effects of repeated disturbance events on life functions and, ultimately, vital rates of the population (Appendix 14-C). The life function considered of primary importance to SRKWs is prey availability for foraging, as this has been shown to be related to survival and fecundity of this population. The model assumes that cumulative time that individuals experience behavioural disturbance and echolocation masking is equivalent to lost foraging time in the habitat.

Discussion of these methods, including limitations and uncertainties is provided below.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 41

6.1.1.2 Behavioural Response to Underwater Noise Many of the analyses and models to estimate impacts of underwater noise on SRKWs were suggested by independent specialists in the SRKW Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Of particular note is the development by the Proponent of killer whale-specific thresholds for behavioural disturbance due to exposure to underwater noise, rather than using the generic and somewhat obsolete threshold used by NOAA in the US. This resulted in estimates of severity for behavioural responses based on empirical data collected for resident killer whales in British Columbia and Washington State. Dose-response curves were developed for resident killer whales using data from three field studies: a shore-based theodolite study of Northern Resident Killer Whales (NRKWs); a digital acoustic datalogger study (D-Tag) of NRKWs; and, a passive acoustic study in the summer core SRKW habitat. This approach is superior to application of the generic 120 dB re 1µPa received level threshold used in past impact assessments.

The severity of killer whale behaviour responses are based on the Southall et al. 2007 severity scores that were developed by international marine mammal experts and are the best available. However, the scientific guidance presented in Southall et al. 2007 has significant limitations. Despite the limitations and caveats, and in the absence of substantive alternatives, these criteria have acquired status as the de facto standard by which to measure acoustic impacts (Tougaard et al. 2015). Given the Southern Resident Killer Whale population is endangered, and harm to an individual has a higher likelihood of population-level effects, the value of Southall’s behavioural response categories may be even more limited as they do not account for the context of a population that is already endangered. In a nutritionally stressed population such as the SRKW, additional loss of foraging opportunity or decreases in foraging success are detrimental to survival and recovery; this is not adequately captured by using a non-contextual application of a behavioural assessment of impacts. Updated information on assessing noise impacts suggests using a context specific analysis (Southall et al. 2019). A context-specific analysis of acoustic impacts on SRKW (Ellison et al. 2012) would be expected to provide a more accurate and appropriate representation of the potential impacts than the behavioural response analysis conducted by the Proponent. Further discussion is provided in DFO’s response to DFO IR-09 (CEAR document #988) and in DFO’s evaluation of the Proponent’s response to IR5-47 (CEAR document #1289).

Recommendation 21 A context-specific analysis of acoustic impacts on SRKW should be undertaken.

6.1.1.3 Acoustic Masking Acoustic masking of echolocation was estimated by a model presented in the Southern Resident Killer Whale Underwater Noise Exposure and Acoustic Masking Study (Appendix 14-B). This model appears well-developed, using the best information available as inputs, and its output seems reasonable. At the time of the model development, the importance of echolocation in SRKW foraging behaviour was not well established (i.e. how echolocation affects prey detection

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 42

and capture, the effective range of echolocation, or the vulnerability of echolocation to noise masking, etc.). The lack of detailed data on the use of echolocation by resident killer whales during foraging events complicates the assessment of how noise masking affects foraging efficiency. However, a 2019 study used echolocation buzzes and prey handling sounds from digital acoustic recording tags (DTags) deployed on Southern Resident Killer Whales to identify foraging events. The acoustic data and associated dive profiles obtained from foraging dives firmly established the importance of echolocation as a component of successful prey capture (Tennessen et al. 2019).

6.1.1.4 Population Consequence of Disturbance Model The PCoD model described in Appendix 14-C attempts to estimate the extent to which disturbance causes behavioural and physiological changes, and then, in turn, how these changes affect an individual’s health and subsequently vital rates (survival and fecundity). These estimated changes in vital rates are then used to model consequences at the population level. This modeling exercise involves numerous compounding assumptions and limitations such that any results have a high level of uncertainty and low confidence, and must be interpreted cautiously. With this is mind, the PCoD model developed by the Proponent predicted that no change in survival or reproductive rates of individual SRKW between existing conditions and cumulative future projected conditions. No change was therefore predicted by the model outputs to the relative growth rate or size of the population. A similar conclusion of no predicted effect resulted from the PCoD model regarding cumulative impacts on SRKW critical habitat.

The PCoD model was parameterized using estimates of SRKW density, predictive models of underwater noise, SRKW-specific behavioural underwater noise thresholds, and an underwater noise masking model (Appendix 14-B). There are considerable assumptions and uncertainties associated with each of these estimates, which could be compounded in the model. For example, dose-response curves to estimate the relationship between received noise levels and behavioural disturbance may be reasonable approximations, but they may be highly context specific and confidence limits may be much wider than predicted. In particular, it is unclear that the relationship between dose-response effects and their impact on foraging behaviour is linear.

The conclusion from the model –– that individual SRKW’s ability to forage in critical habitat when needed will not be adversely affected and that there will not be population-level effects on SRKWs–– has a high level of uncertainty because of significant limitations, assumptions and caveats associated with model parameters. Chief among these is that the assumed linkage between vital rates and behavioural disturbance responses and acoustic masking effects, is highly tenuous and uncertain. The following lists some of these limitations, assumptions and uncertainties: • Key linkages used in conventional PCoD models are unavailable for SRKWs due to a lack of data. These include the links between prey abundance and foraging success and profitability, between prey intake and body condition, and between body condition and Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 43

mortality and calving rates. As a result, a ‘stripped-down’ PCoD-Lite model was used, which bypasses the linkages between nutrition and physiological change or health, and assumes that changes in foraging time result directly in changes in vital rates. This linkage is subject to many uncertainties. • The SRKW population is very small (~ 75 animals) and changes in survival and fecundity due to demographic stochasticity and other variables not included in the model may have a strong influence on abundance and trends. Population growth projections resulting in the PCoD model thus should be viewed with caution. • The model assumes a diet of 100% Chinook Salmon. Although Chinook Salmon is the primary prey of SRKWs in their summer core area, other species can be important at other times of the year and in portions of their range where diet studies have not been conducted. • Echolocation is an important component of successful prey capture for SRKWs. However, there remains significant uncertainty about how echolocation and foraging efficiency may be affected by noise masking. • Chinook Salmon availability varies widely from year to year, so the impact of potentially reduced foraging time or efficiency due to disturbance or masking on energetics (foraging profitability) and thus mortality and fecundity in the area is likely similarly variable. • The PCoD model was parameterized with estimates that were limited to the Local Study Area and Focused Modelling Area for SRKWs (EIS Figure 14-1; CEAR document #161), which does not include the Extended Region described in the Marine Shipping Supplement (MSS report Figure 8.2-5; CEAR document #316). This larger area includes important foraging areas for SRKW in western Juan de Fuca Strait (currently SRKW critical habitat), and on and near Swiftsure Bank, which has recently been identified as additional critical habitat for SRKWs (DFO 2018). Shipping lanes associated with this proposed Project overlap this area, and noise related impacts in this area have not been taken into account. • Inputs into the model do not include existing or future noise effects of small vessel traffic, including whale watching boats.

6.1.2 Mitigation of Acoustic Effects 6.1.2.1 Project Construction The construction mitigation techniques for underwater noise proposed are 1) the use of gradual start-up of noise production activity, 2) make sure all equipment is properly maintained, 3) make use of bubble curtain while pile driving, 4) the establishment and monitoring of buffer distances by trained marine mammal observers (who will coordinate with existing whale sighting networks to receive advance warning or SRKW approaching) resulting in shutdown of relevant activities when marine mammals enter prescribed buffer zones, and 5) during periods of darkness and fog, make use of hydrophones to monitor for marine mammals, which would result in shutdown of activities when marine mammals are detected within prescribed buffer zones. The noise

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 44

mitigation measures proposed for the Project terminal construction area are standard approaches and are appropriate. However, DFO notes that no mitigation measures are proposed for SRKWs that enter the area at night or during fog but are not vocalizing and are thus not detected acoustically (CEAR document #919).

There is uncertainty regarding the Proponent’s statement that there is a 97% probability that SRKW travelling at night or in fog would be detected acoustically by hydrophones and that SRKW will show up less frequently at night (36% of detections). The 97% probability is based on very limited amounts of data in a highly variable setting, thus confidence in this statement is low since there are other possibilities for lower detection, such as they may be less vocal during some or all of these periods. To improve confidence in marine mammal detection, alternate technologies are being developed and tested to assess detection effectiveness of marine mammals at night or in fog. These technologies, which include radar, active sonar systems, and infrared camera systems, are still in their infancy and require further testing and validation before they can be implemented as a reliable marine detection tool.

Recommendation 22 No noise generating activities should be conducted at night or during fog unless alternate technologies are proven effective and can be implemented to improve detection of SRKW during these activities.

6.1.2.2 Project Operation The VFPA, through its Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) program has been proactive in its approach to develop measures to reduce the underwater noise from vessels using its facilities. Quieter vessel design and construction are a key piece to the longer-term reduction of underwater noise from vessel traffic. However, VFPA also identifies that, there are jurisdictional limitations to the level of influence it can have on reduction of underwater noise and, this is, as stated, outside the Proponent’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the VFPA has come up with financial incentives for ships using their facilities as a means of encouraging reduced noise from commercial ships.

The 2017 Haro Strait slowdown trial, instigated by the ECHO program, indicated that reducing vessel speeds is an effective way of reducing the underwater noise generated at the vessel source, as well as reducing total underwater noise in nearby habitats, which may in turn benefit the behaviour and foraging success of SRKW (Haro Strait slowdown trial, CEAR document #1330). In 2018, a lateral displacement trial was undertaken in Juan de Fuca Strait, where vessels were displaced laterally within the shipping lanes as much as possible away from probable SRKW foraging areas. These mitigation options should be considered within the context of the overall Project noise generated (i.e., what is the increased noise contribution from the RBT2 traffic? What is the expected efficacy of the mitigation measures in reducing the generated noise? What

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 45

are the residual noise levels, if any? What are the spatial/temporal implications of this residual noise?).

The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report: Evaluation of the Scientific Evidence to Inform the Probability of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures in Reducing Shipping- Related Noise Levels Received by Southern Resident Killer Whales was provided (CEAR document #1068) . Vessel traffic is the largest source of underwater noise in the SRKW critical habitat, this review considered mitigation measures that could apply to commercial ships. This report identifies that operation-based mitigation measures that show the most potential for improving the acoustic environment include reducing ship speed, time restrictions and convoying. Other measures that may have location- or spectral frequency-specific benefits include rerouting traffic and displacing traffic lanes. It is important to note that operation-based measures may have associated side-effects (e.g., redistributing noise into other habitats, or increasing duration of noise). While the report considers mitigation measures that could apply to commercial ships in terms of their effectiveness at reducing underwater noise, it did not take into account feasibility in terms of navigational safety or other operational considerations.

The most effective solution to improve the acoustic environment for SRKW will likely be a combination of mitigation measures. Various recommendations were developed on how to increase the probability of effectiveness of the assessed mitigation measures in reducing shipping-related noise levels received by SRKW. It was recommended that any implemented measure should incorporate monitoring to assess the efficacy, and be applied through an adaptive management approach to iteratively improve the outcome. The potential benefits of the mitigation measures will depend on how the noise affects the whale’s life functions (echolocation, feeding, communication, behaviour, etc.); therefore, the selection of local operation-based mitigation measures should consider the current knowledge of the presence and behaviour of SRKWs. To make effective mitigation decisions, further research is needed and currently underway on the presence and behaviour of whales as well as the impacts of noise on SRKWs and their prey. To assist in studying the impacts of noise on SRKW, this report recommends that modelling studies be undertaken to assess the efficacy of the potential mitigation measures using noise metrics (broadband level noise, communication masking noise, and echolocation masking noise).

Further evaluation by DFO of mitigation measures to reduce the impact of vessel noise on SRKW is available in the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Response: Technical Review: Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts From Project-Related Marine Vessels on Southern Resident Killer Whales. This report is provided in Appendix 2.

Recommendation 23 Continued evaluation of mitigation options such as vessel slow down and lateral displacement within the context of the overall Project-related vessel noise is required to determine the effectiveness of these as mitigation measures. Modelling studies would be needed to assess Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 46

the efficacy of the potential mitigation measures using noise metrics (broadband level noise, communication masking noise, and echolocation masking noise.

6.1.3 Southern Resident Killer Whale - Acoustic Effects The conclusion in Section 14.9 of the EIS regarding Project construction and operation within VFPA jurisdiction is that “residual adverse acoustic disturbance to SRKWs from the Project is expected to be not significant” is given a moderate level of confidence by the Proponent. However, a low confidence level is more appropriate for the reasons described in section 6.1.1.4 above.

Similar to the findings of the EIS, in section 8.2.8 and 8.2.9 of the MSS report, the Proponent concludes that the effects of marine shipping associated with the Project on SRKWs due to incremental increases in behavioural responses and acoustic masking are not predicted to differ substantially from existing conditions.

The EIS demonstrates that under existing conditions, shipping noise is already causing a reduction in foraging opportunities for SRKW’s and further reductions are anticipated under future operational conditions. In Sections 14.10 and 14.11 of the EIS and Sections 8.2.9 and 8.2.10 of the MSS report the Proponent appropriately recognizes that it is reasonable to assume that cumulative effects of acoustic disturbance to SRKWs from Project construction and operation, in combination with past projects and activities, will remain significant. The Proponent also states that the Project will not contribute to a significant cumulative effect of acoustic disturbance on individual SRKW survival and fecundity or on population growth rate over existing conditions. This finding is based on the results of the PCoD model which, as described above and in CEAR document #919, has multiple compounding uncertainties, assumptions and data gaps in key input parameters that limit its predictive value. Results of this modelling exercise have a high level of uncertainty and low confidence, and must be interpreted cautiously. Regardless, the Proponent’s conclusion of likely and significant residual cumulative effects from the Project over and above existing conditions with a high level of confidence is appropriate.

6.1.4 Humpback Whale - Acoustic Effects In section 14.6.3 of the EIS, the Proponent identifies that potential effects of Project construction and operation activities on North Pacific Humpback Whales include acoustic injury and disruption of behaviours due to changes in the acoustic environment from underwater noise. The Proponent concludes that this effect would be of low magnitude (a measurable change, but within the range of natural variability that will not affect population recovery or viability). Additionally the Proponent concludes that given the low use of the LAA (EIS Figure 14-2) by Humpback Whales, residual effects from the Project are considered unlikely. In section 14.10 of the EIS, the Proponent proposes that residual cumulative effects to marine Humpback Whales pertaining to behavioural effects or acoustic making is also low. In response to IR5-53 the Proponent provided further rationale for this criteria rating.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 47

The Proponent’s justification of a low magnitude effects rating in the Project LAA and RAA is plausible and well supported by the EIS. The conclusion that effects on Humpback Whales are expected to be short-term and reversible with no long-term population consequences, and the assigned high confidence level in this conclusion are reasonable for the Project LAA and RAA areas. Further discussion of assessment criteria is provided in CEAR document #919 and in DFO’s evaluation of the Proponent’s response to IR5-53 (CEAR document #1289).

For the broader assessment area identified in the MSS report, the Proponent proposes a criteria rating of moderate for magnitude of behavioural and acoustic masking effects from marine shipping associated with the Project. The stated reasons include overlap of the marine shipping LAA with a small portion of areas of high use, and underwater noise from marine shipping associated with the Project will exceed behavioural effect thresholds within portions of the LAA. The Proponent predicts incremental increases in behavioural responses over existing conditions are unlikely to affect Humpback Whale life functions, critical habitat features, population viability, or recovery.

A discussion of the potential for acoustic masking to directly affect the ability of Humpback Whales to forage is provided in DFO’s response to DFO IR-06 (CEAR document #988). Given the evidence that sound may be important to foraging Humpback Whales (either via passive detection of prey, possible biosonar, and/or cooperative feeding calls), and that Humpback Whales show considerable site fidelity to specific feeding grounds (CEAR document #919), acoustic masking could have an effect on the ability of individuals to successfully obtain prey, although the potential impacts cannot be quantified at this time.

6.1.5 Steller Sea Lion - Acoustic Effects The proposed criteria rating of low in relation to magnitude of effects of underwater noise on Stellar Sea Lions is appropriate. As the Proponent point out, Stellar Sea Lions are uncommon in the LAA of the EIS (EIS Section 14.5.3.3) and underwater noise levels in both the LAA and the RAA are already elevated an not expected to change significantly as a result of the Project. Populations of Stellar Sea Lions are presently increasing under current conditions of underwater noise. Behavioural responses to shipping noise for Steller Sea Lions specifically and pinnipeds in general are poorly understood. However, it is surmised that behavioural shifts are likely subtle (Costa et al. 2003). Steller Sea Lions are expected to habituate to some extent to cumulative underwater noise levels due to marine shipping. This is based on observations of continued use of areas that experience regular disturbance. Further discussion of assessment criteria is provided in CEAR document #919 and in DFO’s evaluation of the Proponent’s response to IR5-53 (CEAR document #1289).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 48

The Proponent’s conclusion that effects on Stellar Sea Lions are expected to be short-term and reversible with no long-term population consequences, and the assigned high confidence level in the conclusion are reasonable for the RAA and LAA Areas.

6.2 Vessel Strikes 6.2.1 Vessel Strike Assessment Methods In its evaluation of strike risk associated with Project-related vessels, the Proponent cites a quantitative analysis conducted by Stantec (2015) and indicates that this analysis provides a reasonable estimation of the potential vessel-whale encounter risk and a proxy for strike risk for Project-related vessels. Stantec (2015) is not a suitable information source for predicting the impact of vessel strikes arising from marine shipping associated with the RBT2 Project, as it examined only tanker traffic, a considerably slower class of vessel (~12 knots) than the anticipated container ship traffic associated with the RBT2 Project (DFO 2017). Given the higher speeds of container-class vessels (≥20 knots), whales are less likely to be able to avoid these ships, and any collision would very likely be lethal for the animal (≥90%; Conn and Silber 2013).

Additionally, the Humpback Whale density data from Best and Halpin (2009) used by Stantec (2015) to assess strike risk are now more than a decade out-of-date. Best and Halpin (2009) surveyed the Salish Sea and Juan de Fuca Strait in 2004, and no Humpback Whales were detected in the region during this survey. The spatial density model produced subsequently predicted very low Humpback Whale densities throughout the Salish Sea, and did not assess US waters. Recent sightings data show that Humpback Whales use Juan de Fuca Strait and the Salish Sea (including the area affected by the Project) at considerably higher rates than predicted by Best and Halpin (2009) from their survey in 2004. To quantify the likelihood of strikes (lethal and non-lethal) resulting from Project-related vessels with any degree of confidence, a current, effort-corrected spatial model of Humpback Whale densities throughout the area affects by Project-related vessels (including US waters) would be required.

Recommendation 24 Ship strike likelihood (lethal and non-lethal) based on updated and effort-corrected information on Humpback Whale density in the area affected by Project-related vessels should be evaluated.

6.2.2 Mitigation - Vessel Strikes Marine mammal awareness pamphlets, including the “Marine Mammals of the Roberts Bank Area”, the “Mariner’s Guide to Whales, Dolphins, Porpoises of Western Canada” and the “VFPA Port Information Guide” are proposed as mitigation for potential vessel strike risk for cetaceans.

As outlined by the Proponent, the material provided to mariners for educational purposes should assist in the detection and identification of marine mammals and their respective habitats and raises overall awareness of their presence and how to mitigate ship collisions between cetaceans

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 49

and commercial vessels. The provided material contains general information on how to mitigate ship strike risk, e.g. by slowing down when whales are spotted or when travelling at night. Specific guidance could be added to the existing material for pilots, vessel operators and crew on how to spot Humpback Whales that are feeding in the area.

The Proponent states that no specific mitigation information on how to prevent a ship strike with Humpback Whales is provided because a) mitigating the collision risk outside the area of the proposed terminal is not under the jurisdiction of the VFPA and b) a ship strike on these whales is unlikely in waters near the proposed terminal due to low speed of vessels. This assertion is reasonable, however, the low speed of vessels does not completely prevent a potential ship strike with a Humpback Whale as has been shown by recent incidents where Humpback Whales surfaced near slow moving or almost stationary vessels.

Recommendation 25 Further measures to reduce ship collision risk, such as reduction in vessel speeds, should be evaluated for possible implementation.

6.2.3 Southern Resident Killer Whale - Effects of Vessel Strike In Section 8.2.2 of the MSS report, the Proponent proposes that the criteria rating for the magnitude of effect of vessel strikes on SRKW is low. The stated reasons for this low rating are that injury or mortality due to vessel strikes from incremental marine shipping associated with the Project is considered unlikely due to small number of vessel movements and the agile nature of SRKW (MSS Section 8.2.2). The EIS similarly concludes that the vessel strike by a Project- related container ship, tug or support vessel, within VFPA jurisdiction is unlikely (EIS Section 14.6.2.2). Further, the Proponent states that physical disturbance is not expected to affect the survival of an individual or population viability. (MSS Section 8.2.8.2)

The assumption made by the Proponent of a low likelihood of a collision risk increase is reasonable based on the projected small increase in vessel traffic associated with the Project. The likelihood of a risk increase, however, is higher when cumulative increase of ship traffic due to other planned projects is considered.

The Proponent’s conclusion that high agility of SRKW results in low ship collision risk is not supported given that pathology reports mention blunt force trauma as the most probable cause of death of two individual SRKW, L112 in 2014 and J34 in 2016. These injuries were considered the result of potentially fatal ship strikes in a review of recovery actions performed in 2017. This information was not considered by the Proponent in their conclusion that there is a low threat from vessel strikes on individuals and population viability. With inclusion of this new information and with consideration for the low numbers of breeding SRKW, breeding population ranged from 12-53 over the past 40 years (Ford et al. 2017), and currently lies around 26 with only two males J1 and L41 identified as fathers of more than half of the calves born since 1990 (NWFS 2018), ship collision risk should be considered a threat to population viability. Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 50

Table 8.2-10 of the MSS report defines high magnitude in relation to vessel strikes as ‘effects are lethal or affect population viability or recovery…..’. While the likelihood of a collision between a Project-related ship and a SRKW may be low, the magnitude of physical disturbance from vessel strikes on SRKW could be lethal and affect population viability or recovery. DFO suggests that the characterization of magnitude of effects of vessel strikes on SRKW be revised to ‘High’.

Ship collision risk should be mitigated as a precaution in recognition of the risk that vessel strikes have on population viability (see recommendation 25).

6.2.4 Humpback Whale – Effects of Vessel Strikes The Proponent states that residual effects from vessel strikes on Humpback Whales within VFPA jurisdiction are unlikely due to low occurrence and slow speeds of transiting vessels in waters under VFPA jurisdiction (EIS section 14.6.3). This statement is reasonable given the number of whales documented in that area in previous studies, and ship strike risk will likely not become an important factor as a population threat given that the Regional Assessment Area (RAA) comprises a small portion of Humpback Whale habitat in BC waters. However, the low speed of vessels does not completely prevent a potential ship strike with a Humpback Whale as has been shown by recent incidents where Humpback Whales surfaced near slow moving or almost stationary vessels. Moreover, Humpback Whale numbers in the RAA are increasing and effects of collision risk should be monitored across the RAA.

In the assessment of marine shipping associated with the Project across a larger geographic region (Section 8.2.2 of the MSS report) the Proponent proposes that the magnitude of effect of physical disturbance from vessel strike on Humpback Whale is moderate. The rationale provided is that the effect could range from minor injuries that do not affect the survival of an individual to severe injuries resulting in mortality to an individual, but not affecting population recovery or viability.

A recent study by DFO assessing ship strike risk off the west coast of Vancouver Island indicated that the western portion of Juan de Fuca Strait and its approaches (e.g., Swiftsure Bank) are amongst the highest risk regions (95th percentile) for lethal strikes to Humpback Whales in this area of BC (CEAR document #1102). The average relative risk of a lethal collision between a ship and a Humpback Whale within these highest risk regions represents a 35.2-fold increase compared to other locations in the modelled study area off western Vancouver Island.

For the reasons discussed in section 6.2.1 above, assignment of magnitude criteria ratings in Table 8.2-12 and 8.2-17 of the MSS report should not rely on data and analysis from Stantec (2015) and Best and Halpin (2009). The criteria ratings assigned by the Proponent for Humpback Whales in Tables 8.2-12 and 8.2-17 of the MSS report are not appropriate. The rating for magnitude should be adjusted to “High” because of the high likelihood of lethal strikes from Project related vessels, due to their high speed when not near the proposed terminal. A rating of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 51

“High” would be appropriate based on the definitions in Table 8.2-10 “effects are lethal or affect population viability or recovery”. Furthermore the rationale for the magnitude criteria ratings should emphasize that the likelihood of severe or fatal injuries to Humpback Whales is far higher (given the transiting speeds of container-class vessels) than that of minor injuries (i.e., those that do not impact individual survival), should a strike occur. The frequency criteria rating of “Infrequent/seasonal” is appropriate, within the constraints to the ratings available in Table 8.2- 10, and since Humpback Whales are primarily present in the Juan de Fuca Strait and the area affected by the Project from August-October. However, Humpback Whales have also been sighted in this region in all other months of the year, (Mark Malleson, pers. comm. 2017; BCCSN 2017). While it is unlikely that strikes arising from the Project-related vessels alone would affect the long-term recovery or population viability of Humpback Whales in BC, there is insufficient knowledge of this species’ current abundance, distribution and stock structure within the affected region to conduct a quantitative assessment of strike risk with which to estimate the population effect in this region. Although the number of Humpback Whale mortalities expected from Project-related vessel strikes is unknown, such mortalities, in addition to those from existing sources (strikes by other vessels, entanglements, and other threats), which are also not quantified, may contribute to cumulative effects to the species.

Ship collision risk should be mitigated as a precaution in recognition of the uncertainty regarding the breeding stock of individual Humpback Whales occurring in the EIS and MSS report RAA’s (see recommendation 25).

6.2.5 Steller Sea Lion – Effects of Vessel Strike The Proponent concludes that injury or mortality from vessel strikes by incremental marine shipping associated with the Project is considered unlikely due to small number of vessel movements and the agile nature of Stellar Sea Lion. Further, physical disturbance is not expected to affect the survival of an individual or a population viability. No data on ship strikes of Steller Sea Lions is available; however, the Proponent’s conclusion that ships pose a very low risk of causing injury or mortality to Steller Sea Lions through collision is reasonable.

6.3 Effects to SRKW Critical Habitat Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat encompasses a broad area as shown in figure 2 below and includes Roberts Bank. The proposed Project (terminal and shipping lanes) is located within the SRKW critical habitat..

SARA defines habitat for aquatic species at risk as “… spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced” [s. 2(1)]. Critical habitat is defined in SARA (2002) section 2(1) as “…the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 52

that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.”

Critical habitat is identified for both Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales in the Recovery Strategy for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (2018) (CEAR document #1374). Critical habitat includes the transboundary waters in southern British Columbia, including the southern Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and Juan de Fuca Strait, as well as waters on the continental shelf off southwestern Vancouver Island, including Swiftsure and La Perouse Banks .

In 2018 amendments were made to the recovery strategy that provide clarification of the features, functions, and attributes for all Resident Killer Whale critical habitat. Functions of SRKW habitat include feeding and foraging, reproduction, socializing and resting. Features include: availability of Chinook Salmon, Chum Salmon, and other important prey species; acoustic environment; water quality; and physical space. Attributes of each SRKW critical habitat features are further identified in Table 4 of the recovery strategy (CEAR document #1374). Critical habitat protection is conferred to identified critical habitat for SRKW by critical habitat orders under subsection 58(4) and (5) of SARA, which trigger the prohibition against the destruction of any part of the species’ critical habitat in subsection 58(1) of SARA. The orders afford the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment the tool needed to ensure that the critical habitat of the SRKW is legally protected and enhance the protection already afforded to SRKW habitat under existing legislation to support efforts toward recovery of the species.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 53

Figure 2: The critical habitat areas for Southern Resident Killer Whale

6.3.1 Project Construction and Operation The Proponent concludes in Section 14.9 of the EIS that features of SRKW critical habitat, including the acoustic environment and availability of prey, will not be affected by the Project (Project footprint and Project operation within VFPA jurisdiction), and as such critical habitat destruction will not take place. However, the Proponent states (Section 14.1.1.1) that destruction of critical habitat has occurred “if part of the critical habitat is degraded, either permanently or temporarily, such that its biophysical features would not be available when needed by SRKWs for foraging, mating, resting, or socializing”.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 54

Habitats that are important for the survival or recovery of SRKW are those that provide for profitable foraging on key prey species (e.g. Chinook and Chum Salmon), including the acoustic and physical space required to successfully pursue and capture prey. In determining critical habitat, biophysical components are described in terms of function, features and attributes. The key SRKW feature which construction of the Project has the potential of impacting consists feeding and foraging. The associated features of this function consist of availability of key prey species including Chinook and Chum Salmon and impacts to the acoustic environment. The attributes associated with these features includes ensuring sufficient quality and diversity of salmon to provide for profitable foraging and reducing anthropogenic noise levels so that it does not impede echolocation by SRKW to feed on salmon.

In May 2018 the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change undertook an Imminent Threat Assessment for SRKW which concluded that the remaining population is facing an imminent threat to their survival and recovery (Appendix 3). The Ministers found that the SRKW is facing threats, which are considered imminent in the sense that intervention is required to allow for survival and eventual recovery.

Based on the imminent threat to their survival and recovery, declining small populations and cumulative impacts to SRKW critical habitat, it is DFO’s opinion that construction and footprint related impacts associated with the Project will likely require issuance of a Species at Risk Act (SARA) compliant Fisheries Act Authorization for the destruction of SRKW critical habitat. Prior to issuing a permit, SARA requires that the Minister be of the opinion that S.73(3) preconditions be met including that the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of SRKW. Based on the information available, DFO is uncertain that the S.73(3) preconditions can be met for the Project.

The Proponent acknowledges that the terminal and dredged berth pocket lie within SRKW critical habitat though occupy only a small portion when compared to the overall defined critical habitat for SRKW (i.e. 179.9 ha out of a total SRKW critical habitat (critical habitat order 2009) of 247,844 ha, corresponding to 0.07% of the 2009 Critical Habitat Order area and 0.02% of all US and Canadian trans-boundary critical habitat). This statement is appropriate for physical disturbance; however, this is a very limited interpretation when it comes to the acoustical disturbance associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project.

From analysis of SRKW sighting data, the effort-corrected density of SRKW in summer shows that there are areas where these animals spend a disproportionately greater percentage of their time and the Project site is included in these areas (e.g. Figure 14-4 in EIS Vol. 3). It might therefore be more appropriate to scale the area based on SRKW use, which would increase the critical habitat area being affected by the Project. Model noise maps, such as in Figure 9.8-4 (EIS Vol. 3) could be used to estimate the areas that will be, at least temporarily, degraded by acoustic disturbance during both construction and operation phases of the Project.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 55

Recommendation 26 To estimate the effects of acoustic disturbance to SRKW critical habitat associated with construction and operation of the Project, areas of high SRKW use and model noise maps should be used to estimate the area that will be, at least temporarily, degraded by acoustic disturbance during construction and operation of the Project.

6.3.2 Marine Shipping associated with the Project The Proponent’s conclusion is that individual SRKW’s ability to forage in critical habitat when needed will not be adversely affected by Project-related increases in marine shipping and that there will not be population-level effects on SRKWs. This conclusion has a high level of uncertainty because of significant limitations, assumptions and caveats associated with modelled parameters (CEAR document #919).

As the Proponent notes, SRKWs are almost certainly experiencing detrimental effects of high underwater noise levels from existing shipping in the region, and that their critical habitat is already degraded. They argue that the Project and additional shipping associated with the Project will only add incrementally to current levels of acoustic disturbance and masking. They conclude that although this will result in a significant cumulative effect, this will not result in increased mortality or decreased fecundity, nor will further degradation of critical habitat constitute destruction as defined in SARA.

The EIS demonstrates that under existing conditions, shipping noise is already causing a reduction in foraging opportunities for SRKWs in their critical habitat, and further reductions are anticipated under future operational conditions. This constitutes a temporary loss of function of SRKW critical habitat (diminished foraging due to reduced prey availability through acoustic disturbance and masking). Field studies of both SRKWs (Lusseau et al. 2009) and NRKWs (Williams et al. 2006) show that behavioural disturbance responses resulting from vessels cause a reduction in time spent foraging.

Shipping noise is identified as an activity likely to destroy critical habitat in the Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus ocra) in Canada (CEAR document #1374). Additional levels of disturbance may reduce foraging efficiency below a threshold at which it is no longer energetically profitable to forage in the habitat, particularly in years with low prey availability. This could potentially lead to displacement from or abandonment of critical habitat as well as reduced survival and compromised recovery. It is difficult to assess where this threshold may occur; however, SRKW may have little option or opportunity for displacement due to the movement of their prey. Behaviourally limited in northward movements by the presence of Northern Resident Killer Whales (NRKW), and pre-limited in distribution to areas outside the primary migratory corridor of Chinook Salmon, the impacts from remaining in proximity to vessel traffic may be reduced due to repercussions of displacement from these areas due to loss of foraging opportunity, or through competition from NRKW. Displacement from habitats due to

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 56

underwater noise has been documented in a variety of cetaceans (e.g., Anderwald et al. 2013; Haelters et al. 2015), including resident killer whales (Morton and Symonds 2002).

Efforts to mitigate any increase in noise in critical habitat are required. The VFPA’s current ECHO program, described in the MSS report, includes initiatives to better quantify and potentially mitigate shipping noise. In addition, the Government of Canada has announced, and is currently undertaking a number of initiatives aimed at addressing key threats to Southern Resident Killer Whale, including threats related to physical and acoustic disturbance. Details on these initiatives are provided in the subsequent section of this submission as well as in the submission provided by Transport Canada.

Recommendation 27 Efforts to address increased shipping noise, such as those provided through the current ECHO program, should be continued and analysis should be undertaken to ensure that Project- related noise increases are mitigated.

6.4 DFO-led Whale Initiatives

In addition to the information already provided in earlier stages of the environmental assessment for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project which are summarized in this submission, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is providing an update on the on-going work of the Department related to the recovery of Southern Resident Killer Whale. The Government of Canada is aware of the iconic nature of this whale population and it’s cultural significance to Indigenous Peoples and Coastal communities in British Columbia. As a result, while not directly linked to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project or its potential effects, the Government of Canada has recently reconfirmed its commitment to protect and support the recovery of the Southern Resident Killer Whales by advancing a comprehensive strategy with actions to protect and support the recovery of SRKW. This strategy has advanced in three stages:

1. In late 2016, the initial launch of the $1.5 billion Oceans Protection Plan (OPP) included, among other things, funding for research and engagement to inform the development of a strategy on how to address underwater noise from vessels affecting Southern Resident Killer Whales. The launch of the OPP also initiated the Government of Canada conducting science-based whale reviews on the effectiveness of recovery measures to that date for three whales including Southern Resident Killer Whales, and subsequent public engagement. This resulted in the development of the “What We Heard Reports”, the Southern Resident Killer Whale Symposium and ultimately the Whales Initiative funding describe below. It provided a basis for the way forward on what is needed to promote the recovery of the

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 57

species. 2. Based on the work taken under the OPP, in June 2018, the Government of Canada launched the $167 million Whales Initiative. Regarding Southern Resident Killer Whales, one of the main objectives of this Initiative was the introduction of actions to help mitigate the three main threats these whales face: lack of prey, physical and acoustic disturbance, and contaminants. It responds to the determination made in May 2018 by the competent ministers for the species under the Species at Risk Act that the Southern Resident Killer Whale is facing an imminent threat to its survival and recovery. 3. In late October 2018, the Government launched significant additional measures to enable a more comprehensive and aggressive approach to mitigating the main threats facing the Southern Resident Killer Whales, and better promote the survival and recovery of this endangered population.

The suite of measures has been launched that is tailored to addressing the unique combinations of interrelated threats to the Southern Resident Killer Whale. Many are designed to be adaptive, taking into account analysis of results achieved. Specifically, the actions are directed at the main threats to the Southern Resident Killer Whales by:

• Improving prey availability; • Reducing physical and acoustic disturbance from vessels; • Enhancing monitoring under the water and in the air for whale presence; • Increased scientific research, monitoring and controls of contaminants; • Encouraging compliance and strengthening enforcement; • Building partnerships for additional action, including active collaboration with US partners to align measures in shared waters, and ongoing engagement with the marine industry; and • Investing in scientific research.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, with the Canadian Coast Guard are taking immediate and comprehensive action to help recover Canada’s whales, as described in the submissions that follows and Transport Canada’s written submission. Details of the actions of Fisheries and Oceans Canada are taking to support Southern Resident Killer Whales in this regard are described below..

6.4.1 Initiatives led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) As described above, in June 2018, the Government of Canada announced the Whales Initiative. DFO’s is supporting the Whales Initiative by taking action to further increase our knowledge Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 58

about the locations, movement and abundance of endangered whale populations in Canada, as well as their food sources and factors threatening their health. These include:

• Expanding the use of existing technologies and approaches to monitor and track whales in Canadian waters. • Increasing research on contaminants and studying their impacts on whales. This will include monitoring contaminant levels in prey species and assessing the effects of changes in food web structure on the exposure of whales to contaminants. • Expanding monitoring and tracking systems for whales to inform vessel management and to support fisheries management measures. • Assessing other measures for marine mammal avoidance such as modifications in fisheries, seasons or locations. • Expanding research activities to better understand prey availability and whale foraging success.

A Grants and Contributions element has been established for DFO Science under the Whales Initiative. This element supports the five-year joint Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council research initiative called “Whale Science for Tomorrow (WST).” The objectives of this initiative include enhancing the ability of Canadian universities to support the whale conservation objectives, broadening the base of whale protection and recovery research in Canada, accelerating the development of a new generation of marine mammal scientists, and ultimately increasing the scientific information available to support decision-making and conservation efforts for priority whale species.

Under the WST, a 3 year agreement with the University of British Columbia has been signed for a project titled: “ Impacts of marine ecosystem variability on the Southern Resident Killer Whale population in the Salish Sea”. The research that will be undertaken under this agreement will contribute to understanding why Chinook Salmon have declined, the factors that influence their numbers, distributions and quality as prey, and factors affecting their accessibility to SRKW.

Addressing Threats to the Southern Resident Killer Whale

DFO actions under the Whales Initiative to better understand and address threats to SRKW include increased capacity for targeted research, new contaminant research activities, fisheries management measures which aim to address prey availability, enhanced compliance and enforcement, and increased capacity to respond to marine mammals in distress, including the SRKW. DFO is also building partnerships for additional action.

Increased Capacity for Prey Availability Research

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 59

In response to a review of knowledge gaps in existing programs pertaining to understanding the SRKW threats, the Government of Canada committed to provide additional resources to increase understanding of the issues surrounding prey availability and SRKW foraging success in key foraging areas in their critical habitat. Foraging success is influenced by prey availability and abundance in these areas as well as noise and physical disturbance affecting prey detection and capture by the SRKW.

The objectives of the additional resourcing is to:

1. Monitor and identify the environmental conditions that support foraging success. 2. Understand foraging behaviours in the context of prey availability. 3. Advance the protocols in determining prey availability at-sea, with a focus on critical habitat areas for the SRKW.

Whale Contaminant Research Program

DFO’s new whale contaminant research activities target the SRKW and Saint Lawrence Estuary Beluga. These activities will concentrate on prey because the main route of entry of contaminants into whales is through their prey. Where possible, the program will also assess the direct effects of contaminants on whales.

Research already under way at the Vancouver Aquarium is assessing some of the legacy and current-use contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and organic pesticides. DFO’s program will complement this ongoing work by focusing on other contaminants such as emerging ones (a set of pharmaceuticals, artificial fragrances, paraffins and perfluorinated compounds).

Fisheries Management Measures

For the 2018 salmon fishing season (June 1 to September 30, 2018), DFO introduced fishery management measures to reduce the total harvest for Chinook Salmon by 25-35 percent along with monitoring to assess the effectiveness of these measures. These measures, which included full fishery closures for recreational finfish and commercial salmon fisheries in portions of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Gulf Islands, as well as partial closures at the mouth of the Fraser River, were implemented with the aim of protecting key foraging areas for SRKW (Appendix 4). Additional measures to achieve Chinook fishery reductions across the British Columbia coast include reduced harvest limits, size limits, time restrictions, and select area closures to protect wild Chinook stocks of concern.

These fisheries management measures are meant to respond to the threat of reduced prey availability for SRKW in key foraging areas in SRKW critical habitat by reducing competition between fishers and whales. In addition, the closures limit acoustic and physical disturbance of

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 60

SRKW by reducing the number of fishing vessels in these key foraging areas. Post-season meetings are being held with salmon fishery advisory boards in the fall/winter 2018-19, and consultations for the 2019 fishing season surrounding Chinook and SRKW management will start in January 2019.

Enhancing Compliance and Enforcement

DFO’s enforcement capacity will be expanded and strengthened through an $11.4 million investment nationwide. In Pacific Region, this investment will support the addition of four new fishery officers and a dedicated patrol vessel that will help ensure compliance with:

• new fisheries management measures to increase prey availability (Chinook Salmon) for SRKW; • the prohibition under the Species at Risk Act against the destruction of SRKW critical habitat; • the harassment prohibition under the Species at Risk Act; • the disturbance prohibition of the Marine Mammal Regulations (MMRs), under the Fisheries Act, which were amended in June of 2018 to prohibit vehicles (except aircraft in flight) from approaching within 200 meters of a killer whale in Canadian fisheries waters in British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean. The approach distances prescribed by the MMRs do not apply to a vessel that is in transit. Vessels that are actively engaged in whale watching or that divert their course to follow or interact with a whale must respect the approach distance requirements.

The additional capacity for DFO’s Compliance and Protection Program is anticipated to be in place by spring 2019, ahead of the salmon fishing season.

Pacific Marine Mammal Response Program

The Marine Mammal Response Program (MMRP; Appendix 5) will enhance capacity in Pacific Region to respond to all incidents involving marine mammals in distress, including SRKW. A DFO Pacific Region whale hub will be implemented with additional staff and funding to help:

• train DFO Conservation and Protection officers, Indigenous groups, and non- governmental organizations to respond to live stranded and entangled SRKWs, and minimize oil spill exposure risk through acoustic deterrent training measures; and • build capacity within Indigenous communities to support response activities under the MMRP, including capacity to support necropsies of marine mammal mortalities and investigate causes of death.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 61

The DFO Pacific Region whale hub will improve the ability of DFO and partners to support implementation of recovery measures and actions to minimize threats to SRKW survival and recovery. The hub is to be implemented as soon as possible to ensure DFO can fulfill its obligations to protect and conserve the SRKW while providing for their recovery.

Building Partnerships for Additional Action

DFO is committed to working with Indigenous Peoples, environmental organizations, members of the Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program, fishing organizations and the marine industry, as well as other governments to develop additional measures needed to secure the recovery of the SRKW.

DFO is also undertaking a Whale Innovation Challenge initiative (Appendix 6) in partnership with Nesta's Challenge Prize Centre to develop solutions towards real-time detection and location of whales. This initiative aims to mobilize the technology development community in Canada and globally to develop whale-specific solutions to better understand the location, abundance and movements of whales and whale populations. This will contribute to scientific whale research and overall efforts to protect endangered whales in Canada.

In July 2018, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada established a SRKW Indigenous and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group to bring together Indigenous communities, non-governmental organizations, the shipping and marine transportation, fishing, and whale watching sectors, the Government of British Columbia, and Metro Vancouver Regional District. The overarching purpose is to facilitate communication and coordination of activities to recover SRKW. The main objectives of the advisory group are to: provide a forum for the participants to discuss actions underway and planned by federal departments and others to protect SRKW, and to allow participants to provide advice on recovery actions and to share information to help inform government decision-making; promote dialogue and improve shared understanding of the complexities of SRKW recovery, shared responsibilities, and respective authorities of Advisory Group participants to reduce SRKW threats; and identify opportunities for collaboration and partnership that can advance the collective implementation of the recovery measures identified in the Species at Risk Action Plan for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada (2017), Oceans Protection Plan (2017) the Science based Review of the Effectiveness of Recovery Measures for Southern Resident Killer Whales (2017), and the measures announced under the federal Whales Initiative on June 22, 2018 to promote recovery of the species.

Additional Protection Measures Building from the Whales Initiative, the additional measures announced for SRKW are intended to address imminent threats to its survival and recovery resulting from lack of food (prey), physical and acoustic disturbances, and environmental contaminants. These efforts support the implementation of immediate actions to reduce threats associated with prey availability and Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 62

acoustic and physical disturbance, as well as a longer-term strategy to rebuild Chinook stocks and reduce the current level of acoustic disturbance and environmental contaminants in the Salish Sea. The Government of Canada is committed to delivering significant results in a timely manner and to working closely with partners in the United States, the Province of British Columbia, Indigenous groups and stakeholders, including environmental non-governmental organizations, in shaping the details of these measures and their implementation.

Technical Working Groups

To help inform the additional protection measures announced in 2018 (see above), the Government of Canada has convened the following five new Technical Working Groups (TWGs):

1. Prey availability and accessibility (led by DFO) 2. Identification/development of proposed SRKW sanctuaries (led by DFO) 3. Vessel noise measures related to large commercial vessels (led by Transport Canada) 4. Additional vessel noise measures (led by Transport Canada) 5. Contaminants (led by Environment and Climate Change Canada) These TWGs comprise technical and subject matter experts from Indigenous and coastal communities, stakeholders and other levels of government. The TWGs are tasked with providing recommendations to Ministers and Departments on a range of measures to address key threats to SRKW, including recommendations for immediate action in 2019, in addition to recommendations for longer-term recovery actions.

Critical Habitat

The Recovery Strategy for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales was amended in 2018 to include additional critical habitat on the continental shelf off southwestern Vancouver Island, including Swiftsure and La Pérouse Banks, for these populations and provide clarification of the features, functions, and attributes for all Resident Killer Whale critical habitat. Pursuant to subsections 58(4) and (5) of the Species at Risk Act, the Critical Habitat of the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Northeast Pacific Southern Resident Population Order was amended on December 13, 2018 to include these areas.

Prey

Expand duration and/or geographic area of fisheries closures in SRKW critical habitat

A variation order under the Fisheries Act could be used to expand the duration and/or geographic areas of fisheries closures in SRKW critical habitat while the whales are present (or expected to be in the area) to provide increased foraging opportunities. A variation order may also be used to expand the scope of fisheries to which the closures apply to exclude fishing by certain fleets or all fishing activity in critical habitat.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 63

Increase access to prey for SRKW

A variation order under the Fisheries Act could also be used to reduce overall levels of Chinook harvest from fisheries and provide increased access to SRKW to available Chinook. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard may consider the needs of SRKW prey access when making fisheries management decisions and setting catch levels or to require development and implementation of a Chinook stock rebuilding plan. As there is reduced fishing effort and reduced occupancy of whales in the Salish Sea during the winter months, DFO will have an opportunity to design and consult on the content of any Variation Orders for the 2019 season, including with Indigenous groups.

Increase SRKW prey abundance and availability

DFO intends to increase SRKW prey abundance and availability by increasing hatchery production at facilities which enhance stocks that most benefit SRKW, while minimizing potential effects of hatchery origin fish on naturally spawning populations. Augmentation would focus on stock(s) identified by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as being priorities and having the largest potential benefit to SRKW, with the objective of increasing adult salmon available to SRKW.

Disturbance

SRKW Sanctuary

The Department plans to advance feasibility work on establishing SRKW sanctuaries within sub-areas of critical habitat. A sanctuary could be established as a Marine Protected Area under the Oceans Act and prohibit activities that are contrary to the conservation objectives established. Activities such as all fishing and commercial carrier vessels, ferries, whale watching vessels, and recreational boating could be restricted or prohibited in order to provide for conditions conducive to effective communication and feeding when SRKW are present.

Reduced vessel disturbance

New minimum approach distances for vessels due to amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations, including the amendment to establish a 200 metre minimum approach distance for SRKW, and fisheries closures also reduce the impacts associated with disturbance from vessel noise. Reductions in fisheries and fisheries closures in key foraging areas will also contribute to reducing the impacts associated with disturbance from vessel noise through reductions in fishing vessel activity.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 64

Implementation

Scientific Monitoring

The ability to determine that additional measures are effective rests on scientific monitoring. This includes increased monitoring and analysis within SRKW foraging areas (e.g., changes in Chinook abundance, SRKW foraging success, and changes in the acoustic environment) and will allow proper documentation of the effectiveness of Chinook Salmon management measures from a SRKW perspective. This work will build on work done under an existing agreement with the University of British Columbia (UBC) funded through the Oceans Protection Plan which aims at documenting the current nutritional status of Chinook Salmon (e.g., fat content). As the integrator of all threat abatement improvements with regards to SRKW should first be made evident through body condition parameters, DFO is proposing to operationalize by 2021, pilot work currently being carried out by partners (Ocean Wise, UBC). This will involve, among other things, photogrammetry of a representative subset of individuals, analyses of data on a regular basis, and technical integration of partners and DFO activities.

There is a need to develop and maintain spatially explicit fishery catch and effort data to identify areas and times where fisheries are more likely to impact SRKW either by reducing local prey abundance and/or direct interference. Such information would inform potential modifications to fishery openings that would reduce impacts on SRKW.

Work will also be done to assess the impacts of underwater noise on SRKW. This includes the use of hydrophones to detect whale vocalizations, as well as assessments of whale distribution and behavior. It includes work to quantify feeding effort and success under different levels of noise.

Compliance and Enforcement

The measures outlined above require enforcement. DFO is responsible for compliance and enforcement measures related to protections under the SARA (e.g., prohibitions against the killing, harming, and harassing an individual of a wildlife species listed as extirpated, threatened or endangered; prohibitions against destroying any part of the critical habitat of a listed endangered or threatened species, or of a listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended its reintroduction into the wild in Canada); the Marine Mammal Regulations (prohibitions against disturbance and minimum approach distances for vessels); Fisheries Act (fisheries closures and other measures); and the Oceans Act (marine sanctuary).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 65

Science to Assess the Effectiveness of Recovery Reduced prey availability is the main factor affecting SRKW survival and recovery. One of the key and recent (2018) management measures implemented by DFO in this regard is aimed at reducing the BC coast-wide total harvest of Chinook Salmon in the order of 25-35%. DFO is proposing to expand current work that is underway to monitor changes in salmon abundance to all key foraging areas.

Combined with this approach, DFO is also proposing to expand our limited monitoring of SRKW foraging success to all key foraging areas, and year-round. Foraging success is influenced by prey availability in these areas as well as noise and physical disturbance affecting the whales’ ability to detect and capture salmon. Therefore, we are also proposing to add to our existing acoustics technical capacity to more quickly retrieve, extract, and analyze acoustic data from hydrophones to be deployed in critical habitat areas.

The activities described above, combined with existing activities, will equate to a net increase in monitoring and analysis occurring within key SRKW foraging areas and will produce three lines of evidence (i.e., changes in Chinook abundance in areas relevant to SRKW, foraging success, as well as changes in the acoustic environment) that will allow the department to properly document the effectiveness of Chinook Salmon management measures from a SRKW perspective. Changes in body condition parameters of the whales are indicative of how effective all of the actions taken to abate all the threats to the population have been, and changes in body indices will be readily detectable in the near term. Over time, DFO is proposing to operationalize pilot work to assess SRKW body condition to monitor progress towards recovery for this species and the health of whales. This will involve, among other things, photogrammetry of a representative subset of individuals, analyses of data on a regular basis, and technical integration of these activities with those of our partners.

In addition to the above, DFO will endeavour to develop and maintain spatially explicit fishery catch and effort data to identify areas and times where fisheries are more likely to impact Resident Killer Whales, either by reducing local prey abundance and/or direct interference. Such information would inform potential modifications to the location and timing of fishery openings aimed at reducing impacts on Resident Killer Whales.

DFO Science will also support the planning of Chinook enhancement efforts that are designed to specifically support SRKW recovery, as well as monitoring the effectiveness of such enhancement through science activities such as marking and tracking hatchery fish.

6.4.2 Initiatives supported by the Canadian Coast Guard DFO is providing the following information relates to initiatives supported by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) on behalf of CCG. Since early summer 2018, the Canadian Coast Guard has been

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 66

providing a vessel platform for DFO Conservation & Protection patrols in Juan de Fuca Strait in connection with the harvesting of prey that is an important source of food for the SRKW. The provision of a vessel platform supports the enhanced compliance and enforcement measures described above.

With respect to Transport Canada’s ‘Vessel Traffic Management Measures for Underwater Noise Mitigation’, the Canadian Coast Guard had the following roles:

Haro Strait Voluntary Slowdown (July 1st to October 31st, 2018) This waterway is used by deep sea vessels transiting to-from the ocean and the ports on the sheltered, inside waters (Vancouver, Nanaimo, Campbell River, etc.). The slowdown asked that vessels of certain types transit at a slower than normal speed when going through Haro Strait – 12.5 knots for bulk ships, tankers, Washington State Ferries, and government ships; and 15 knots for container ships, vehicle carriers and cruise ships. The Coast Guard’s Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) monitors and regulates Haro Strait and the approaches at both ends of the subject waterway. Vessels transiting Haro Strait were asked to confirm their voluntary participation and were monitored throughout their transit. Under the international Cooperative Vessel Traffic Services (CVTS) agreement between Canadian and the US Coast Guard, the Victoria MCTS centre monitors and regulates vessel movements on both the Canadian and US sides of Haro Strait.

Juan de Fuca Voluntary Lateral Displacement (August 20th to October 31st, 2018) These waters connect with the Pacific Ocean and are the waterway which all deep sea vessels going into and coming out of the sheltered, inside water Ports of BC and Washington State must transit. Vessels transiting these waters are asked to move as far south in the outbound navigating lane as possible to lessen the noise level along the south coast of Vancouver Island which is SRKW foraging area during the summer and early fall. Under the CVTS both sides of Juan de Fuca Strait are monitored and regulated by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Puget Sound Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) centre in Seattle. The MCTS centre in Prince Rupert monitors and regulates the waters at the west entrance to Juan de Fuca, and the MCTS centre in Victoria monitors and regulates the waters at the eastern end. Both MCTS centres confirmed participation from the vessels entering the zone and provided this information to the US Coast Guard when handing-off the transiting vessel to the next VTS center.

Vessel Traffic Management Measures for Underwater Noise Mitigation (Additional New Measures) The Canadian Coast Guard has no authorities, nor direct responsibilities for the protection of marine mammals; however, it does provide services that support the mandates of other federal programs or departments. Under the authority of the Oceans Act, Coast Guard provides Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS), and can support departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada through the provision of ships, aircraft and other marine services

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 67

(e.g., provision of a vessel platform for fisheries patrols). Under the Canada Shipping Act and supporting collision avoidance regulations, Coast Guard has responsibilities for vessel traffic services.

MCTS Centre Victoria oversees the busiest and, arguably, the most complex vessel traffic services area in Canada. The Coast Guard will continue to work to develop and use dynamic traffic zones, and Electronic Marine Navigation tools and services that could support timely access to whales- related information by mariners and facilitate decision making on whale avoidance.

7.0 FOLLOW UP PROGRAM

A follow-up program is defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 as a program for (a) verifying the accuracy of the environmental assessment of a designated project, and (b) determining the effectiveness of any mitigation measure. The Proponent has provided draft follow-up program elements in Appendix 33-A of the EIS and Appendix IR13-30-C and indicates that these will continue to be updated and revised to reflect new information and input from ongoing engagement and consultation, and will also reflect conditions stipulated within approvals and permits. The table presented in Appendix 33-A of the EIS identifies monitoring parameters potentially include monitoring of Dungeness Crab, Orange Sea Pen transplantation, bivalves, forage fish, flat fish and marine mammals. However, the Proponent’s response to IR13- 30 clarifies that proposed most follow-up monitoring would be focused on the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, including offsets. No specific follow-up program element is proposed for most species, with the exception of an element to verify the prediction of negligible effects to juvenile Dungeness Crab nursery habitat. The Proponent indicates that this program will provide the opportunity to adaptively manage offsetting success as the Project is constructed and operating.

DFO recommends that the follow up program be designed to verify effects predictions of the EIS. DFO has identified uncertainties associated with the Proponent’s predicted residual effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat in this report. The component of the Project with the greatest uncertainty is the large area of Roberts Bank where there may be a modification of productivity due to changes to sedimentation and coastal processes. Additionally, DFO has identified uncertainty associated with predicted effects of the Project on juvenile salmon migration. Specifically, DFO recommends that the Follow-Up Monitoring Program include:

1. Monitoring of sediment, and organic and redox indicators over various spatial and temporal scales specific to 1) both near- and far-field scales; 2) sensitive and critical habitats (e.g. eelgrass habitats, Dungeness Crab nursery); 3) sedimentary provinces; 4) predicted zones of deposition; 5) drainage channels, etc.);

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 68

2. Verification of the environmental effects predictions related to indirect effects of the Project of fish, invertebrates and their habitats including the predicted positive indirect effects on juvenile salmon habitat and prey.

3. Monitoring of distribution of juvenile salmon across Roberts Bank following terminal placement to verify predictions of potential effects of terminal placement on the ability of juvenile salmon to access important feeding and rearing grounds in the inter-causeway area.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project will significantly alter the existing Roberts Bank ecosystem resulting in the loss of a large area of marine fish habitats and changes to water circulation and sediment transport processes. Destruction or alteration of approximately 176 ha of tidal and sub-tidal habitats is anticipated as a result of construction of the marine terminal, causeway widening, and dredging to expand the tug boat basin and deepen the berth pocket. The types of marine habitat that would be impacted as a result of the Project include tidal and sub-tidal sand, mudflat, eelgrass, and marsh.

The infilling and dredging activities that are required to construct the Project will result in death of fish. Although the magnitude of fish mortality is unknown, mitigation measures based on known best management practices have been proposed that will be effective in reducing the magnitude of fish mortality. However, even with mitigation, unavoidable death of fish is anticipated. This will be greatest for those species and life stages that live within the seabed sediments and those that attach themselves to rock. Mortality for mobile species or those that can be effectively captured and moved (salvaged) is expected to be significantly less.

An ecosystem model was used to predict effects of the Project on the Roberts Bank ecosystem. The model predicts both positive and negative effects on productivity of the modelled Roberts Bank study area. Modelled species or function groups are predicted to have different responses to the Project, some positive and some adverse. The predicted increases in productivity resulting from the Project result from incidental and indirect effects of the Project. These include fish use and habitat forming features of armour rock installed on the perimeter of the terminal and changes to water circulation and sediment transport patterns that are predicted to result in shifts of adjacent intertidal areas from lower to higher productivity habitat types. There are uncertainties and limitations associated with the use of the model and uncertainties remain regarding potential effects to fish and invertebrate species that inhabit Roberts Bank and the Roberts Bank ecosystem.

Based on the Project information to date - including the large-scale destruction of fish habitat, the high degree of uncertainty in predictions of incidental benefits and the small-scale of

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 69

proposed offset concepts – DFO’s view is that the goal of sustaining the ongoing productivity of fisheries will not be achieved. DFO recommends the Proponent reconsider Project design options in order to reduce impacts on fish and fish habitat or additional offsetting. Any opportunities to reduce the scale of impacts to fish and fish habitat will reduce the risk and uncertainty associated with an application for authorization under the Fisheries Act, and thereby reduce the offsetting measures required to achieve the policy goal.

The Project would result in loss and permanent alteration of large areas of Fraser River estuary habitat and it is uncertain whether predicted incidental benefits and proposed offsets would preserve fisheries productivity. Fraser River Chinook Salmon are very dependent on the estuary for a critical juvenile growth period before entering the ocean. Twelve populations of Fraser River Chinook Salmon has been determined to be at risk by COSEWIC – 7 Endangered, 4 Threatened and 1 Special Concern. Given the dependence of this species on estuary habitat, the Proponent may have underestimated the significance of effects on fish and fish habitat, specifically effects on Chinook Salmon.

The Project is located within the critical habitat required for the survival and recovery of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale and it is predicted that the Project will contribute to cumulative adverse effects on this population. This would occur through the disturbance (underwater noise) resulting from construction and operation of the Project and the associated ship traffic. Disturbance, including acoustic disturbance, has been identified as one of the threats to the survival of this species and one of the objectives in the recovery strategy for this species is to ensure that disturbance from human activities is understood and managed such that these do not prevent recovery of the species. Efforts to address increased shipping noise, such as those provided through the current ECHO program, should be continued and analysis should be undertaken to ensure that Project-related noise increases are mitigated.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 70

9.0 REFERENCES

Anderwald, P., A. Brandecker, M. Coleman, C. Collins, H. Denniston, M.D. Haberlin, M. O’Donovan, R. Pinfield, F. Visser, and L. Walshe. 2013. Displacement responses of a mysticete, an odontocete, and a phocid seal to construction-related vessel traffic. Endangered Species Research 21: 231−240.

British Columbia Cetacean Sightings Network (BCCSN). 2017. Cetacean Sightings Data for the Marine Regional Study Area (digital datasheet). Acquired: 2017.

Becker, A., A.K. Whitfield, P.D. Cowley, J. Järnegren, and T.F. Næsje. 2012. Potential effects of artificial light associated with anthropogenic infrastructure on the abundance and foraging behaviour of estuary‐ associated fishes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 43–50. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12024.

Best, B. and P. Halpin. 2009. Predictive marine mammal modeling for Queen Charlotte Basin, British Columbia: Technical report. Raincoast Conservation Foundation. 120 p.

Bolton, D., M. Mayer‐Pinto, G.F. Clark, K.A. Dafforn, W.A. Brassil, A. Becker, and E.L. Johnston. 2017. Coastal urban lighting has ecological consequences for multiple trophic levels under the sea. Science of the Total Environment, 576, 1–9.

Conn, P. and G. Silber. 2013. Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-related mortality for North Atlantic right whales. Ecosphere, 4, 43.

Costa, D. P., D.E. Crocker, J. Gedamke, P.M. Webb, D.S. Houser, S.B. Blackwell, D. Waples, S.A. Hayes, and B.J. Le Boeuf. 2003. The effect of a low-frequency sound source (acoustic thermometry of the ocean climate) on the diving behavior of juvenile northern elephant seals, Mirounga angustirostris. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113: 1155-1165.

De Graff, R.C. 2017. Galiano Island Surf smelt and Pacific Sand Lance Beach Spawning Habitat Suitability Assessments. http://www.islandstrustconservancy.ca/media/84584/itf-2017-03-31-rpt-galiano-forage- fish-report-fnl.pdf.

Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based approach to assess marine mammal behavioural responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conserv. Biol. 26, 21- 28.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013a. Fisheries Act Regulations. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, October 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013b. Fisheries Protection Policy Statement. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, October 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013c. Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, November 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 71

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2017a. Action Plan for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 33 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2017b. Review of the Effectiveness of Recovery Measures for Southern Resident Killer Whales. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2017.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2017c. Technical Review of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Impact Statement and Marine Shipping Supplemental Report: Effects on Marine Mammals. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2017/001.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2018. Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries & Oceans Canada, Ottawa.

Ford, J.K.B., J.F. Pilkington, A. Riera, M. Otsuki, B. Gisborne, R.M. Abernethy, E.H. Stredulinsky, J.R. Towers, and G.M. Ellis. 2017. Habitats of special importance to Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) off the west coast of Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2017/035. viii + 57 p.

Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, C. M. Woodley, T. J. Carlson, and A. N. Popper. 2011. Hydroacoustic Impacts on Fish from Pile Installations. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Research Results Digest 363:1–24.

Haelters, J., V. Dulière, L. Vigin, S. Degraer. 2015. Towards a numerical model to simulate the observed displacement of harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena due to pile driving in Belgian waters. Hydrobiologia 756: 105−116.

Hawkins, A.D. and A.N. Popper. 2017. A sound approach to assessing the impact of underwater noise on marine fishes and invertebrates, ICES J. of Marine Science (2017), 74(3), 635-651. Doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fws205.

Hourston, A.S. 1957, Behaviour of juvenile herring attracted to a light. Fisheries research Board of Canada. Biological Stations, Nanaimo, British Columbia. Manuscript report BQ 119.

Lusseau, D., D. Bain, R. Williams, and J. Smith. 2009. Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging behavior of Southern Resident Killer Whales Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research 6:211–221.Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behaviour during exposures to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals 28: 231-240.

McConnell, A., R. Routledge, and B. M. Connors. 2010. Effect of Artificial Light on Marine Invertebrate and Fish Abundance in an Area of Salmon Farming. Marine Ecology Progress Series 419:147-156.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 72

Minns, C.K. 2007. Quantifying no net loss of productivity of fish habitats. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2463-2473

Morton, A.B. and H.K. Symonds. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:71-80.

Nedwell, J. R., S. J. Parvin, B. Edwards, R. Workman, A. G. Brooker, and J. E. Kynoch. 2007. Measurement and Interpretation of Underwater Noise during Construction and Operation of Offshore Windfarms in U.K. Waters. Subacoustic Report 544R0738. Prepared for COWRIE Ltd.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 2006. Status Review of Cherry Point Pacific Herring (Clupea pallasii) and Updated Status Review of the Georgia Basin Pacific Herring Distinct Population Segment under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-76.

Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NFSC). 2018. Killer whale genetics raise inbreeding questions. April 2018. https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/kw_inbreeding_questions/index.cfm.

Popper, A. N., and M. C. Hastings. 2009. The Effects of Anthropogenic Sources of Sound on Fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 75:455–489.

Popper, A. N., A. D. Hawkins, R. R. Fay, D. A. Mann, S. Bartol, T. J. Carlson, S. Coombs, W. T. Ellison, R. L. Gentry, M. B. Halvorsen, S. Løkkeborg, P. H. Rogers, B. L. Southall, D. G. Zeddies, and W. N. Tavolga. 2014. ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. Volume ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014. SpringerBriefs in Oceanography.

Popper, A.N. and A.D. Hawkins. 2018. The Importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. J. of Acoust. Soc. Am. 142, 470 (2018); doi:10.1121/1.52159

Rooper, C,N., K. Williams, A. De Robertis, V. Tuttle. 2015. Effect of underwater lighting on observations of density and behavior of rockfish during camera surveys. Fisheries Research 172: 157–167.

Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland A. Coers, C. ten Cate. and A.N. Popper. 2010. A Noisy Spring: The Impact of Globally Rising Underwater Sound Levels on Fish. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 25: 419- 427.

Snauffer, E.S. 2013. Modeling herring and hake larval dispersal in the Salish Sea. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Oceanography). The University of British Columbia. © Evgeniya Lyubomirova Snauffer, 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 73

Southall B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene, D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L Tayak. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria. Aquat. Mamm. 33, 411-521.

Southall, B.L., J.J. Finneran, C. Reichmuth, P.E. Nachtigall, D.R. Ketten, A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, D.P. Nowacek, P.L. Tyack. 2019. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Updated Scientific Recommendations for Residual Hearing Effects. Aquatic Mammals, 2019; 45 (2): 125 DOI: 10.1578/AM.45.2.2019.125

Sutherland, T.F., R.W. Elner, J.D. O’Neill. 2013. Roberts Bank: Ecological crucible of the Fraser River estuary. Progress in Oceanography, 115: 171 – 180.

Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec). 2015. Quantitative Assessment of Increased Potential for Marine Mammal-vessel Interactions from the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Produced by Stantec Consulting Ltd., Burnaby, B.C. for Kinder Morgan Canada Inc., Calgary, AB, 76 p.

Tennessen, J.B., M.M. Holt, M.B. Hanson, C.K. Emmons, D.A. Giles, J.T. Hogan. 2019. Kinematic signatures of prey capture from archival tags reveal sex differences in killer whale foraging activity, The Journal of Experimental Biology (2019). DOI: 10.1242/jeb.191874

Thomsen, F., K. Lüdemann, R. Kafemann, and W. Piper. 2006. Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Noise on Marine Mammals and Fish. Technical Report, Prepared by Biola, Hamburg Germany, for COWRIE.

Tougaard, J., A.J. Wright, P.T. Madsen. 2015. Cetacean noise criteria revisited in the light of proposed exposure limits for harbour porpoises. Mar Poll Bull 90:196-208.

Williams, R., D. Lusseau, and P.S. Hammond. 2006. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 133: 301- 311.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 74

10.0 APPENDIX:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Submission for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Response to the Review Panel’s March 5, 2019 Letter Page 75

APPENDIX 1: STATUS OF PACIFIC SALMON POPULATIONS

Canadian Pacific Salmon Statuses: Wild Salmon Policy and COSEWIC

1. Background

Fisheries & Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Committed on the Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) have both conducted status assessments for three groups of Canadian Pacific salmon. This includes Fraser Sockeye, Southern BC Chinook, and Interior Fraser Coho.

DFO’s WSP status assessments are conducted on Conservation Units (CU) (Holtby and Ciruna 2007; Grant and MacDonald 2011; DFO 2013). CUs are placed into one of five WSP status zones: Red, Red/Amber, Amber, Amber/Green, and Green. Definitions of the three key status zones are provided in Table 1, and Red/Amber and Amber/Green status zones are intermediate between these (DFO 2005). DFO WSP status can also include a data deficient category for CUs where there is insufficient data available to determine status.

COSEWIC groups salmon populations into Designatable Units (DUs), which are identical or very similar to DFO’s CUs. They place DUs into five status zones: Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, Data Deficient, and Not at Risk. Descriptions are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The status zones defined by COSEWIC

Status Definition Endangered (E) A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened (T) A wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. Special Concern (SC) A wildlife species that may become threatened or endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Data Deficient (DD) A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species' risk of extinction.

Not At Risk (NAR) A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

2. Status Results

There are 24 Fraser Sockeye CUs that were first assessed by DFO in 2012 (DFO 2012; Grant and Pestal 2012). These were re-assessed in 2017 (DFO 2018). CU statuses comparisons between 2012 to 2017 are as follows (Table 3, columns 1 & 2): • Status improved for six CUs: Nahatlatch-ES, Nadina-Francois-ES, Francois-Fraser-S, Chilliwack- ES, Anderson-Seton, and Pitt-ES. • Status declined for six CUs: Harrison (upstream)-L, Shuswap-ES, Lillooet-Harrison-L, Harrison (downstream)-L, Seton-L, and Shuswap-L. • Status did not change for 12 CUs:

o five CUs remained Red: Bowron-ES, Cultus-L, Takla-Trembleur-EStu, Taseko-ES, and Widgeon-(River-Type);

o two CUs remained Red/Amber: Quesnel-S and Takla-Trembleur-Stuart-S; o two CUs remained Amber: North Barriere-ES and Kamloops-ES; o two CUs remained Green: Chilko-S/Chilko-ES and Harrison-River Type; o Chilko-ES remained data deficient.

There are currently seven Fraser Sockeye CUs in the Red status zone, two in the Red/Amber status zone, four in the Amber status zone, six in the Amber/Green status zone, three in the Green status zone, and one data deficient CU (Table 3, first column). COSEWIC aligned their Fraser Sockeye DUs exactly with DFO’s WSP CUs. COSEWIC statuses also align with DFO’s WSP statuses for Fraser Sockeye and COSEWIC identifies eight Endangered DUs, two Threatened, five Special Concern, and eight Not-at-Risk (Table 3, last column).

There are 34 Southern BC Chinook CUs that were assessed by DFO in 2016 (DFO 2016). There are currently 11 Red, one Red/Amber, one Amber, two Green, 10 to-be-determined, and 9 data deficient CUs. COSEWIC has identified 28 DUs that are slightly different from DFO’s CUs (Table 4), although most DUs align with DFO’s WSP CUs. COSEWIC identifies 11 Endangered, four Threatened, one Special Concern, one Not-at-Risk DU, and two data deficient DUs. A number of status assessments for both DFO and COSEWIC are pending further work. Nuances with the data and hatchery contributions are currently being resolved in data sets to support status assessments.

There are five BC Interior Fraser Coho CUs that were assessed by DFO in 2015 (DFO 2015). There are currently three Amber and two Amber/Green CUs. COSEWIC has grouped these five CUs into one DU and assessed it’s status as Threatened.

Formal status assessments have not been conducted for Fraser Pink or Chum salmon. Fraser Pink salmon have had variable abundances and productivity over time. Average returns from 1969-2017 were 17 million. The last two years, returns were below average (2015: 6 million; 2017: 4 million) (Table 1). Similar data is not readily available for Chum salmon.

Figure 1. Fraser River Pink Salmon return trends (source: Pacific Salmon Commission & DFO). Fraser Sockeye statuses

Table 3: The 2017 Integrated status designations for the 24 Fraser River sockeye salmon CUs, ranked from poor (Red zone) to healthy (Green zone) status based on the current 2017 assessment. Cyclic CU statuses are determined including abundance benchmarks estimated using the Larkin model (DFO 2018). For each CU, more commonly used stock names are presented. An asterisks (*) indicates provisional status designations; R/A: Red/Amber; A/G: Amber/Green; DD: data deficient; Undet: undetermined. The previous assessment’s integrated statuses are also listed in the 2012 (DFO 2012; Grant and Pestal 2012). The COSEWIC 2017 status designations are presented in the final column (released 2018).

2017 2012 Conservation Unit Stock COSEWIC 2017 R R Bowron-ES Bowron Endangered R R Cultus-L Cultus Endangered R R Takla-Trembleur-EStu Early Stuart Endangered R R* Taseko-ES Miscellaneous E. Summ Endangered R R Widgeon – River* Miscellaneous Lates Threatened R A Harrison (U/S)-L Weaver Endangered R UD Seton-L Portage Endangered R A R A Quesnel-S Quesnel Endangered R A R A Takla-Trembleur-Stuart-S Late Stuart Endangered A R Nahatlatch-ES Miscellaneous E. Summ SC A A North Barriere-ES Fennel & Miscellaneous E. Summ Threatened A A Kamloops-ES Raft & Miscellaneous E. Summ SC A A G Shuswap-ES Scotch, Seymour, Mis. E. Summ NAR A G* Lillooet-Harrison-L Birkenhead SC A G R Nadina-Francois-ES Nadina NAR A G R A Chilliwack-ES Miscellaneous E. Summ NAR A G R A Francois-Fraser-S Stellako SC A G A Anderson-Seton-ES Gates NAR A G G Harrison (D/S)-L Miscellaneous Lates SC A G G Shuswap Complex-L Late Shuswap NAR G A G Pitt-ES Pitt NAR G G* Chilko-S & Chilko-ES agg. Chilko NAR G G Harrison River – River Type Harrison NAR DD DD Chilko-ES Chilko NA

Abbreviations: EStu: Early Stuart; ES: Early Summer; S: Summer; L: Late; Mis: miscellaneous; *Widgeon (river-type) CU has a small distribution, therefore, this CU will be consistently in the Red status zone;

Southern BC Chinook

Table 4: The 2016 Integrated status designations for the 34 Southern BC Chinook CUs, ranked from poor (Red zone) to healthy (Green zone) status based on the current 2016 assessment (DFO 2016). For each CU, their name and CU ID is provided. The COSEWIC 2017 status designations for 28 DUs are presented in the final column (released Dec 4 2017).

CU WSP DU COSEWIC COSEWIC CU Name ID 2016 ID 2018 2019 CK- Red -- Endangered* Okanagan_1.x -- 01 CK- Red DU08 Endangered Middle Fraser River-Portage_FA_1.3 -- 09 CK- Red DU09 Threatened Middle Fraser River_SP_1.3 -- 10 CK- Red DU11 Endangered Upper Fraser River_SP_1.3 -- 12 CK- Red DU14 Endangered South Thompson-Bessette Creek_SU_1.2 -- 16 CK- Red DU15 -- Lower Thompson_SP_1.2 TBD 17 CK- Red DU16 Endangered North Thompson_SP_1.3 -- 18 CK- Red DU17 Endangered North Thompson_SU_1.3 -- 19 CK- Red DU23 Endangered East Vancouver Island-North_FA_0.x -- 29 CK- Red DU24 -- West Vancouver Island-South_FA_0.x TBD 31 West Vancouver Island-Nootka & CK- Red DU25 Endangered -- Kyuquot_FA_0.x 32 CK- Red Amb DU13 -- South Thompson_SU_1.3 TBD 14 CK- Amber DU10 Threatened Middle Fraser River_SU_1.3 -- 11 CK- Green(p) DU02 Threatened Lower Fraser River_SU_1.3 -- 03 CK- Green South Thompson_SU_0.3 -- 13 DU12 Not At Risk CK- TBD Shuswap River_SU_0.3 -- 15 CK- DU03 Sp. Concern Lower Fraser River_SP_1.3 TBD -- 04 CK- DD DU04 Endangered Lower Fraser River-Upper Pitt_SU_1.3 -- 05 CK- DD DU05 Threatened Lower Fraser River_SU_1.3 -- 06 CK- DD DU07 Endangered Middle Fraser-Fraser Canyon_SP_1.3 08 CK- DD DU18 -- Southern Mainland-Georgia Strait_FA_0.x TBD 20 CK- DD DU19 Endangered East Vancouver Island-Nanaimo_SP_1.x -- 23 Southern Mainland-Southern CK- DD DU22 -- TBD Fjords_FA_0.x 28 CK- DD DU27 DD Homathko_SU_x.x -- 34 CK- DD DU28 DD Klinkaklini_SU_1.3 -- 35 CK- DD -- -- Upper Adams River_SU_x.x -- 82 CK- TBD DU01 -- Boundary Bay_FA_0.3 02 TBD CK- TBD DU06 -- Maria Slough_SU_0.3 07 TBD CK- TBD DU20 -- Vancouver Island-Georgia Strait_SU_0.3 83 TBD CK- TBD East Vancouver Island-Goldstream_FA_0.x 21 East Vancouver Island-Cowichan & CK- TBD Koksilah_FA_0.x 22 DU21 East Vancouver Island-Nanaimo & CK- TBD -- TBD Chemainus_FA_0.x 25 East Vancouver Island-Qualicum & CK- TBD Puntledge_FA_0.x 27 CK- TBD -- West Vancouver Island-North_FA_0.x 33 DU26 TBD

*CK-01 has been assessed by COSEWIC as a single DU under a separate process. The last assessment date for this DU was April 2017.

Interior Fraser Coho CUs WSP Status; COSEWIC assessment: Threatened Nov 2016

Table 5: The 2015 Integrated status designations for the five Interior Fraser Coho CUs. The COSEWIC 2017 status designation groups these five CUs into a single DU and has assessed this DU as Threatened (released 2016).

References

DFO. 2005. Canada’s Policy for Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, B.C., pp. vi+ 49. DFO. 2012. Integrated biological status of Fraser River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) under the Wild Salmon Policy. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/056: 13. DFO. 2013. Review and update of southern BC Chinook conservation unit assignments. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2013/022(October 2013). DFO. 2015. Wild Salmon Policy status assessment for conservation units of Interior Fraser River coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2015/022. pp. 12. DFO. 2016. Integrated biological status of souther British Columbia Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) under the Wild Salmon Policy. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/042. pp. 15. DFO. 2018. The 2017 Fraser Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) integrated biological status re-assessments under the Wild Salmon Policy. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. (2018/017): 17. Grant, S.C.H., and MacDonald, B.L. 2011. Pre-season run size forecasts for Fraser River sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and pink (O. gorbuscha) salmon in 2011. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/145: vi + 48. Grant, S.C.H., and Pestal, G. 2012. Integrated biological status assessments under the Wild Salmon Policy using standardized metrics and expert judgement: Fraser River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) case studies. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/106: v + 132. Holtby, L.B., and Ciruna, K.A. 2007. Conservation units for Pacific Salmon under the Wild Salmon Policy. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2007/070: 1–358.

Species at Risk Registry- Salmon Populations that use the Fraser River Estuary

The following tables present the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assessed status and Species at Risk Act (SARA) status of Chinook, coho, sockeye and steelhead trout populations that use the Fraser River estuary during part of their life history.

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Population COSEWIC Status SARA Status Lower Fraser, Ocean, Fall population Threatened No Status Lower Fraser, Stream, Spring population Special Concern No Status

Lower Fraser, Stream, Summer (Upper Pitt) Endangered No Status population Lower Fraser, Stream, Summer population Threatened No Status

Middle Fraser, Stream, Spring population Endangered No Status

Middle Fraser, Stream, Fall population Endangered No Status

Middle Fraser, Stream, Spring (MFR+GStr) Threatened No Status population Middle Fraser, Stream, Summer population Threatened No Status

Upper Fraser, Stream, Spring population Endangered No Status

South Thompson, Ocean, Summer Not at Risk population South Thompson, Stream, Summer 1.2 Endangered No Status population North Thompson, Stream, Spring population Endangered No Status

North Thompson, Stream, Summer Endangered No Status population

Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

Population COSEWIC Status SARA Status Interior Fraser population Threatened No Status

Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)

Population COSEWIC Status SARA Status Cultus-L population Endangered No Status Anderson-Seton-ES population Not at Risk Bowron-ES population Endangered No Status Chilliwack-ES population Not at Risk Francois-Fraser-S population Special Concern No Status Nadina-Francois-ES population Not at Risk Harrison (D/S)-L population Special Concern No Status Harrison (U/S)-L population Endangered No Status Kamloops-ES population Special Concern No Status Lillooet-Harrison-L population Special Concern No Status Nahatlatch-ES population Special Concern No Status North Barriere-ES population Threatened No Status Pitt-ES population Not at Risk Quesnel-S population Endangered No Status Seton-L population Endangered No Status Shuswap Complex-L population Not at Risk Shuswap-ES population Not at Risk Takla-Trembleur-EStu population Endangered No Status Takla-Trembleur-Stuart-S population Endangered No Status Taseko-ES population Endangered No Status Harrison River (River-Type) population Not at Risk

Widgeon (River-Type) population Threatened No Status

Chilko-ES population Not at Risk

Chilko-S population Not at Risk

Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Population COSEWIC Status SARA Status Thompson River population Endangered No Status Chilcotin River population Endangered No Status

APPENDIX 2: TECHNICAL REVIEW: POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE IMPACTS FROM PROJECT RELATED MARINE VESSELS ON SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE (TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT)

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Pacific Region Science Response 2018/050

TECHNICAL REVIEW: POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION MEASURES TO REDUCE IMPACTS FROM PROJECT-RELATED MARINE VESSELS ON SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALES Context Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is proposing an expansion of its current 1,150 km pipeline system between Edmonton, Alberta (AB) and Burnaby, British Columbia (BC), along with an expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burrard Inlet, to accommodate increased marine vessel traffic. On November 29, 2016, the Government of Canada granted approval for the Project, following a 29-month environmental assessment review by the National Energy Board (NEB), which concluded that the Project is in the Canadian public interest and recommended that the federal Governor in Council (GiC) approve the expansion. On August 30, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) released its decision with respect to judicial review applications challenging the federal approval of the Project. The Court ordered that the Order in Council (OIC) approving the Project be set aside. On September 20, 2018, the GiC sent the NEB’s Recommendation Report back to the NEB for reconsideration to address the issues specified by the FCA ruling and gave the NEB 155 days to complete its Reconsideration. Therefore, the Board must complete the Reconsideration process and issue its Reconsideration report no later than February 22, 2019. On October 12, 2018, the NEB released Hearing Order MH-052-2018, announcing that it will hold a public hearing and set out the timelines and process for the Reconsideration. On the same day, the NEB sent a letter to federal authorities (including Fisheries and Oceans Canada) requesting specialist or expert information to support the Reconsideration. Specifically, the NEB has requested information in regard to the effectiveness of mitigation measures aimed at avoiding or reducing impacts from Project-related marine vessels on the Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW). Existing and proposed Project-related marine vessel traffic are expected to use the established in-bound and out-bound marine shipping lanes in the Marine Regional Study Area (Marine RSA), which intersect critical habitat for SRKW (Figure 1). As an intervenor in the Reconsideration hearing process for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) will be presenting written evidence and responding to information requests from the NEB and other Intervenors in relation to its expertise on the effects of the Project on marine fish and fish habitat and marine mammals (including aquatic species at risk), the efficacy and adequacy of mitigation measures, and monitoring and follow-up programs that were not considered in the last NEB Hearing (OH-001- 2014). Scope DFO’s Pacific Region Fisheries Protection Program (FPP) is responsible for reviewing potential effects of the marine terminal and shipping components of the Project on fish, fish habitat and marine mammals. In 2015, on the request from FPP, DFO Science Branch conducted a

November 2018 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW sufficiency and technical review of the information on the effects of marine shipping on marine mammals in the Facilities Application for the Project (DFO 2015a and DFO2015b). FPP is now seeking DFO Science Branch support in responding to information requests from the NEB regarding the effectiveness of mitigation measures for impacts to SRKW from Project-related marine shipping. This CSAS Science Response (SR) is anticipated to be a review of existing peer-reviewed information and research from DFO and other published scientific literature and proceedings. The objective of this SR is to provide advice on the following questions: 1. Provide any information or knowledge concerning the potential effectiveness of the following potential mitigation measures:

o altering shipping lanes to reduce adverse effects on SRKW, such as shifting lanes away from marine mammal congregation areas;

o speed restrictions and altered shipping patterns, such as convoys, in order to reduce potential adverse effects such as underwater noise or the potential for ship strikes;

o vessel design (including hull and propeller) and maintenance measures for reducing adverse effects such as underwater noise from Project-related marine vessels;

o use of marine mammal on-board observers on Project-related marine vessels, and what actions need to be taken if SRKW are observed;

o measures to increase abundance of prey to offset adverse effects from Project-related marine shipping;

o any other measure that could avoid, reduce, and/or offset the adverse effects of Project- related marine shipping on SRKW; and

o measures that could avoid or reduce cumulative adverse effects on SKRW. 2. Provide any information or knowledge concerning the relationship between a vessel’s speed and tonnage (including the different types of Project-related marine vessels under both loaded and unloaded conditions) and how much underwater noise the vessel creates. This Science Response Report results from the Science Response Process of October 2018 on a review of the effectiveness of potential mitigation measures to address impacts from project- related marine vessel traffic on the Southern Resident Killer Whale.

Background The existing Trans Mountain pipeline (TMPL) system commenced operation in 1953, and transports a range of crude oil and petroleum products from Western Canada to locations in central and southwestern British Columbia (BC), Washington State, and offshore. The proposed Project would create a twinned pipeline, increasing the capacity of the system from approximately 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. Key Project components include 994 km of new pipeline, reactivation of 193 km of existing pipeline, 12 new pump stations and expansion of existing pump stations and storage tanks, and the addition of three new vessel berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC. For this particular DFO Science review, the marine vessel traffic that will transport the petroleum products is of relevance. The proposed expansion is forecasted to increase marine vessel traffic from 5 tankers per month calling at the Westridge Marine Terminal to approximately 34 tankers per month (i.e., an additional 696 tanker transits each year). At present, the maximum size of

2 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW petroleum tankers that call at the Westridge Terminal are Aframax class, which have an average cargo carrying capacity of 750,000 barrels. The maximum size of tankers is not expected to change as part of the Project. These vessels will transit the Marine Regional Study Area (Marine RSA) using existing in-bound and out-bound shipping lanes (Figure 1), and consequently will transit proposed habitats of special importance to Resident Killer Whales (DFO 2017a; Figure 2). It will take each Project-related Marine vessel approximately 12 hours to complete one transit of the Marine RSA; and, on average, there will be two transits every 24 hours. This will be in addition to existing traffic in the shipping lanes and other traffic in the Marine RSA. An increase in marine vessel traffic associated with the Project has the potential to result in sensory disturbance to marine mammals from underwater noise and an increased risk of injury and mortality associated with mammal-vessel strikes. Disturbance responses associated with increased Project-related vessel traffic could range from temporary displacement to reduced foraging efficiency, to disruption of mating and social behaviours. The potential for these effects to affect recovery of the Southern Resident Killer Whale is of critical importance, as only 74 individuals are estimated to be present in the wild as of September 2018. Furthermore, the Proponent has noted in the Project Application that although the Project’s contribution to overall sensory disturbance effects on the species is small, the potential effects of increased Project- related marine vessel traffic are determined to be significant for Southern Resident Killer Whales. This species is therefore of the greatest conservation concern in the Marine RSA.

3 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Figure 1. The marine shipping lanes, critical habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales, proposed Critical Habitat for Humpback Whales and other important areas for marine mammals in the Marine RSA (from Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2013. Trans Mountain Expansion Project – An Application Pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act, Volume 8A - Marine Transportation).

4 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Figure 2. Habitat of special importance for SRKW and NRKWs off south western Vancouver Island. This habitat is currently proposed additional Critical Habitat for these two killer whale populations. (from DFO 2017a. Identification of Habitats of Special Importance to Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) off the West Coast of Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2017/011.

Analysis and Response

Altering shipping lanes to reduce adverse effects on SRKW, such as shifting lanes away from marine mammal congregation areas The direct potential advantage of altering shipping lanes is to decrease noise exposure levels and duration by increasing the distance between the vessels creating the noise and the SRKW occupying a given habitat. While this action will result in a potential increase in the noise propagation losses between the vessel and the marine mammals, it will however result in an increase in the noise exposure levels in the area surrounding the new shipping lane location. The effectiveness of the measure is strongly dependent on several factors including: 1. The knowledge available on the frequency and duration with which SRKW use different portions of their critical habitat, the precision of information regarding where SRKW are located, and when they are in sensitive parts of the critical habitat (e.g. known foraging areas), and whether it is possible to re-route the shipping lane away from these sensitive areas. 2. The initial propagation range between the route and the sensitive area. Noise levels decrease more rapidly close to a ship in the lane than farther away, as noise propagation

5 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

losses tend to be logarithmic with respect to propagation range. For example, if a sensitive area is located very close (e.g., 100 m) to a shipping lane, received noise levels could be lowered dramatically (half the intensity) by moving the vessels only 20-100 m further away. However, if the initial range between shipping lane and sensitive area is larger (e.g., 2000 m), then a 50% reduction in intensity would require the lane to be shifted an additional 800-2000 m (i.e. between 2800 and 4000 m) away from the sensitive area (DFO 2017b). 3. The SRKW sensitivity to specific acoustic frequencies relative to the propagation of these sound frequencies. As noted in (2) above noise levels decrease more rapidly closer to the source than farther away, but in addition higher frequencies decrease faster relative to lower frequencies. The latter is important as impacts related to auditory masking of sounds relevant to SRKW depend on the animals’ ability to hear the sounds and noise in question. The optimum hearing range ( +/- 20 dB of the maximum sensitivity which is near 30 kHz) for SRKW is between 3 and 80 kHz (Branstetter et al 2017), and overlaps with the frequency range of vessel noise which has its maximum energy below 1 kHz but ranges up to 40 kHz (Veirs et al 2016). Hearing sensitivity is higher for higher frequency components of the noise, which tend to be lower in energy and faster to dissipate with distance from the source because spreading losses generally increase dramatically with acoustical frequency (i.e. higher-frequency noise will not propagate as far as lower frequency noise). Shifting vessel traffic lanes away from sensitive areas will result in reductions in received broadband noise levels in those sensitive areas; but uncertainty exists with regards to spreading losses at higher frequencies where the noise can be more directional. Shipping noise is generated in the upper 20 m of the water column, which is also the depth range most often used by SRKW. In addition, knowledge of noise impact at low frequencies outside of SRKW best hearing frequency range is also mostly unknown. 4. The local sound propagation characteristics. These characteristics are defined by: water depth, bottom types, sea state, the sound speed in the water column as a function of depth, temperature, and salinity, and, the frequency characteristics of the sound (lower-frequency sounds that are common from large vessel output propagate further than higher frequencies). It is challenging to predict the potential effectiveness of this mitigation measure given that several of these parameters vary spatially (e.g. depth and bottom type) and temporally (e.g. sea state and sound speed). In the Salish Sea, and especially among the Gulf Islands (i.e., Boundary Pass, Haro Strait and Rosario Strait) there are physical constraints to altering shipping lanes. The Juan de Fuca Strait and Swiftsure and La Perouse Banks are more favourable areas for altering shipping lanes. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s (VFPA) Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program is currently leading a voluntary trial in Juan de Fuca Strait to investigate the efficacy of this mitigation approach at reducing vessel noise and impacts in key SRKW feeding areas. Specifically, outbound vessels are being asked to navigate as far south as possible through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, provided it is safe and operationally feasible to do so (Figure 3), and underwater noise is being measured before, during, and after the trial using DFO hydrophones deployed in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Analysis of the trial results is expected to commence as soon as the trial concludes on October 31, 2018, and will provide quantifiable insights into the efficacy of altering shipping lanes as a mitigation measure. DFO Science recognizes that modifications to existing shipping lanes is a responsibility of other regulatory agencies including Transport Canada.

6 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Figure 3. Map of the Strait of Juan de Fuca Lateral Displacement Trial of shipping traffic adjacent to important Southern Resident Killer Whale foraging habitat, sourced from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s ECHO Program website

Speed restrictions and altered shipping patterns, such as convoys, to reduce potential adverse effects such as underwater noise or the potential for ship strikes Generally a reduction in vessel speed results in an immediate reduction in the overall noise exposure levels, but it also in turn increases the duration of noise exposure. Reduced vessel speeds also have the potential to reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes in larger whales. This has been demonstrated by Laist et al. (2014) and van der Hoop et al. (2015) for North Atlantic right whales (NARWs) following the 2008 implementation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of a general speed limit of 10 knots in critical habitats and 20 nautical miles around major ports on their migratory path in US waters. In the summer and autumn of 2017 the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s ECHO Program initiated a voluntary vessel slowdown trial in Haro Strait. Large commercial and government vessels were asked to reduce their speeds to 11 knots in the trial area. During the trial, noise levels measured at a hydrophone located at Lime Kiln Lighthouse on San Juan Island, Washington State, an important SRKW foraging area, were reduced by a median value of 1.2 dB (range: 0.6 dB low traffic day to 1.5 dB high traffic day; ECHO 2018). This result is approximately equivalent to a 24% reduction in sound intensity (ECHO 2018). When time periods with small vessel presence and periods with strong winds and currents were eliminated from the data set leaving only large vessel traffic as the predominant noise source, the noise reduction due to slow-down increased to 2.5dB (~44 % reduction in intensity). Consequently, it

7 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

is unlikely that a permanent slow down would result in a 44% reduction in noise intensity. However, as only 61% of piloted commercial vessels participated in the trial slowdown, were there a higher rate of compliance, then the noise reduction may be greater. While a slow down reduces sound energy, the trade-off is that it results in an increase in the duration of exposure to noise as the vessels take longer to move through a given area. There is currently insufficient published data and analyses available to characterize the effect of increasing exposure duration on SRKW’s abilities to communicate and echolocate efficiently. Some researchers have suggested that the loss of listening space (i.e. the relative reduction of distance over which animals can hear important sounds due to noise exposure of a certain intensity) may be biologically more relevant than the change in sound exposure duration of a lower intensity sound, because cetaceans such as SRKW need to forage at specific locations where and when the prey is available (Pine et al. 2018, Heise et al. 2017). This would also suggest that lower sound intensity may generally be an effective mitigation; however, the available information is not definitive. Sound propagation properties, however, vary greatly among locations and some authors have shown conditional increases in overall vessel noise exposure in the St. Lawrence River estuary mainly due to variation in local sound propagation properties vs. effect of speed reduction on ship source noise levels (Chion et al. 2017). Consideration of area-based vessel speed limitations may also need to account for potential vessel accelerations in other locations to maintain the shipping schedule resulting in an overall increase in sound exposure along other areas of the vessel route. For example, if mandatory speed restrictions were in place within the area of Canada’s territorial sea on the west coast, vessels could potentially increase speed after entering the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to stay on schedule. Were the latter to occur it may increase ship strike risk for other whale species in Canadian waters (Nichol et al. 2017). The effectiveness of a speed reduction mitigation measure is therefore a trade-off depending on: 1. The local fleet characteristics - where the broadband noise reduction is typically between 0.5 and 1.5 dB per knot reduction in speed (DFO 2017b). However, studies have shown that there is significant variability in any vessel’s source level as a result of speed changes, and variability between vessels of the same class. Simard et al. (2016) found that measured source spectral levels exhibited large variability, exceeding 30 dB even when aggregated by ship types or length classes. Some ships may actually show an increase in noise with reduced speed, depending on propeller type and propulsion system. Loading levels of any given ship will also affect the effect of vessel speed on noise levels primarily due to the draft of the vessel. A vessel speed reduction regulation will also not affect the noise output of slow moving vessels, such as tugs. 2. The local noise propagation characteristics that are driven by sound frequency characteristics, water depth, bottom types, sea-state and ocean water properties (sound- speed profiles). 3. Whether the potential decrease in sound energy levels is a net improvement for SRKW over the resulting longer exposure to sound, and possible increased noise exposure in other areas. Convoys: Assuming all vessels involved in a convoy will still travel at their normal speed, grouping vessels in convoys will maintain the overall noise exposure level, and change noise spatial and temporal

8 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

patterns (DFO 2017b). Using convoys will increase the sound level and duration of a single transit event (several ships in line), and increase the duration of quiet times (spatial and temporal overlap between ship acoustic signature) for any given area along the convoying lane. Currently, little is known about the importance of quieter periods to SRKW. In practice, a number of the convoying vessels would have to reduce their speeds to match the slowest ship in the convoy and this might result in overall reduction in noise output. However, the noise level might be increased in the staging areas at both ends of the convoying lanes. The timing of these convoys could also affect the impact on SRKW biologically important activities (foraging, reproduction, social communication). Convoying may also reduce the risk of vessel strikes as it slows down the speed of all vessels to the speed of the slowest vessel, in this case the Project vessel accompanied by tugs. Thus, the effectiveness of this measure will depend on: 1. convoy speed; 2. inter-ship interval; 3. the number of convoys per day; and 4. convoy timing in relation to the occurrence of SRKW biologically important activity. In summary, the effectiveness of a vessel speed reduction and alteration of shipping lane mitigation measure is a trade-off depending on fleet characteristics, propagation characteristics for vessel sounds, and whether the vessels alter their passage pattern (such as through altered routes or convoys).

Vessel design and maintenance measures Design and maintenance can reduce both noise exposure level and duration. For example, vessel design and maintenance can reduce a ship’s acoustic source level immediately and with proper maintenance and monitoring these reduced levels can be maintained. Additionally, designing larger vessels that are able to carry larger loads can result in fewer vessels being required to move the same overall load. The reduction in the number of required vessel passages to move the same goods and materials has an additional effect of reducing the duration of exposure. In general, changes in ship design, and retrofitting ships to reduce source level noise, are considered more effective than reducing speed limits or altering shipping lanes because they are not limited to the spatial area where the mitigation effort takes place, nor to a particular time. Furthermore, any ship design mitigation measure is independent of the behaviour of SRKW (DFO 2017b). New vessel designs that generate lower sound emissions are available but are typically more costly to purchase and older noisier vessels may be in operation for a number of years. However, incentives may be possible to encourage the adoption new vessel designs, such as a lowering of fuel consumption and/or reduced port fees for quieter vessels, as suggested by VFPA. The effectiveness of this mitigation measure on noise reduction will depend on the number of Project related ships that will receive a retrofit and the number of newer design ships that will be put in operation. However, there is a potential that quieter ships may also pose an increased risk of whale collision – however, there have been insufficient investigations to confirm or quantify this. At the same constant speed as vessels travel currently, reducing the number of ships will reduce the

9 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW overall collision risk. It is likely that combining speed and ship-source noise level reduction will be necessary to minimize both noise impact and collision risk. The effectiveness of this measure will depend on: 1. Ship source level reduction obtained from design, retrofit and maintenance. The noise radiating from a vessel comes primarily from two sources: the in-water propulsion mechanisms (propeller cavitation), and onboard machinery inside the hull. Both of these have large potential for noise reduction from changes in ship design and retrofits (DFO 2017b, Baudin and Mumm, 2015). Changes in propeller design can result in 3-18 dB reduction in noise levels. Isolating diesel engines and associated parts can reduce the source level by as much as 15-20 dB within certain frequency bands. Hull modifications or treatments can also reduce the noise levels by up to 10 dB at medium frequencies and as much as 20 dB at the highest frequencies. 2. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s ECHO Program commissioned a study to identify technical ways to make vessels quieter. One of their conclusions was that replacing old propellers with new ones had only minor effects on the underwater noise, while modifications to existing propellers by adding Propeller Boss Cap Fins and ducting of the flow around the propeller (e.g., Schneekluth or Mewis duct) have the potential to significantly reduce the noise levels (ECHO 2017). 3. With regards to maintenance, the ECHO Program found that regular propeller cleaning and repair as well as regular cleaning of the hull lead to significant noise reduction effectiveness, with keeping the propeller clean and in good shape to be the overall best approach to minimize the noise level for any individual vessel (ECHO 2017). 4. Ship speed. It is expected that reducing ship source levels and speeds would be effective for reducing collision risk. However, further investigation is required on this point. 5. Ship size/number. In summary, vessel design changes and regular maintenance of propeller and hull are some of the most effective measures to reduce a vessel’s underwater noise field and would lessen the impact of this vessel in all waters where they travel. However, these are likely to require significant time to implement.

Use of marine mammal on-board observers In addition to generating underwater noise, fast moving large vessels can pose a strike risk for killer whales, as highlighted by the recent mortality of J34, a prime age male found to have died from blunt force trauma. The small size of the SRKW population and the low numbers of prime age males and females (< 20 animals) that support the reproductive potential and genetic diversity of the population means that the loss of even one animal could have significant consequences (DFO 2017c). Vessel speed has been found to be an important factor contributing to both the likelihood of a strike and the severity of its effects (Conn and Silber 2013; Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). The probability of a lethal injury to a whale when struck by a vessel increases significantly above 9 knots and almost certainty results in whale death above 15 knots. Studies on NARWs suggest that an effective mitigation measure to reduce the risk of ship strikes includes routing modifications (e.g., Vanderlaan et al. 2008; Vanderlaan and Taggart 2009; Lagueux et al. 2011; van der Hoop et al. 2012), however changes to vessel routes is not always feasible due to navigational safety constraints. This is especially true in SRKW critical habitats; therefore,

10 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

reductions in vessel speed in the presence of whales would be the most effective mitigation measure and has been demonstrated for other whale species (Kite-Powell et al. 2007; Pace 2011). In addition, for most vessel classes, slowing down would immediately result in a reduction of the noise levels received by SRKW (Veirs et al. 2016, see previous section of this SR), which could in turn reduce masking effects and other detrimental impacts of underwater noise on SRKW and their ability to forage effectively (Veirs and Veirs 2011). Any action by vessel operators requires timely detection of SRKW by on-board visual or acoustic means, or other means of alerting ships to the presence of whales in their paths. Posting trained marine mammal observers (MMOs) or video monitoring systems on the bows of ships is likely to be useful only when sighting conditions are good (low sea state, low swell, no fog, daylight sufficient to detect surfaced or barely-submerged animals, large or highly-visible target species), and when there is sufficient time for the vessel to safely react and avoid striking a marine mammal. In critical habitat areas, such as Juan de Fuca Strait and Swiftsure Bank, the Project tankers (Aframax class with an average length of 245 m) are too large and moving at speeds too great to allow for much manoeuvrability should an animal be detected ahead of the ship; ships travelling at speeds >15 knots require more than two kilometres to stop, and many ship strike records indicate that the whales surfaced close to the front of the ship. Moreover, as water passes a large hull, it can advect a nearby whale towards the side of the ship, and likely thereafter into the propeller and rudder at the rear – in effect creating a “hazard zone” larger than the cross section of the hull (Silber et al. 2010), and thus requiring ships to avoid whales by a wider margin. Within the narrower waterways of the Salish Sea, from Haro Strait to Burrard Inlet, when Project vessels are accompanied by tugs, their speed may be lower than 15 knots, making MMO whale detection more likely. However, the ability to manoeuvre the ship away from SRKW is limited and likely poses a safety risk in those narrow waterways. Therefore, it is unlikely that MMO posted on vessels will achieve a significant reduction in the risk of ship strike in critical habitat both inside and outside the Salish Sea. Crews of large vessels generally are unaware of collisions and typically notice the kill only when a whale becomes stuck on the bow (e.g., Félix and Van Waerebeek 2005; Jensen and Silber 2003). Technologies to detect marine mammals under low visibility conditions (e.g., at night, in fog) such as night vision systems, radar, active sonar, forward-looking infrared cameras and infrared binoculars, have undergone limited testing and have generally been found to perform poorly except for detecting large cetaceans at distances of several kilometres in calm sea states. Infrared systems are "practically useless" in conditions with rain, fog or haze (Baldacci et al. 2005). Even if such systems were in place, the vessel operators would still require sufficient time to safely react to detected marine mammals. Onboard passive acoustic monitoring is not a viable option as most acoustic monitoring equipment that can be operated on a moving vessel would not provide reliable detections of marine mammals located in front of the vessel. Therefore, it is not a reliable method of detecting marine mammals to ensure absence from an impact area. Moreover, many cetaceans, including SRKW, vocalize intermittently and are often silent for periods of time. Bottom-mounted acoustic arrays have been deployed to monitor calling baleen whales, specifically North Atlantic Right Whales, but also Fin Whales and Humpback Whales (Clark and Charif 1998; Morano et al. 2012). In the northeastern U.S., this information is provided to vessel operators in real-time, allowing for an agreed-upon response such as reducing vessel speed when a calling whale is detected in or near the shipping lane within a 24 hour period. Such an approach might constitute a way to supply advance warnings to transiting tankers. There is an effort within the Federal Government’s Ocean Protection Plan Ship collision avoidance program to evaluate methods

11 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

and technology that could be useful for real-time ship alerts of whale presence, such as acoustic monitoring networks in areas of high collision risk, infrared automated detection in narrow waterways, and automated delivery of sightings via mariner sightings networks among other approaches. It is therefore expected that in coming years, such systems will become functional and at that time could become part of a ship alert system used by the Canadian Coast Guard to alert onboard MMOs and vessel operators. In summary, in most cases onboard monitoring of marine mammals by visual and/or acoustical technologies would be inadequate to determine with a reasonable level of confidence that cetaceans would be present or absent from an area ahead of a transiting tanker. In addition, due to the limited number of documented cases of SRKW fatal collisions, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy of slowing down Aframax tankers to mitigate vessel collision fatalities. In spite of the limited information, the limitations in the ability of a loaded Aframax tanker to slow down and/or alter course in the confined waterways of the Salish Sea and the shipping channels suggest that this approach would not provide an acceptable level of ship strike risk mitigation from Project related ships. However, there may be utility with this approach near the Project facility, and thus it is recommended that MMOs coordinate with existing whale sighting networks to receive advance warning of SRKWs to facilitate mitigation, such as reducing speed.

Measures to increase abundance of prey to offset adverse effects from Project- related marine shipping Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the observed poor body condition in the SRKW population is associated with increased mortality of fetuses, calves and adults and is a result of nutritional stress (Matkin et al. 2017). SRKW feed primarily on Chinook Salmon and considerable effort has been undertaken to identify measures to increase the availability of this key prey species. Availability could be increased by attempting to increase absolute abundance of Chinook Salmon stocks, but also by increasing SRKW access to presently available fish by reducing competition from fisheries and associated vessel disturbance in key foraging areas, as well as reducing masking effects due to underwater noise. Research on the cumulative effects of the multiple threats to SRKW suggests that, although prey limitation is likely the most important factor affecting population growth, both reductions in acoustic disturbance and increases in prey abundance are needed to achieve population growth (Lacy et al. 2017). These results suggest that it would be theoretically possible to offset parts of the marine shipping effects by 1. increasing Chinook Salmon abundance coast-wide, 2. increasing availability of Chinook Salmon in key SRKW foraging areas, and 3. increasing SRKW access to Chinook Salmon by limiting interference from vessel disturbances. Increasing the absolute abundance of Chinook Salmon stocks is a long term goal of SRKW recovery efforts as well as Fisheries Management. However, a number of key uncertainties are associated with the current understanding of Chinook Salmon productivity of the different stocks. For instance, the productivity of hatchery populations may differ from associated natural populations, but the available data does not provide a means of differentiating between hatchery and natural populations, limiting our ability to make inferences about natural productivity (DFO 2018). Large-scale patterns of environmental change and increased environmental variability have been associated with broad declines in productivity of Chinook Salmon across their range in recent decades. Chinook Salmon productivity is estimated to have declined 25-40% since the

12 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

early 1980s across many BC indicator stocks; however, contrary to the basin-scale pattern of declines in productivity, increases in escapement have been observed for some Vancouver Island stocks. At present, the specific natural and/or human-caused mechanism(s) leading to these increases have not been isolated (DFO 2018). Because of this, increasing overall abundance may not necessarily result in increased prey availability in the most relevant areas for SRKW. In contrast, management actions that limit Chinook Salmon removals in close proximity to SRKW foraging areas may increase the likelihood that these Chinook Salmon would be available to SRKW, as the risk of removals by other predators will be reduced (Hilborn et al. 2012). Information from sightings, acoustic detections, and expert opinion has been compiled to support the identification of SRKW foraging habitat. Four key locations were identified: Juan de Fuca Strait, the west side of Pender Island, the south side of Saturna Island, and the mouth of the Fraser River (Sheila Thornton [DFO, West Vancouver, BC], John Ford [retired DFO, Nanaimo, BC], Lance Barrett-Lennard, [University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC], pers. comms.). Based on the best available information, and operating under a precautionary approach, the following measures have been proposed to increase prey availability for SRKW in the identified foraging areas: 1. a complete closure of Chinook Salmon removals from the four key foraging areas; 2. a combination of area closures and a decrease in Chinook Salmon retention that achieves the greatest reduction in removals from the foraging areas; and 3. a reduction in removals of 4- to 5- year old Chinook Salmon throughout the season, acknowledging that there is currently no effective means to differentiate between returning 3, 4, 5, or 6 year olds. In 2018, DFO implemented spatially- and temporally-relevant fisheries closures for the purposes of increasing Chinook Salmon availability for SRKW in the Salish Sea and at the times where foraging has been most frequently observed. While it is possible to identify methods by which Chinook Salmon removals in key SRKW foraging areas can be reduced, this may not necessarily translate into a direct proportional increase in accessible prey and foraging success, and in turn this may not result in a full mitigation of Project-related effects on SRKW. For instance, a workshop that assembled scientists and managers with technical expertise on killer whales and Chinook Salmon suggested that limiting vessel disturbances to make the Chinook Salmon that are already present easier for SRKW to catch would be beneficial (Trites and Rosen 2018). In summary, recent population viability analysis modelling does suggest it is theoretically possible to offset effects of marine shipping by increasing Chinook Salmon abundance, availability and access in key SRKW foraging areas. However, because of the complexity of the interactions between stressors, it is not currently possible to provide reliable information on the exact increase of prey abundance needed to offset other adverse effects.

Other measures that could avoid, reduce and/or offset the adverse effects of Project-related marine shipping on SRKW A number of additional mitigation measures have been suggested to reduce the impact of vessel noise on SRKW critical habitats, but their noise reduction potentials are presently uncertain and further studies are on-going, or need to be started, to evaluate their possible effectiveness (DFO 2017b). These measures were discussed originally for a large range of

13 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

commercial vessels and measures were not specific to Project-related vessels. There is a general uncertainty about the effectiveness of the mitigation if only applied to Project-related vessels. One suggested measure is to redirect a portion of vessel traffic from Haro Strait to Rosario Strait. The effect on SRKW critical habitat areas of great importance will depend on the proportion and types of vessels being rerouted. Such an approach will also necessarily lead to increased noise levels in Rosario Strait. The importance of Rosario Strait for SRKW would need to be reassessed to make sure the benefit is equally distributed among all SRKW. There are also physical and geographical constraints in Rosario Strait that would prevent the largest, and sometimes noisiest ships from being rerouted. Lastly, the waters of Rosario Strait are in the US and re-routing of shipping would require negotiations between the US and Canada. The negotiations would take time to complete, therefore the impacts would not be mitigated until the changes were implemented. Another measure would be to implement real-time notification of whale presence; leading to management action, such as slow-downs or minor route changes. Uncertainty exists about the ability to reliably detect SRKW in real-time under various environmental conditions. The initiation of a vessel slow-down requires a lead time that changes relative to the speed of the vessel in order to effectively reduce the noise near the whales. Route changes are limited to certain areas of the critical habitat of SRKW where these can be safely performed. A third approach would be to create year-round or seasonal quiet or “no-go” zones in certain critical habitats, e.g. known SRKW feeding areas which may shift due to prey type and/or abundance either seasonally or yearly. This would result in significant noise level reductions in the areas affected, but would result in increased noise levels in other areas. Also, these areas would have to be much larger than the actual sensitive critical habitat areas because of long-range underwater sound propagation. For this mitigation to be effective it would likely require dynamic management with spatial and temporal flexibility to respond to SRKW behaviour, foraging needs, and prey availability; this management strategy would be challenging due to the potential difference in preferred areas by different SRKW pods at different times of the year (Cominelli et al 2018). This mitigation measure may be applicable for other traffic but may not be directly applicable for TMX related vessel traffic because Project vessels travel in the international shipping lanes. Alternatively, areas outside the shipping lanes, and their separation zone, could be considered a ‘no go zone’. A fourth approach would be to restrict commercial vessel traffic at night through sensitive critical habitat zones like Haro Strait. This would make it quiet at night, with the goal of creating quiet periods for SRKW to forage more easily (with reduced noise and vessel presence interference) but would increase the noise levels during daytime when an increased number of vessels would have to pass through a given area. The effectiveness of this mitigation measure depends on SRKW being able to make use of the quiet night-time periods to feed. This is still uncertain but night-time foraging behaviour is currently subject to scientific study in both Canada and the US. A fifth mitigation measure would be to replace the top 10%, or another percentage, of the noisiest vessels in a given vessel class, with ships having noise levels corresponding to the quietest 10% of the vessels in the same vessel class. This approach applied to Project specific vessels may not have a large impact on the overall noise profile of the SRKW habitat areas. The mitigation measure should have an impact on the overall noise field in a given area if applied to the noisiest vessels, which may be container and large cargo ships according to Veirs

14 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

et al (2016). DFO Science acknowledges this mitigation would potentially require multi-agency engagement of regulatory authorities in both Canada and the US. Other possible mitigation techniques include training vessel operators to change vessel operating behaviour to avoid rapid acceleration and deceleration and the use of fewer but larger vessels to transport the same amount of product. This last mitigation is dependent on the number of larger Project-related vessels that will be in operation but an upper limit is given by the size restriction of vessels allowed to enter Burrard Inlet and dock at the Westridge Terminal.

Measures that could avoid or reduce cumulative adverse effects on SRKW In the cumulative effects assessment undertaken by the Proponent in 2015, it was concluded that “past and current activities (including all forms of mortality, high contaminant loads, reduced prey, and sensory and physical disturbance) have resulted in significant adverse cumulative effects to the southern resident killer whale population” (Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2013: section 4.4.5.3.1). Relative to the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects to SRKW, it was concluded that “the Project will contribute additional underwater noise that could affect the southern resident killer whale population and this noise will act cumulatively with noise from existing and reasonably foreseeable marine vessel traffic. As such, even though the Project contribution to overall underwater noise represents only one component of current and future marine transportation sources for underwater noise, the Project’s contribution to potential cumulative effects of sensory disturbance is determined to be significant for southern resident killer whales” (section 4.4.5.3.1). Thus, sensory disturbance from noise from vessel traffic was determined to be an adverse unmitigated cumulative effect. The present information request seeks new information or knowledge concerning the effectiveness of mitigation that could avoid or reduce cumulative adverse effects on SRKW. A cumulative effects model developed by Lacy et al. (2017) projected that reducing acoustic disturbance by 50% in combination with increasing Chinook Salmon abundance by 15% would allow the SRKW population to increase by 2.3%, which is the US recovery target for this population (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008). In the model, the baseline conditions (i.e., empirical observations from 1976-2015) were predicted to result in a continued decline of SRKW with a 5% probability of a population size less than 30 individuals in 100 years and 0% probability of extinction (Table 1). This negative population trend reflects the losses of individuals in the population in recent years. A scenario with ‘no anthropogenic threats’ (baseline levels of Chinook Salmon, but no noise, contaminants, oil spills or ship strikes) was predicted to result in a small population growth rate, and eliminated the probability of extinction in 100 years or N<30. The ‘low development’ and ‘high development’ scenarios were both predicted to increase the rate of population decline, which was worse under the ‘high development’ scenario. ‘Low’ and ‘high’ development increased the probability of N<30 individuals in 100 years to 31% and 70%, respectively. Probability of extinction increased to 5% and 25%, respectively, under the two development scenarios (Lacy et al. 2017). In single-threat mitigation scenarios, population growth was predicted in scenarios involving increased prey, elimination of noise, or elimination of contaminants. The highest population growth (r=0.036, or 3.6% annual rate of growth) was observed in a multi-threat mitigation scenario with a 30% increase in prey abundance and a 50% reduction in noise from baseline levels (Lacy et al. 2017).

15 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Table 1. Comparison of modelled SRKW population growth under different scenarios involving baseline and modified Chinook Salmon abundance, noise, contaminants, oil spills, and ship strikes (from Lacy et al. 2017). Baseline conditions are the rates observed in years 1976-2015. Modified parameters are expressed as a percentage of baseline unless otherwise indicated. Population growth rates marked with * are the highest rates for a range of scenarios tested (Increased prey: baseline to 130%; noise: 0% to baseline; PCBs: 0% to baseline; Chinook Salmon: baseline to 130% combined with 50% noise) Scenario Environmental conditions (as % of baseline conditions) SRKW Chinook Noise Contaminants Oil spills Ship population Salmon (PCBs) strikes growth (r) Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline -0.002 (2 ppm) (0) No Baseline 0% 0% 0% 0% +0.019 anthropogenic threats Low Reaching 109% Baseline 0.21% 1 per 10 -0.008 development 75% in (big spill) years 100 years 1.08% (small spill) High Reaching 118% Baseline 0.42% 2 per 10 -0.017 development 50% in (big spill) years 100 years 2.16% (small spill) Increased 130% Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline +0.025 * prey No noise Baseline 0% Baseline Baseline Baseline +0.017 * No PCB Baseline Baseline 0% Baseline Baseline +0.004 * Increased 130% 50% Baseline Baseline Baseline +0.036 * prey and reduced noise Given that the adverse unmitigated cumulative effect identified by the Proponent was the result of repeated exposure to underwater noise from marine traffic, the measures identified in earlier sections of this document will also reduce the cumulative noise.

Relationship between vessel speed and tonnage and magnitude / extent of underwater noise The vessel speed dependent broadband noise reduction is typically found to be between 0.5 and 1.5 dB per knot across all vessel classes (DFO 2017b). Studies also indicate that vessel class plays a bigger role in defining the noise level than size although most reported differences in noise output between vessel classes is confounded by vessel speed (McKenna et al 2012, McKenna et al 2013, Simard et al 2016, Veirs et al. 2016). Vessel size appears not to be linearly associated with generated noise. McKenna et al. (2012) estimated the source levels of different types of vessels based on received levels measured from transiting vessels and found the levels to vary between 181.3 dB and 182.7 dB for tankers between 228 and 229 m in length and travelling at 15 knots. These levels were similar to vehicle carriers, but lower than for bulk carriers (187.4 dB).

16 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Simard et al. (2016) reported large variations in sound source levels of more than 25 dB for commercial vessels ranging from 200-250 m in length. In 2013, McKenna et al. looked at the variation of underwater noise generation by container ships based on speed, length, gross tonnage and draft (draft, length and tonnage were linearly related and confounded into length) and found that variation for vessels of the same length varied greatly possibly due to differences in speed. Length was still seen as a predictor for noise generation but at a much coarser scale resolution (i.e., only very large size differences were good predictors of noise differences). Load differences have been found to affect the noise generated by a given vessel. However it is not immediately obvious whether lighter loads will reduce or increase the noise. Lighter loads result in shallower draft and reduced energy input to the propeller to move a vessel forward, which should result in reduced noise. However, with shallower draft the propeller is closer to the surface, or might actually break the surface, resulting in less efficient energy transfer and cavitation, potentially increasing the noise generated and also shifting the noise to different acoustic frequencies. The source levels from any given vessel is a result of complex multifactorial processes that depend on propeller, machinery, machinery mounting and hull design (Baudin and Mumm, 2015, Ross 1976, Wagstaff 1973) and ship speed and tonnage are only two parameters amongst many that play a role in defining a vessel’s overall noise field. In summary, due to large variations in noise output of vessels of the same length and gross tonnage, mitigation that would consider size restriction of tankers may not be very useful unless large size differences of Project-specific vessels would be considered. Furthermore, any mitigation measure based on restriction of only Project-related vessel sizes may be obscured by the relative noise generation of other commercial vessels operating in the same waters as the tankers.

Uncertainties This evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measure to reduce impacts from Project- related marine vessels in SRKW has been conducted with the acknowledgement that there are key uncertainties associated with the information available. Examples include, but are not limited to: • uncertainties associated with the data available for SRKW; • uncertainty regarding noise spreading losses at higher frequencies; • uncertainty regarding the efficacy of slowing down Aframax tankers to mitigate vessel collision fatalities; and, • uncertainty regarding how reliable real-time detection would need to be, and how much notification lead time would be necessary, to enable vessels to effectively initiate the reviewed real-time mitigation measures.

Conclusions • Redirecting a portion of vessel traffic from Haro Strait to Rosario Strait will reduce impacts on SRKW critical habitats in Haro Strait, but will increase the impact on other areas. Also, the physical constraints of Rosario Strait are a limitation to the type and size of vessels that could be redirected.

17 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

• A reduction in vessel speed generally results in an increase in duration of noise exposure, but a reduction in the overall level of noise, and reduced vessel speeds also have the potential to reduce the risk of lethal vessel strikes in larger whales. The effectiveness of a vessel speed reduction mitigation measure to reduce noise levels will be influenced by fleet characteristics, propagation characteristics for vessel sounds, and whether the vessels alter their passage pattern (such as through altered routes or convoys). • Vessel design changes are possibly the most effective measures to reduce a vessel’s underwater noise field. Keeping the propeller clean and well maintained and the hull clean also makes a large difference. • In most cases, onboard monitoring of marine mammals by visual and/or acoustical technologies would be inadequate to determine with a reasonable level of confidence that SRKW would be present or absent from an area ahead of a transiting tanker that would provide an acceptable level of ship strike risk mitigation. It is recommended that MMOs coordinate with existing whale sighting networks to receive advance warning of SRKWs approaching the construction area to facilitate mitigation, such as reducing speed. • Population viability analyses suggest it is theoretically possible to offset effects of marine shipping by increasing Chinook Salmon abundance, availability and access in key SRKW foraging areas. However, because of the complexity of the interactions between stressors, it is not currently possible to provide reliable information on the exact increase of prey abundance needed to offset other adverse effects. • Implementing real-time notification of whale presence could lead to earlier initiation of other mitigation procedures, such as vessel-slow down, but only if real-time detection were reliable year-round and notification can reach vessels in due time. • Year-round or seasonal quiet or “no-go” zones in certain critical habitats will have limited applicability in the constrained areas in the Gulf Islands. Sound also travels far, requiring careful studies to identify the size of such area to make a difference. • Restricting commercial vessel traffic at night might be a useful mitigation measure if it can be demonstrated that SRKW forage at the same rate and capacity at night as during the day. However, night traffic restriction will result in increased noise levels during daytime. • Replacing the top 10%, or another percentage, of the noisiest vessels in a given vessel class, with ships having noise levels corresponding to the quietest 10% of the vessels in the same vessel class would reduce the noise impact on critical habitats. However, except for regulating the Aframax tankers directly associated with the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, it will be difficult to implement. • Due to large variations in noise output of vessels of the same length and gross tonnage, mitigation that would consider size restriction of tankers may not be very useful unless large size differences of Project-specific vessels would be considered. Furthermore, any mitigation measure based on restriction of Project-related vessel sizes is further confounded by the much bigger noise generation of other commercial vessels operating in the same waters as the tankers. Particularly large container ships travelling at higher speed in the vicinity of tankers would mask the noise produced by tankers. • Given that the adverse unmitigated cumulative effect identified by the Proponent was the result of repeated exposure to underwater noise from marine traffic, the measures identified in earlier sections of this document will also reduce the total noise from all shipping. According to a cumulative effects model by Lacy et al. (2017), a reduction in noise relative to

18 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

baseline levels would be required to maintain the SRKW at current population levels, unless improvements in prey abundance and/or reduced contaminant levels are also implemented. • In considering mitigation approaches, potential effects on other species should also be considered; in particular other threatened species that are known to be affected by low- frequency ship noise, such as blue and fin whales.

Contributors Contributor Affiliation Andrea Locke DFO Science, Pacific Region Harald Yurk DFO Science, Pacific Region Svein Vagle DFO Science, Pacific Region Thomas Doniol-Valcroze DFO Science, Pacific Region Linda Nichol DFO Science, Pacific Region Eddy Kennedy DFO Science, Pacific Region John Holmes DFO Science, Pacific Region Jack Lawson DFO Science, Newfoundland Region Florian Aulanier DFO Science, Quebec Region Angelia Vanderlaan DFO Science, Maritimes Region John Ford External March Klaver DFO Science, Pacific Region Tracey Sandgathe DFO Fisheries Protection Program, Pacific Region Alston Bonamis DFO Fisheries Protection Program, Pacific Region Kim Houston DFO Science, Pacific Region Lesley MacDougall DFO Science, Pacific Region

Approved by Carmel Lowe Regional Director Science Branch, Pacific Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada October 21, 2018

19 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Sources of Information Baldacci, A., Carron, M. and Portunato, N. 2005. Infrared detection of marine mammals. NATO Undersea Research Centre Technical Report SR-443. NATO Undersea Research Centre, New York, New York, USA. Baudin, E. and Mumm, H. 2015. AQUO/SONICS EU project report: Guidelines for regulation on UW noise from commercial shipping. Branstetter, B.K., St Leger, J., Acton, D., Stewart, J., Hauser, D., Finneran, J.J., Jenkins, K. 2017. Killer whale (Orcinus orca ) behavioural audiograms. J. Acous. Soc. of Amer. Chion, C., Lagrois, D., Dupras, J., Turgeon, S., McQuinn, I. H., Michaud, R., and Parrott, L. (2017). Underwater acoustic impacts of shipping management measures: Results from a social-ecological model of boat and whale movements in the St. Lawrence River Estuary (Canada). Ecological modelling, 354, 72-87. Clark, C.W., and Charif, R.A. 1998. Acoustic monitoring of large whales to the west of Britain and Ireland using bottom-mounted hydrophone arrays, October 1996 - September 1997. Rep. from Bioacoust. Res. Prog., Cornell Lab. Ornithol., Ithaca, NY, for Joint Nature Conserv. Commit., Aberdeen, Scotland. JNCC Rep. 281. Cominelli, S., Devillers, R., Yurk, H., MacGillivray, A., McWhinnie, L. and Canessa, R., 2018. Noise exposure from commercial shipping for the southern resident killer whale population. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 136, pp.177-200. Conn, P.B., and Silber, G.K. 2013. Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-related mortality for North Atlantic right whales. Ecosph. 4(4):1-15. DFO 2015a. Sufficiency review of the information on effects of underwater noise and the potential for ship strikes from Marine Shipping on Marine Mammals in the Facilities Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/007. DFO 2015b. Technical review of predicted effects and proposed mitigation of underwater noise and potential vessel strikes on marine mammals, from the December 2013 Facilities Application and supplemental information for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/022. DFO 2017a. Identification of Habitats of Special Importance to Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) off the West Coast of Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2017/011. DFO. 2017b. Evaluation of the Scientific Evidence to Inform the Probability of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures in Reducing Shipping-Related Noise Levels Received by Southern Resident Killer Whales. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2017/041. DFO. 2017c. Southern Resident Killer whale. A Science based review of recovery actions for three at-risk whale populations. 71pp. DFO. 2018. Science information to support consultations on BC Chinook Salmon fishery management measures in 2018. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2018/035 ECHO. 2017. ECHO Program. An Evaluation of Vessel Quieting Design, Technology and Maintenance Options. January 2017. ECHO. 2018. ECHO Program. Voluntary Vessel Slowdown Trial Summary Findings. June 2018.

20 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Félix, F., and Van Waerebeek, K. 2005. Whale mortality from ship strikes in Ecuador and west Africa. Latin Amer. J. Aquat. Mamm. 4(1): 55-60. Heise, K.A., Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Chapman, N.R., Dakin, D.T., Erbe, C., Hannay, D.E., Merchant, N.D., Pilkington, J.S., Thornton, S.J., Tollit, D.J., Vagle, S., Veirs, V.R., Vergara, V., Wood, J.D., Wright, B.M., Yurk, H. 2017. Proposed Metrics for the Management of Underwater Noise for Southern Resident Killer Whales Coastal Ocean Report Series (2), Ocean Wise, Vancouver, 31pp. Hilborn, R., S.P. Cox, F.M.D. Gulland, D.G. Hankin, N.T. Hobbs, D.E. Schindler, and A.W. Trites. 2012. The Effects of Salmon Fisheries on Southern Resident Killer Whales: Final Report of the Independent Science Panel. Prepared with the assistance of D.R. Marmorek and A.W. Hall, ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. for National Marine Fisheries Service (Seattle. WA) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Vancouver. BC). xv + 61 pp. + Appendices. Jensen, A.S., and Silber, G.K. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-25. 37 p. Kite-Powell, H.K., Knowlton, A., and Brown, M. 2007. Modeling the effect of vessel speed on right whale ship strike risk. NOAA. Project report for NOAA/NMFS Project NA04NMF47202394. 8 p. Lacy RC, Williams R, Ashe E, Balcomb KC, Brent LJN, Clark CW, Croft DP, Giles DA, MacDuffee M, Paquet PC. 2017. Evaluating anthropogenic threats to endangered killer whales to inform effective recovery plans. Scientific Reports 7: 14119. DOI: 10.1038/S41598-017-14471-0 Lagueux, K.M., Zani, M.A., Knowlton, A.R. and Kraus, S.D., 2011. Response by vessel operators to protection measures for right whales Eubalaena glacialis in the southeast US calving ground. Endangered Species Research, 14(1), pp.69-77. Laist, David & Knowlton, Amy & Pendleton, Daniel. 2014. Effectiveness of mandatory vessel speed limits for protecting North Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species Research. 23:133-147. 10.3354/esr00586. Matkin, C. O, Moore M. J., and Gulland F.M.D. 2017. Review of Recent Research on Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) to Detect Evidence of Poor Body Condition in the Population. Independent Science Panel Report to the SeaDoc Society. 3 pp. + Appendices. DOI 10.1575/1912/8803 McKenna, M.F., Ross, D., Wiggins, S.M. and Hildebrand, J.A., 2012. Underwater radiated noise from modern commercial ships. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), pp.92-103. McKenna, M.F., Wiggins, S.M. and Hildebrand, J.A., 2013. Relationship between container ship underwater noise levels and ship design, operational and oceanographic conditions. Nature Scientific reports, 3, p.1760. Morano, J.L., Rice, A.N., Tielens, J.T., Estabrook, B.J., Murray, A., Roberts, B.L., and Clark, C.W. 2012. Acoustically detected year-round presence of right whales in an urbanized migration corridor. Conserv. Biol. 26(4):698-707. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region, Seattle, WA.

21 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

Nichol, L.M., Wright, B.M., O’Hara, P., and Ford, J.K.B. 2017. Assessing the risk of lethal ship strikes to humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and fin (Balaenoptera physalus) whales off the west coast of Vancouver Island, Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2017/007. vii + 33 p. Pace, R.M. 2011. Frequency of whale and vessel collisions on the US Eastern seaboard: Ten years prior and two years post ship strike rule. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Ref. Doc. 11-15. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026. Pine, M. K., Hannay, D. E., Insley, S. J., Halliday, W. D., & Juanes, F. (2018). Assessing vessel slowdown for reducing auditory masking for marine mammals and fish of the western Canadian Arctic. Marine pollution bulletin, 135, 290-302. Ross, D. 1976. Mechanics of Underwater Noise. Pergamon, New York. pp. 272–287. Silber, G.K., Slutsky, J., and Bettridge, S. 2010. Hydrodynamics of a ship/whale collision. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 391(1-2):10-19. Simard, Y., N. Roy, C. Gervaise and S. Giard, 2016. Analysis and modelling of 255 source levels of merchant ships from an acoustic observatory along St. Lawrence Seaway. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140(3), 2002-2018. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. 2013. Trans Mountain Expansion Project – An Application Pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act, Volume 8A - Marine Transportation. Submitted to the Secretary of The National Energy Board Trites, AW and Rosen, DAS (eds). 2018. Availability of Prey for Southern Resident Killer Whales. Technical Workshop Proceedings. November 15–17, 2017. Marine Mammal Research Unit, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 64 pages van der Hoop, J.M., Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and Taggart, C.T. 2012. Absolute probability estimates of lethal vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales in Roseway Basin, Scotian Shelf. Ecol. Appl. 22(7): 2021-2033. Vanderlaan, A.S.M., and Taggart, C.T. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23(1):144–156. Vanderlaan, A.S.M, and Taggart, C.T. 2009. Ships voluntarily alter course to protect endangered whales. Conserv. Biol. 23(6):1467-1474. Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Taggart, C.T., Serdynska, A.R., Kenney, R.D., and Brown, M.W. 2008. Reducing the risk of lethal encounters: vessels and right whales in the Bay of Fundy and on the Scotian Shelf. Endang. Spec. Res. 4:283–297. Veirs, S.R., Veirs, V.R. 2011. Masking of southern resident killer whale signals by commercial ship noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 129(4):2606 Veirs, S., Veirs, V. & Wood, J.D., 2016. Ship noise extends to frequencies used for echolocation by endangered killer whales. PeerJ, 4, p.e1657. Wagstaff. 1973. RANDI: Research Ambient Noise Directionality Model. Undersea Surveillance and Ocean Sciences Department.

22 Science Response: Effectiveness of mitigation measures to Pacific Region reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on SRKW

This Report is Available from the: Centre for Science Advice Pacific Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada 3190 Hammond Bay Road Nanaimo, BC V9T 6N7 Telephone: (250) 756-7208 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet address: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/ ISSN 1919-3769 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2018

Correct Citation for this Publication: DFO. 2018. Technical review: potential effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce impacts from project-related marine vessels on Southern Resident Killer Whales. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2018/050. Aussi disponible en français : MPO. 2018. Examen technique : efficacité potentielle des mesures d’atténuation pour réduire les impacts des navires du projet sur l’Epaulard Résident du Sud. Secr. can. de consult. sci. du MPO, Rép. des Sci. 2018/050.

23 APPENDIX 3: SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE IMMINENT THREAT ASSESSMENT

Southern Resident Killer Whale Imminent Threat Assessment

Table of contents 1. Background ...... 2 2. Overview of the SRKW ...... 3 3. Population status and trends ...... 4 3.1. SRKW distribution ...... 8 3.2. Critical habitat ...... 9 3.3. Recovery goal ...... 11 3.4. Threats ...... 12 4. Imminent threat assessment ...... 15 Question 1: Is the species currently facing threats that might impact survival or recovery of the species? ...... 15 Question 2: Will the effect of the current threats make survival of the species unlikely or impossible? ...... 15 Question 3: Will the effect of the current threats make recovery of the species unlikely or impossible? ...... 18 Question 4: Do the threats require intervention? ...... 19 5. Conclusions ...... 24 6. References ...... 26

1. Background

This document assesses the threats to the Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW), using the best available information, with the aim of informing an opinion as to whether or not this species faces imminent threats to its survival or recovery in Canada, as per section 80 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA or ‘the Act’). In 2001, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) designated SRKW as endangered. This population is listed in Schedule 1 of SARA. This imminent threat assessment has been developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) with Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Transport Canada (TC), and the Parks Canada Agency (PCA). Under section 80 of SARA, an emergency protection order (EPO) must be recommended to the Governor in Council (GiC) if the competent minister is of the opinion that a listed wildlife species is facing imminent threats to its survival or recovery. A recommendation for an EPO is not required if the competent minister is of the opinion that equivalent measures have been taken under another act of parliament to protect the species. As the SRKW is found throughout the coastal waters of southern British Columbia including the waters that are part of national park reserves, so both the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard (MFO), and the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency acting in her role as Minister of the Environment under SARA, are competent ministers for this species. In January 2018, the Ministers received a letter from EcoJustice, representing World Wildlife Fund, Natural Resources Defence Council, Georgia Strait Alliance, Raincoast Conservation Foundation and the David Suzuki Foundation, asking that the Ministers recommend to the GiC an emergency order to provide for the survival and recovery of the SRKW. EcoJustice requested that the Ministers form the opinion that the species is facing imminent threats from reduced prey availability, physical and acoustic disturbance and environmental contaminants. According to SARA, the Ministers’ opinions are based on an assessment of the potential imminent threats to the listed species; however, imminence is not further defined within the Act. A section 80 Order requires the assessment of threats to both survival and recovery of the species. In the context of this imminent threat assessment (ITA), imminent threat could be considered such that decisions and actions are required to be made on a more expedited timeframe than would ordinarily be required through ‘normal’ processes. Specifically, ‘normal’ processes, for example, for the protection of critical habitat, would follow typical legislative timelines and provide time and opportunity for comprehensive consultations on proposed actions. Should it be found that the SRKWs are facing imminent threat to their survival and/or recovery, then action by way of an emergency order would be required. Various factors, including Indigenous rights, are considered when developing an emergency order. Since recovery actions should be implemented as they are identified, imminence could be considered if survival or recovery of the population requires timely implementation of recovery actions so as to ensure the potential for survival and recovery. Answers to the following questions will help the Ministers to form their opinion on whether or not the SRKW is facing imminent threat: 1. is the species currently facing threats that might impact survival or recovery of the species? 2. will the effect of the current threats make survival of the species unlikely or impossible? 3. will the effect of the current threats make recovery of the species unlikely or impossible? 4. do the threats require immediate intervention?

This threat assessment considers the population and distribution objectives set out in the final federal recovery strategy for the species. It takes into account information on the biology and ecology of the species, threats to its survival and recovery, and its population and habitat status and trends. An analysis of existing measures that protect the species against threats is also provided. The information used to develop this ITA has been drawn from DFO publications on SRKW including the Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada (DFO 2011), the COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Killer Whale Orcinus orca in Canada (COSEWIC 2008), the Action Plan for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada (DFO 2017a), and the Review of the Effectiveness of Recovery Measures for Southern Resident Killer Whales (DFO 2017b). EcoJustice also provided supporting documentation in their letter to the competent ministers dated January 30, 2018. No new science advice was generated specifically to inform the assessment nor was the interpretation of the information or the conclusions reached in the assessment the subject of a scientific peer-review process. Socio-economic impacts were not considered in the assessment, as they are not relevant to determining whether or not a wildlife species is facing imminent threats. Socio-economic considerations would inform a GiC decision, further to a recommendation by the competent ministers. Indigenous consultation was not specifically done to support this ITA. However, from October 10 to 12, 2017, DFO held a Southern Resident Killer Whale symposium in Vancouver. Indigenous groups provided a review of the linkages between threats, and expressed that the complexity and importance of Killer Whales and their relationship to First Nations is fundamental to cultural traditions and teachings.

2. Overview of the SRKW

The Killer Whale is the largest member of the dolphin family, Delphinidae. They are long-lived, upper trophic-level predators. Their size, striking black and white colouring and tall dorsal fin are the main identifying characteristics. Killer Whales are mainly black above and white below, with a white oval eye patch, and a grey saddle patch below the dorsal fin. Each Killer Whale has a uniquely shaped dorsal fin and saddle patch, and most animals have naturally acquired nicks and scars. Individual Killer Whales are identified using photographs of the dorsal fin, saddle patch, and sometimes eye patches (Ford et al. 2000). They are sexually dimorphic. Maximum recorded lengths and weights for male Killer Whales are 9.0 m, and 5568 kg respectively, whereas females are smaller at 7.7 m and 4000 kg (Dahlheim and Heyning 1999). The tall triangular dorsal fin of adult males is often as high as 1.8 m, while in juveniles and adult females it reaches 0.9 m or less. In adult males, the paddle-shaped pectoral fins and tail flukes are longer and broader and the fluke tips curl downward (Bigg et al. 1987). Three distinct forms, or ecotypes, of Killer Whale inhabit Canadian Pacific waters: Transient, Offshore and Resident. These forms are sympatric but socially isolated and differ in their dietary preferences, genetics, morphology and behaviour (Ford et al. 1998, 2000, Barrett-Lennard and Ellis 2001). Transient Killer Whales feed on marine mammals; particularly Harbour Seals, porpoises, and Sea Lions (Ford et al. 1998). They travel in small, acoustically quiet groups that rely on stealth to find their prey (Ford and Ellis 1999). Offshore Killer Whales are not as well understood as Residents and Transients. They feed primarily on elasmobranchs but have also been documented to prey on teleost fishes, including Chinook Salmon (Heise et al. 2003; Ford et al. 2014). They often travel in large acoustically active groups of 30 or more whales, using frequent echolocation and social calls (Ford et al. 2000).

Resident Killer Whales that share a common range and that associate at least occasionally are considered to be members of the same community or population. There are two communities of Resident Killer Whales in British Columbia, the Northern Residents and the Southern Residents. Despite having overlapping ranges, these two communities are acoustically, genetically, and culturally distinct. The Northern Resident community consists of three clans broken into 16 sub-groups, or pods; and the Southern Resident community consists of one clan and only three pods. Resident Killer Whales are the best understood of the three ecotypes. They feed nearly exclusively on salmon, predominantly Chinook Salmon, although Chum Salmon are seasonally important in autumn months, and usually travel in acoustically active groups of 10 to 25 or more whales (Ford et al. 2000). The social organization of Resident Killer Whales is highly structured. Their fundamental unit is the matriline, comprising all surviving members of a female lineage. A typical matriline comprises an adult female, her offspring, and the offspring of her daughters. Both sexes remain within their natal matriline for life (Bigg et al. 1990). Social systems in which both sexes remain with their mother for life have only been described in one other mammalian species, the Long-Finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melas; Amos et al. 1993). Bigg et al. (1990) defined pods as groups of closely related matrilines that travel, forage, socialize and rest with each other at least 50% of the time, and predicted that pods, like matrilines, would be stable over many generations. However, Ford and Ellis (2002) showed that inter- matriline association patterns in the Northern Residents have evolved over the past decade such that some of the pods identified by Bigg et al. (1990) now fail to meet the 50% criterion. Their analysis suggests that pods are best defined as transitional groupings that reflect the relatedness of recently diverged matrilines.

3. Population status and trends

Individual Killer Whales can be distinguished by scars and variations in pigmentation and dorsal fin shape. Life history parameters for the Resident populations in British Columbia have been estimated based on more than 30 years of photo-identification studies. Maximum longevity is 80 to 90 years for females and 40 to 50 years for males. Females give birth to their first calf between 12 to 17 years of age. The calving interval averages about five years for NRKW and six years for SRKW (unpublished data DFO- CRP). However, the interval is highly variable and ranges from two to 12 years. The generation time is 26 to 29 years. Females on average produce their last calf at age 39, at which point they become post reproductive (Olesiuk et al. 1990). This extended post-reproductive period, which may last up to 40 years (in females that live to 80 years) is extremely unusual in mammals. Resident Killer Whales are also exceptional among mammals in that there is no dispersal of individuals of either sex from the natal group. Little is known of the historic abundance of Killer Whales, except that they were “not numerous” (Scammon 1874). While there are no population estimates for Killer Whales in British Columbia prior to 1960, the SRKW is likely to be a naturally precarious1 population in that even prior to significant effects

1 For species that were historically precarious, recovery will be considered feasible if the extent of irreversible change is such that under the best achievable scenario it is technically and biologically feasible to improve the condition of the species to a point that it is approaching the historical condition. For these species, recovery is deemed not feasible if the extent of irreversible change is so great that it is not technically and biologically feasible to improve the condition of the species to approach the lower end of the historical condition. In such a case, survival of the species may be achieved by ensuring connectivity between the species Canadian population and other populations of the same species in other countries or other populations that are not at risk; and/or by

4 from human activity, the population is likely to have been small. Since the early 1970s, photo- identification studies have provided population estimates for Killer Whales in the near-shore waters of the northeastern Pacific (Washington, British Columbia, Alaska, and California). Population censuses for Killer Whales are now conducted annually using photo-identification of individuals. The community of SRKW comprises a single acoustic clan, J clan, which is composed of three pods (referred to as J, K, and L) containing a total of 20 matrilines (Ford et al. 2000). Although the Southern Resident community was likely increasing in size in the early 1960s, the number of whales in the community dropped dramatically in the late 1960s and early 1970s due to live capture for aquariums (Bigg and Wolman 1975). A total of 47 individuals that are known or likely to have been Southern Residents were captured and removed from the population (Bigg et al. 1990). The population increased 19% (3.1% per year) from a low of 70 after the live-captures ended in 1973 to 83 whales in 1980, although the growth rate varied by pod (Figure 1). From 1981 to 1984 the population declined 11% (- 2.7% per year) to 74 whales as a result of lower birth rates, higher mortality for adult females and juveniles (Taylor and Plater 2001), and lower numbers of mature animals, especially males, which was caused by selective cropping in previous years (Olesiuk et al. 1990). From 1985 to 1995, the number of Southern Residents increased by 34% (2.9% per year) to 99 animals. A surge in the number of mature individuals, an increase in births, and a decrease in deaths contributed to the population growth. Another decline began in 1996, with an extended period of poor survival (Taylor and Plater 2001; Krahn et al. 2002) and low fecundity (Krahn et al. 2004) resulting in a decline of 17% (-2.9% per year) to 81 whales in 2001. Since 2001, the population has fluctuated between 76 and 89 individuals. The number of Southern Residents increased slightly to 85 in 2003 (unpublished data DFO-Cetacean Research Program). The growth was in J and K pods, whereas L pod continued to decline. The population has not shown signs of recovery and consisted of 76 members in 2017 (unpublished data DFO-Cetacean Research Program). Collectively, the small population size and low number of individuals contributing to reproduction (termed the effective population) heighten the impact of any mortality or loss of reproductive potential to the population’s survival relative to their northern counterparts.

actively intervening with the species and/or its habitat. If recovery is deemed not to be technically and biologically feasible, population and distribution objectives will be set to support survival of the species and the identification of critical habitat to the extent possible, in addition to the other requirements of subsection 41(2) of SARA.

Figure 1. Population size and trends for Southern Resident Killer Whale from 1976 to 2017. Data source: Center for Whale Research (unpublished).

The SRKW population demographics have changed since 1979 (Table 1). The number of SRKW post- reproductive females has gone from 12% of the population to only 7%. To translate that to absolute numbers, the 7% represents just five individuals (Table 2). As of 2017, both J and K pods only had one post-reproductive female while L pod had three (DFO-Cetacean Research Program, unpublished data). It is possible that the presence of older females in a group increases the survival of offspring even if such individuals no longer contribute directly to population growth (COSEWIC 2008).

Table 1: Percent population demographics in 1979 and 2016 for Southern Resident Killer Whale.

1979 (%) 2016 (%) Reproductive Females (10 y to 42 y) 32 34 Adult Males (> 10 y) 27 18 Post-reproductive Females (> 42 y) 12 7 Juveniles (< 10 y) 38 30 Data source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Cetacean Research Program (unpublished).

Table 2: Population demographics from 1980 to 2017 in five year intervals for Southern Resident Killer Whale. Reproductive Post- females Adult male reproductive Juveniles Year Total (10 years - 42 (> 10 years) females (< 10 years) years) (> 42 years) 2017 Total: 76 Total: 27 Total: 24 Total: 5 Total: 20 - J Pod 23 - J Pod 10 - J Pod 4 - J Pod 1 - J Pod 8 - K Pod 18 - K Pod 6 - K Pod 8 - K Pod 1 - K Pod 3 - L Pod 35 - L Pod 11 - L Pod 12 - L Pod 3 - L Pod 9 2015 Total: 80 Total: 30 Total: 23 Total: 5 Total: 22 - J Pod 27 - J Pod 12 - J Pod 5 - J Pod 1 - J Pod 9 - K Pod 19 - K Pod 6 - K Pod 8 - K Pod 2 - K Pod 3 - L Pod 34 - L Pod 12 - L Pod 10 - L Pod 2 - L Pod 10 2010 Total: 84 Total: 30 Total: 17 Total: 9 Total: 28 - J Pod 26 - J Pod 10 - J Pod 4 - J Pod 2 - J Pod 10 - K Pod 19 - K Pod 7 - K Pod 3 - K Pod 1 - K Pod 8 - L Pod 39 - L Pod 13 - L Pod 10 - L Pod 6 - L Pod 10 2005 Total: 88 Total: 32 Total: 20 Total: 12 Total: 24 - J Pod 24 - J Pod 8 - J Pod 4 - J Pod 2 - J Pod 10 - K Pod 20 - K Pod 9 - K Pod 3 - K Pod 2 - K Pod 6 - L Pod 44 - L Pod 15 - L Pod 13 - L Pod 8 - L Pod 8 2000 Total: 77 Total: 28 Total: 11 Total: 12 Total: 26 - J Pod 19 - J Pod 6 - J Pod 1 - J Pod 2 - J Pod 10 - K Pod 16 - K Pod 7 - K Pod 1 - K Pod 3 - K Pod 5 - L Pod 42 - L Pod 15 - L Pod 9 - L Pod 7 - L Pod 11 1995 Total: 92 Total: 34 Total: 14 Total: 11 Total: 33 - J Pod 20 - J Pod 10 - J Pod 3 - J Pod 2 - J Pod 5 - K Pod 18 - K Pod 8 - K Pod 1 - K Pod 2 - K Pod 7 - L Pod 54 - L Pod 16 - L Pod 10 - L Pod 7 - L Pod 21 1990 Total: 87 Total: 33 Total: 17 Total: 11 Total: 26 - J Pod 18 - J Pod 9 - J Pod 4 - J Pod 2 - J Pod 3 - K Pod 16 - K Pod 8 - K Pod 3 - K Pod 1 - K Pod 4 - L Pod 53 - L Pod 16 - L Pod 10 - L Pod 8 - L Pod 19 1985 Total: 74 Total: 31 Total: 16 Total: 9 Total: 18

- J Pod 17 - J Pod 7 - J Pod 3 - J Pod 2 - J Pod 5 - K Pod 14 - K Pod 7 - K Pod 3 - K Pod 2 - K Pod 2 - L Pod 43 - L Pod 17 - L Pod 10 - L Pod 5 - L Pod 11 1980 Total: 79 Total: 25 Total: 13 Total: 11 Total: 30 - J Pod 18 - J Pod 5 - J Pod 3 - J Pod 3 - J Pod 7 - K Pod 16 - K Pod 5 - K Pod 4 - K Pod 3 - K Pod 4 - L Pod 45 - L Pod 15 - L Pod 6 - L Pod 5 - L Pod 19 Data source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Cetacean Research Program (unpublished).

3.1. SRKW distribution

The known range of this community is from southeastern Alaska to central California (Ford et al. 2017). During summer, its members are usually found in waters off southern Vancouver Island and northern Washington State, where they congregate to intercept migratory salmon. The main area of concentration for Southern Residents is Haro Strait and vicinity off southeastern Vancouver Island (Figure 2), but they are commonly seen in Juan de Fuca Strait, and the southern Strait of Georgia (Ford et al. 2000). Of the three Southern Resident pods, J pod is most commonly seen in inside waters throughout the year, and appears to seldom leave the Strait of Georgia-Puget Sound- Juan de Fuca Strait region in most years (Ford et al. 2000). K and L pods are more often found in western Juan de Fuca Strait and off the outer coasts of Washington State and Vancouver Island. Unlike J pod, K and L pods typically leave inshore waters in winter and return in May or June. Their range during this period is poorly known, but they have been sighted as far south as Monterey Bay, California and as far north as Chatham Strait, southeastern Alaska (Ford et al. 2017).

Figure 2. The coast of British Columbia and northwest Washington State showing the general ranges of Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales.

3.2. Critical habitat

Critical habitat is defined in SARA (2002) section 2(1) as “…the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical habitat in a recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species.” SARA defines habitat for aquatic species at risk as “… spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced” [s. 2(1)]. Partial critical habitat was identified for both Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales in the 2008 recovery strategy. Northern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat included the waters of Johnstone Strait

9 and southeastern Queen Charlotte Strait (Figure 2), while SRKW critical habitat included the transboundary waters in southern British Columbia, including the southern Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and Juan de Fuca Strait (Figure 2). A SARA critical habitat order was put in place in 2009 to protect these area of critical habitat. In 2011, the recovery strategy was amended to provide additional clarification regarding this critical habitat. An additional area was identified for consideration as critical habitat for SRKW in Ford et al. (2017). This area includes the waters on the continental shelf off southwestern Vancouver Island, including Swiftsure and La Perouse Banks . An amendment to the recovery strategy is currently underway to add this area of critical habitat. The habitat of special importance under consideration as critical habitat off southwest Vancouver Island includes the Canadian portions of Swiftsure Bank, where acoustic monitoring between August 2009 and July 2011 indicated considerable habitat use by both Southern and Northern Resident Killer Whales over much of the year. Additionally, it encompasses several other relatively shallow banks, including La Pérouse Bank which, like Swiftsure Bank, is among the most productive fishing areas for Chinook Salmon on the west coast of North America. During this acoustic monitoring, all three SRKW pods were detected in this area, with L pod being the most frequently documented (Ford et al. 2017). The area is important for SRKW, both during summer, when groups of whales spend time west of the critical habitat area in the transboundary waters in southern British Columbia, and in winter, when whales are mostly absent from the southern British Columbia critical habitat area, but were detected frequently off southwestern Vancouver Island (DFO 2017c). The transboundary waters of southern British Columbia and Washington State (Figure 3) represent a very important concentration area for SRKW. This area includes waters under both Canadian and U.S. jurisdiction. Analyses of existing data on coast-wide occurrence patterns of SRKW have been completed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) as part of the Endangered Species Act designation of critical habitat in collaboration with DFO (NMFS 2006a). This assessment provided quantitative documentation of the importance of these transboundary areas to these whales and forms, along with previously published information, the basis for the critical habitat identification. This critical habitat area is utilized regularly by all three Southern Resident pods during June through October in most years (Osborne 1999; Wiles 2004). J pod appears to be present in the area throughout much of the remainder of the year, but two Southern Resident pods, K and L, are typically absent during December through April. This critical habitat is clearly of great importance to the entire Southern Resident community as a foraging range during the period of salmon migration, and thus has been designated as critical habitat under SARA.

Figure 3: The critical habitat areas for Southern Resident Killer Whale and proposed future areas of critical habitat in Canada and in the transboundary waters of northern Washington. The area identified as southwestern Vancouver Island is the proposed future area of critical habitat and the existing critical habitat is identified as the Transboundary Waters of southern British Columbia.

3.3. Recovery goal

The objective established in the recovery strategy for the SRKW set out the basis for achieving a recovered state for the species. Accordingly, the assessment of imminent threat to recovery considers whether any of the threats to SRKW would render its recovery impossible or unlikely without intervention. The recovery goal for SRKW is to “ensure the long-term viability of Resident Killer Whale populations by achieving and maintaining demographic conditions that preserve their reproductive potential, genetic variation, and cultural continuity.”

Killer Whales are top-level predators, and as such will always be far less abundant than most other species in their environment. In addition, they are segregated into small populations that are closed to immigration and emigration, such as the Northern and Southern Resident communities. Furthermore, their capacity for population growth is limited by a suite of life history and social factors, including late onset of sexual maturity, small numbers of reproductive females and mature males, long calving intervals, and dependence on the cultural transmission of ecological and social information. Unfortunately, little is known concerning the historic sizes of Killer Whale populations, or the factors that ultimately regulate them. Genetic diversity is known to be low in both populations, particularly the Southern Residents. In light of these inherent characteristics and uncertainties, the following were identified as interim measures of recovery success: a) long-term maintenance of a steady or increasing size for populations currently at known historic maximum levels and an increasing size for populations' currently below known historic maximum levels b) maintenance of sufficient numbers of females in the population to ensure that their combined reproductive potential is at replacement levels for populations at known historic maximum levels and above replacement levels for populations below known historic maximum levels c) maintenance of sufficient numbers of males in the population to ensure that breeding females have access to multiple potential mates outside of their own and closely related matrilines d) maintenance of matrilines comprised of multiple generations to ensure continuity in the transmission of cultural information affecting survival

3.4. Threats

Five threats to the recovery of SRKW were identified in the recovery strategy. These are reduced prey availability, acoustic and physical disturbance, environmental contaminants, oil spills, and incidental mortality in fisheries. Subsequently an additional threat, ship strikes, was identified in the SRKW science- based review (DFO 2017b) conducted under the Oceans Protection Plan. Note that this assessment will focus only on the three main threats to SRKW (reduced prey availability, acoustic and physical disturbance, environmental contaminants).

Prey availability SRKWs are highly specialized predators and prey primarily on Chinook Salmon. This selectivity is particularly evident during the months of May through September in the Salish Sea, when they forage almost exclusively on Chinook Salmon in Juan de Fuca Strait, Puget Sound, the southern Strait of Georgia and off southwest Vancouver Island (Ford et al. 1998; Ford and Ellis 2005, 2006; Ford et al. 2010b; Hanson et al. 2010b; M. Ford et al. 2016; J. Ford et al. 2017). During October and November, SRKWs increase their use of Puget Sound, and feed on migrating Chum Salmon as well as Chinook Salmon . By December, most of the SRKW community have left their summer core areas in the Salish Sea. In particular K and L pods are mostly absent from December to May. Much less is known of SRKW diet in winter and early spring, sightings and acoustic recordings indicate that they range widely along the mainland US coast and off the west coast of Vancouver Island (Wiles 2004; Zamon et al. 2007 Hanson et al. 2013; Ford et al. 2017). Their occurrence off the mouth of the Columbia River and in Monterey Bay, California, appears to be associated with local concentrations of Chinook Salmon (Wiles 2004; Zamon et al. 2007; Hanson et al. 2010b).

The survival and recovery of SRKW appears to be strongly linked to Chinook Salmon abundance. Ford et al. (2010b) showed that mortality rates of both SRKWs and NRKWs were negatively correlated with Chinook Salmon abundance over a 25-year period, from 1979 to 2003. In particular, a sharp decline in Chinook Salmon abundance that persisted for four years during the late 1990s was associated with mortality rates up to 2 to 3 times greater than expected and resulted in population declines in both Resident Killer Whale populations. Ward et al. (2009) demonstrated a significant association between Chinook Salmon abundance and reproductive rates in the SRKW population. Due to their relatively large size and high lipid content, Chinook Salmon are highly profitable prey for SRKWs and provide a high caloric gain for the energy expenditure of foraging (Ford and Ellis 2005, 2006). They have also been, at least historically, a reliable prey source. Unlike many species of salmon that spend large portions of their lifecycle on the high seas only returning to coastal waters to spawn, Chinook Salmon are available year-round in coastal waters. Killer Whales appear to preferentially select four to five-year-old Chinook Salmon, which have mean body masses of 8 to 13 kg (Ford and Ellis 2005). These Chinook Salmon are considerably larger than mature Chum Salmon (4.0 to 5.5 kg), which become more prominent in the diet in the fall, and are more than double the size of a typical Coho or Pink Salmon, which are seldom consumed by Resident Killer Whales (Ford et al. 1998). A 2013, photogrammetry study assessed SRKW body condition in 43 SRKWs and demonstrated a decline in body condition of 11 animals including seven reproductive age females compared to their condition in 2008 when 43 animals were also assessed. In the 2013 study, 12 SRKWs were identified as pregnant, based on breadth measurements from these aerial photos. However, only two of these animals were subsequently seen with a calf, suggesting that poor body condition is a likely factor that contributes to reproductive failure (Fearnbach et al 2015). In 2017, a review of recent research on SRKW was undertaken to detect evidence of poor body condition in the population (Matkin et al. 2017). This review examined evidence from sightings data (photo-identification and mortality), aerial photogrammetry, necropsy data, and fecal hormone analyses. The independent science panel that conducted the review concluded that there were multiple lines of evidence that indicated the presence of poor body condition in SRKW, and that this was associated with loss of fetuses, calves and adults.

Acoustic and physical disturbance Killer Whales use sound for communication, prey detection, and to acquire information about their environment. They produce a variety of sounds including echolocation clicks for foraging and navigation and pulsed calls and whistles during social interactions. Call production is believed to serve important roles in the social dynamics of groups that travel and forage together (Ford 1989). Resident Killer Whales appear to make extensive use of echolocation to locate and capture prey, though vision may also play a role at close ranges (Ford 1989; Barrett-Lennard et al. 1996). Studies of echolocation click structure and the sound energy content of the clicks in NRKWs suggest that they should be able to detect Chinook Salmon at ranges of about 100 m in average conditions and that these distances decrease as ambient underwater noise increases (Au et al. 2004). It is estimated that ambient (background) underwater noise levels have increased an average of 15 dB (note a 3dB increase represents a doubling of noise levels) in the past 50 years throughout the world's oceans (NRC 2003). Shipping noise is the dominant source of ambient noise between 10 to 200 Hz but, ships also produce significant amounts of higher frequency noise in the audible range of Killer Whales (600Hz to 114kHZ) with the greatest sensitivity in the range of 5kHz to 81kHz (Branstetter et al. 2017). Noise received from ships at ranges less than 3 km in the relatively narrow passage of Haro Strait, an area frequented by SRKWs, extend upward into frequencies used by SRKWs (Veirs et al. 2015). It is widely recognized that commercial shipping has increased dramatically in recent years. Currently in the

Salish Sea one large ship transits the area, on average, every hour of every day of every year, with three transits per hour observed at the busiest times (Erbe et al. 2012 Williams et al. 2014a). Within the Salish Sea, commercial shipping is the dominant source of overall sound energy, but smaller craft (recreational, fishing, whale watching boats) are a substantive contribution in certain sub-areas of the Salish Sea (ECHO 2016). Whale watching and recreational boating activity has also increased as a result of increasing interest in ecotourism, and a growing human population around the Salish Sea. Commercial whale watching in the Canadian and U.S. portions of the Salish Sea increased from a few boats in the 1970s to about 80 boats in 2003 and in 2016 to 100 boats; this estimate does not include the recreational boaters (Holt 2017). Non-commercial boats include kayaks, sailboats and powerboats. Whale watching activities have the potential to disturb marine mammals through both the physical presence and activity of all types of watercraft, as well as the increased underwater noise levels that boat engines generate (DFO 2011). Erbe (2002) modelled the noise of whale-oriented boat traffic in the vicinity of SRKWs and showed that the noise of fast boats could mask their calls within 14 km, could elicit a behavioural response within 200 m, and could cause a temporary threshold shift (TTS) in hearing of 5 dB after 30 to 50 min within 450 m. Boat speed was a significant factor in determining the amount of noise generated. Slowing speed, which results in less noise, masked signals at 1 km from the boat. However, there are typically many boats in the vicinity of SRKWs, so modelled noise levels associated with a number of boats around the whales were found to be close to the critical noise threshold assumed to cause a permanent hearing loss over prolonged exposure. Numerous studies since 2002 have demonstrated behavioural response and changes in acoustic signalling by SRKWs living and foraging in the Salish Sea that strongly suggest an energetic cost and potential stress to SRKWs associated with the increased noise levels. Specifically, SRKWs significantly increased the duration of their calls when boats were present and increased the amplitude of their calls as background noise level increased as a result of the number of vessels nearby (Foote et al. 2004; Holt et al. 2009; 2011). SRKWs were observed to be within 400 m of a vessel most of the time during daylight hours from May through September, largely as a result of whale-watching oriented vessels approaching and following them. Studies of SRKW behaviour in the vicinity of whale-watching oriented vessels in the Salish Sea showed that SRKWs were significantly less likely to be foraging and significantly more likely to be traveling when boats were around and that SRKWs were displaced short distances by the presence of vessels (Lusseau et al. 2009). Behavioural responses to close approaches of boats include an increase in surface active behaviour which may have increased energetic costs (Noren et al. 2009).

Environmental contaminants The threat of environmental contaminants encompasses chemical, particularly bio-accumulating contaminants and biological pollutants. These latter contaminants may be pathogens that enter SRKW habitat from coastal runoff and through wastewater from urban and agricultural areas and possibly through airborne transport. The Salish Sea is surrounded by increasing urban development and industrialization. There are local regional and global inputs of contamination. The issue is also made more complex because Canada and the U.S. have different regulations to address this transboundary threat and an effective solution will require greater collaboration and harmonization. Killer Whales are vulnerable to accumulating high concentrations of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) because they are long-lived animals that feed high in the food chain and pass on a portion of their contaminant burden to their offspring (Ross et al. 2000, 2002, Rayne et al. 2004, Ross 2006). POPs are

14 persistent, they bio-accumulate in fatty tissues, and are known to affect reproductive and immune function in Killer Whales. Resident Killer Whales prey, primarily on Chinook Salmon and several stocks of importance to SRWKs reside in Salish Sea and in other coastal marine areas for a considerable amount of their life cycle. Chinook Salmon in the range of SKRW are relatively contaminated with POPs due to biomagnification from marine food-webs during their time at sea (O’Neill et al. 1998; Ewald et al 1998). Biological pollutants, including pathogens and antibiotic-resistant bacteria resulting from human activities, may threaten the health of SRKWs, their habitat or their prey. Due to the small size of the SRKW population and the gregarious social nature of these animals, introduction of a highly virulent and transmissible pathogen has the potential to catastrophically affect the long-term viability of the population through reduced reproductive success and survival (Gaydos et al. 2004). Furthermore, although age may be a confounding factor, it has been suggested that there is an association between cetacean exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mortality due to infectious diseases (O'Hara and O'Shea 2001). Pathogens and antibiotic-resistant bacteria can enter the marine environment by means of coastal run-off and wastewater discharges.

4. Imminent threat assessment

The competent minister must recommend the making of an EPO if he or she is of the opinion that a listed wildlife species faces imminent threats to its survival or recovery. A recommendation for such an order is not required if the competent minister is of the opinion that equivalent measures have been taken under another act of parliament to protect the species. In the case of an aquatic species, an EPO may identify habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of the species in the area to which the emergency order relates. It may also include provisions requiring the doing of things that protect the species and that habitat, or provisions prohibiting activities that may adversely affect the species and that habitat. Question 1: Is the species currently facing threats that might impact survival or recovery of the species? The key threats to SRKW are reductions in the availability or quality of prey, physical and acoustic disturbances, and environmental contaminants. Individually these threats, especially prey availability, have been demonstrated to limit or reverse the recovery of SRKW. The cumulative effect of these threats is unknown but they may work synergistically. Each threat independently impacts the health or the foraging ability of SRKW. Acoustic and physical disturbance, both acute and chronic effects, may affect the success of foraging. The synergistic effects of the combination of threats may exacerbate the impacts of each threat and shorten the timeframe for population impacts. Summary The species is currently facing threats that might be impacting survival and/or recovery.

Question 2: Will the effect of the current threats make survival of the species unlikely or impossible? COSEWIC assessed the SRKW as endangered because it met criterion C2a(i,ii); D1 (COSEWIC 2008). This means that, when it was assessed in 2006, the population possesses a small number of mature

15 individuals (48) that has been declining over the last 10 to 15 years and was expected to continue to do so in the foreseeable future. According to the Species at Risk Policies - Policy on Survival and Recovery [Proposed] (2016), a species at risk can be considered more likely to survive when it can be brought to the point where it possesses the characteristics outlined below. The more characteristics the species possesses, the higher its likelihood of continued survival. This means that in order for the SRKW to be considered no longer at risk, the population would need to be:  stable or increasing over a biologically relevant time frame; and  resilient: sufficiently large to recover from periodic disturbance and avoid demographic and genetic collapse; and  widespread or has population redundancy: there are multiple (sub) populations or locations available to withstand catastrophic events and to facilitate rescue if necessary; and  connected: the distribution of the species in Canada is not severely and unnaturally fragmented; and  protected from anthropogenic threats: non-natural significant threats are mitigated; and / or  as appropriate to its specific life history and ecology in Canada, persistence is facilitated by connectivity with populations outside Canada, and/or habitat intervention for species that are naturally below a survival threshold in Canada Population stability While the SRKW population may have been stable in the past, at this time it cannot be considered such. In 1974, the first SRKW population census identified 71 individuals. Over the ensuing decades, it has been assessed annually and the population has fluctuated from the low of 71 animals in 1974 to a high of 97 in 1996. Beginning in 1996, an extended period of poor survival (Taylor and Plater 2001; Krahn et al. 2002) and low fecundity (Krahn et al. 2004) resulted in a decline of 17% (-2.9% per year) to 81 whales in 2001. The period of poor survival and low fecundity has been associated with low Chinook Salmon availability (Ford, Ellis and Olesiuk, 2005; Ford et al. 2010). Since 2001, the population has fluctuated between 76 and 89 individuals. From 1974 to 2006 the maximum number of mature individuals (1993) was 72, the minimum number (1985) was 42. When last assessed by COSEWIC in 2008, the population consisted of 87 individuals, including 48 mature individuals, based on 2006 data. In 2017, the population consisted of 76 members including 51 reproductive individuals (see Table 2). Since 1974 the size of the SRKW population has been quite variable but the fluxuations have been within a certain overall population range. Combining the small population size, small effective populations and poor survival of neonates, heightens the implications of any mortality and resulting loss of reproductive potential. This negatively affects the ability of the population to stabilize and reverse its recent decline. (See Section 2 for more detailed discussion of population status and trends).

Resilience Although the current population of SRKW is small, fluctuations in the population from 71 individuals in 1974 to a high of 97 in 1996 suggests some degree of population resilience and that it should be capable of increasing its population from the current number of 76, if the demographics and conditions for successful reproduction are present. In general, small populations have an increased likelihood of inbreeding and lower reproductive rates, which can lead to low genetic variability, reduced resilience against disease and pollution, reduced population fitness, and elevated extinction risks due to catastrophic events. If the population continues to decline, they may be faced with a shortage of suitable mates. Among the Southern Residents, L pod

16 females may be particularly vulnerable to this scenario because of the small number of reproductive males in J and K pod thus reducing the potential for genetic exchange between pods. Even under ideal conditions, the population will recover slowly because Killer Whales calve relatively infrequently (six years for SRKW). Cultural aspects of Killer Whales must also be considered in assessing population resilience. In animals with highly matrilineal societies a breakdown in social structure may occur if the population becomes too small (Williams and Lusseau 2006; Matkin et al. 2008). However, other cultural aspects of the SRKW may contribute to population resilience. Until recently it was believed that Inbreeding would be less of a risk for Resident Killer Whales than might be expected based on the small size of their populations as they may avoid inbreeding and its inherent risks through non-random mate selection by selecting mates from outside their natal pod (Barrett-Lennard and Ellis 2001). However, Ford et all (2018) showed that “only two adult males sired 52% of the sampled progeny born since 1990”, potentially negatively impacting resilience.

Population redundancy and connectivity The SRKWs are not widespread, nor do they have population redundancy or connectivity with other populations of Killer Whales. There is a single population and they are not known to interbreed with other Killer Whale populations. This is not expected to change in the future owing to their cultural distinctiveness and separation from other Killer Whale populations.

Protected from anthropogenic threats The three main threats of reduced prey availability, physical and acoustic disturbance, and contaminants are anthropogenic in nature and ongoing. Although actions have been taken, and additional measures are being planned to reduce the impacts of these threats, the threats are not fully mitigated. Even if factors that have caused the decline of a Killer Whale population are reduced or eliminated, the time required for recovery will be long, because on average, females produce a calf only every 5 to 6 years.

Predicted population trajectories Population viability analyses (PVA) have been used to estimate the extinction risk of SRKW (Taylor and Plater 2001; Krahn et al. 2002, 2004). These models predict that if the mortality and reproductive rates of the 1990s persist, there is a 6 to 100% probability that the population will be extinct within 100 years, and a 68 to 100% risk that the population will be extinct within 300 years. When the mortality and reproductive rates of the entire 1974 to 2000 period are used, the risk of the population going extinct declines to 0 to 55% over 100 years and 2 to 100% over 300 years. Extinction of the Southern Resident population can be regarded as inevitable in these scenarios under the assumptions of the analyses. Catastrophic events, such as oil spills, would hasten its demise. A more recent PVA model predicted survival and recovery rates of SRKW based on sex-structured models and high-quality demographic data that encompassed one Killer Whale generation (25 years; 1987 to 2011). These models predicted an annual decline of 0.91% for this population, with an extinction risk of 49% over a 100-year period (Velez- Espino et al. 2014). Another recently published PVA model indicated that the current population is fragile, with no growth projected under current conditions, and decline expected if new or increased threats are imposed (Lacy, 2017).

Summary Given the above considerations, threats to the survival of the SRKW population could be considered imminent.

Question 3: Will the effect of the current threats make recovery of the species unlikely or impossible? The objective established in the recovery strategy for the SRKW set out the basis for achieving a recovered state for the species. Accordingly, the assessment of imminent threat to recovery considers whether any of the threats to SRKW would render its recovery impossible or unlikely without intervention. The recovery goal for SRKW is to: “Ensure the long-term viability of Resident Killer Whale populations by achieving and maintaining demographic conditions that preserve their reproductive potential, genetic variation, and cultural continuity.” This recovery goal reflects the complex social and mating behaviour of Resident Killer Whales and the key threats that may be responsible for their decline; it is linked to maintenance of the current population and structure. Killer Whales are top-level predators, and as such will always be far less abundant than most other species in their environment. They can therefore be considered naturally precarious. In addition, they are segregated into small population units that are closed to immigration and emigration. Furthermore, their capacity for population growth is limited by a suite of life history and social factors, including late onset of sexual maturity, small numbers of reproductive females and mature males, long calving intervals, and dependence on the cultural transmission of ecological and social information. Unfortunately, little is known concerning the historic sizes of Killer Whale populations, or the factors that ultimately regulate them. Genetic diversity is known to be particularly low in the Southern Resident population. In light of these inherent characteristics and uncertainties, the following were identified as interim measures of recovery success in the recovery strategy: a) long-term maintenance of a steady or increasing size for populations currently at known historic maximum levels and an increasing size for populations currently below known historic maximum levels b) maintenance of sufficient numbers of females in the population to ensure that their combined reproductive potential is at replacement levels for populations at known historic maximum levels and above replacement levels for populations below known historic maximum levels c) maintenance of sufficient numbers of males in the population to ensure that breeding females have access to multiple potential mates outside of their own and closely related matrilines d) maintenance of matrilines comprised of multiple generations to ensure continuity in the transmission of cultural information affecting survival

Population As noted above, the SRKW is small and declining. The population size is very close to the minimum recorded in 1974 of 71 animals; the known historic maximum since surveys began in 1974 is 97, which was in 1996. The presence of poor body condition in SRKW has been associated with the loss of fetuses, calves and adults. A 2013, photogrammetry study assessed SRKW body condition in 43 SRKWs and demonstrated a decline in body condition of 11 animals including 7 prime-age females compared to their condition in 2008 when 43 animals were also assessed. A review of recent research in 2017 concluded that there were multiple lines of evidence that indicated the presence of poor body condition in SRKW.

Given the small population size and low number of individuals contributing to reproduction, poor survival of neonates, it is unlikely the population will increase unless the body condition of the SRKW population improves.

Sufficient numbers of reproductive females Although the SRKW population is declining, there are as many reproductive females as there were in 1979 (Table 1). In 2017 of the three pods, K pod had the fewest number of reproductive females at 6. In 1980 K pod had just 5 reproductive females and achieved a high of 9 in 2005 (Table 2). This would suggest that there may likely be sufficient females at present to support recovery should conditions permit. It should be noted that this assumes that all females of reproductive age are reproductively viable which may not be the case.

Sufficient numbers of adult males Although the SRKW population overall is declining, there has been an increase in the number of adult males since 1979 from 18 to 29 (Table 1). This would suggest that there may be sufficient males at present to support recovery should conditions permit. It should be noted that this assumes that all adult males are reproductively viable which may not be the case.

Maintenance of matrilines Small populations are particularly vulnerable to population-level effects from the loss of even one individual. Many of the older individuals from all three pods have died over the last 20 years and the overall percentage of post-reproductive females has gone from 12% to 7%. Both J and K pods have only one post-reproductive female and L pod only has three. Although it is possible that there could still be multiple generations present in the matriline without the post-reproductive females, these few individuals likely play a key role in each pod.

Summary Given the above considerations, threats to the recovery of the SRKW population could be considered imminent. Question 4: Do the threats require intervention? Actions to mitigate threats and support recovery of SRKW have been underway for many years; however, these efforts have yet to result in detectable signs of recovery of the population. Although the overall population size is still above the low point in 1974, the current demographic distribution of the population does not support the recovery goals identified in the 2011 Recovery Strategy. The complexity of the SRKW social structure requires the presence of older matriarchs. The maximum lifespan of a female Killer Whale is about 80 years but currently there is only one remaining whale born before 1971.

Ongoing and anticipated mitigation to address the ongoing threats

DFO’s Science-based whale review (DFO 2017b) confirmed that the main threats to the SRKW population are the lack of prey availability, acoustic and physical disturbance, and bio-accumulation of contaminants. The action plan (2017a) identified numerous management and research oriented recovery measures anticipated to help abate human pressures on this population.

Critical habitat An additional area was identified as habitat of special importance for SRKW in Ford et al. (2017); an amendment to the recovery strategy is currently underway to add this area of critical habitat. This area includes the waters on the continental shelf off southwestern Vancouver Island, including Swiftsure and La Perouse Banks (Figure 3). The inclusion in a revised recovery strategy of these additional areas as critical habitat should support recovery of SRKW.

Prey availability DFO’s Science-based whale review (DFO 2017b) identified two priority actions to directly abate reduced prey availability:  plan and manage salmon fisheries in ways that will reduce anthropogenic competition for SRKW prey in important foraging areas during key times (for example, create protected areas; implement fishery area boundary adjustments and/or closures) or when there are indications of population nutritional stress; among other things, this will require the formation and formalization of a transboundary working group of science and management representatives from DFO, NOAA, and other technical experts to ensure that SRKW prey needs are incorporated consistently in the management of salmon fisheries for transboundary stocks (for example, Canada’s Policy for Conservation of Wild Salmon, Pacific Salmon Treaty)  during years of poor Chinook Salmon returns, implement a more conservative management approach than would be used in typical years to further reduce or eliminate anthropogenic competition for Chinook Salmon and other important prey in key SRKW foraging areas during key times Current actions to address this threat: Work has been undertaken to address this threat to the SRKW. Numerous technical science-based workshops have been held by DFO and NOAA since 2011 including: the Independent Science Panel of the Bilateral Scientific Workshop Process to Evaluate the Effects of Salmon Fisheries on Southern Resident Killer Whales (Hillborn et al. 2012) and the follow up joint DFO-NOAA Prey Availability Technical Workshop held at the University of British Columbia in November 2017 (Trites and Rosen 2018). A discussion paper including information on proposed management measures and areas under consideration for implementation of salmon fishing or finfish closures was released to the public and externally consulted on. The focus of this discussion paper was on salmon fisheries, contained in the Southern Salmon Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP), and through this process fisheries management measures. The primary objective of these measures is to improve Chinook Salmon availability for SRKW in key foraging areas by decreasing potential fishery competition, as well as minimizing physical and acoustic disturbance to the extent possible. Options are currently being considered by the Minister for action starting in the 2018/19 fishing season. The effectiveness of the proposed salmon fishery measures will depend upon the broad efforts designed to reduce the physical and acoustic disturbance in key foraging areas to the extent possible. In addition, the potential to increase low Chinook Salmon abundance in SRKW foraging areas may be limited given low exploitation rates in fisheries seaward of SRKW foraging areas and current low returns expected for many Fraser Chinook Salmon populations. The identified key Killer Whale foraging areas are located within the Canadian portion of proposed and existing legally-designated SRKW critical habitat and are therefore protected against destruction. Additional foraging areas have been identified in new areas proposed as SRKW critical habitat, which is in the process of being designated and protected as such.

As these management measures are new, there is no evidence yet available that the efforts will result in successful abatement of the threats associated with prey availability to promote survival and recovery. Consequently, this threat is still considered to be acting on the population and does require the type of intervention that is proposed.

Acoustic and physical disturbance Measures to address the threat from acoustic and physical disturbance from vessels fall largely under the responsibility of TC but are reliant on science advice and support from DFO. DFO’s Science-based whale review (DFO 2017b) identified four priority actions to directly abate the threat of acoustic and physical disturbance:  increase the distance between SRKWs and pleasure crafts and whale-watching vessels  implement area-specific vessel regulations (for example, speed restriction zones, rerouting vessel traffic, altering vessel traffic scheduling to create convoys) that reduce the overall acoustic impact on SRKWs in their habitat, particularly in the Salish Sea  implement incentive programs and regulations that result in reduced acoustic footprints of the vessels habitually travelling in and near important SRKW habitat (for example, through changes in vessel maintenance, application of quieting technologies) and the elimination of the noisiest vessels  identify candidate acoustic refuge areas within foraging and other key areas of SRKW habitat, and undertake actions for their creation

Current actions to address this threat: Measures are being taken to address the threat posed by vessels that approach the whales. The proposed Marine Mammal Regulations (MMR) identify a 100 m minimum approach distance for all marine mammals, and a 200 m approach distance for all Killer Whales. In the interim, the commercial whale watching sector has committed to voluntarily implementing the 200 m minimum approach distance. TC currently lacks the necessary legislative and regulatory authority to mandate vessel operations for the purpose of protecting marine mammal and ecosystem. TC is proposing legislative amendments to the Canada Shipping Act (CSA) 2001. The results of the 2017 Haro Strait voluntary vessel slowdown trial, led by the Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority’s Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) program, demonstrate important reductions in noise for every knot reduction in speed. Further analysis of the data is currently underway to better inform future actions. TC is currently working with ECHO, and industry stakeholders in support of a voluntary trial for the summer of 2018 to further understand the benefits of any additional actions. DFO has identified the need for discussions with other sectors, including whale watching, to understand activity levels within key foraging areas and what potential additional voluntary measures may be taken to minimize physical and acoustic disturbance in identified Killer Whale foraging areas to the extent possible. Discussion of potential voluntary measures that align with any implemented fishery area closures in key foraging areas through engagement, communications and stewardship is anticipated. At present, it is unclear whether and if the appropriate federal regulatory tools exist to exclude non-fishing vessel-based activities from feeding areas, or whether authorities exist under provincial jurisdiction. As well, vessel exclusion zones can be difficult to enforce, especially for small recreational crafts.

DFO (2017b) found that source-based mitigation measures, such as ship design and/or retrofit, can have a long-term and global effect but these can only be applied incrementally as ships are modified or replaced. Operation-based mitigation measures, such as vessel slow down and convoys, could improve acoustic environments but there is more uncertainty in the effectiveness of these measures as more knowledge is required on whale behaviour, presence, and distribution. Under the Whales Initiative there may be a recommendation to develop guidelines for quiet design and retrofits. Requirements could be made mandatory through regulation. This is a long term action since design criteria and/or standards will need to be developed. In 2017, the Government of Canada released the Oceans Protection Plan and committed to "take action to better understand and address the cumulative effects of shipping on marine mammals such as SRKW....this includes work to better establish baselines for noise and consideration of options to mitigate these effects." DFO has evaluated the scientific evidence related to mitigation measures that could be applied to reduce shipping-related noise within identified and proposed SRKW critical habitat. A range of mitigation measures were evaluated; including source- and operation-based measures (DFO 2017d). Activities to address the recommendations above are ongoing by the Government of Canada but as with abating threats associated with prey availability, the current actions are relatively new and their success in reducing and eliminating the threats posed by acoustic and physical disturbance have not been evaluated for their effectiveness in promoting survival and recovery for the SRKW. Consequently, this threat is still considered to be acting on the population and does require immediate intervention.

Environmental contaminants Measures to address the threat from environmental contaminants are part of the legislative responsibility of ECCC. The Whale Review (DFO 2017b) identified four priority actions to directly abate the presence of environmental contaminants (in no particular order):  adequately enforce Canadian regulations aimed at reducing toxic chemical compound discharges at the source  accelerate the rate of compliance with the Canadian Wastewater System Effluent Regulation (2012) in wastewater treatment facilities that border the Salish Sea  review policies and best management practices for ocean dredging and disposal at sea and modify them to include an examination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) as well as any other necessary modifications to minimize SRKW contaminant exposure  identify programs that mitigate small scale and/or chronic contaminant spills and leaks and provide support to them ; if none exist, design and implement an ongoing program that focuses on this mitigation

Current and planned actions to abate this threat: Many of the POPs found in whales, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and PCBs, are legacy contaminants used historically and now banned. The Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) was created in 2006 to help ensure that substances currently in use, or being considered for use as new substances, do not become the POPs of the future. ECCC implements the CMP collaboration with Health Canada to assess and manage substances that are toxic to the environment and human health. Under this program

22 the department has put in place regulations to prohibit, restrict, or control toxic substances, including some of those known to affect whales. For other toxic substances known or suspected to be affecting whales, there are plans to review existing controls and consider how to strengthen them. This will include, for example, further evaluation of prohibitions on the use of flame retardants such as PBDEs, and water, oil and grease repellants such as PFCAs; and, assessing whether to expand regulatory controls for chlorinated alkanes, to include certain types (medium and long chain) which are not addressed in the existing regulations. Under the Fisheries Act, ECCC administers the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) and the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations (PPER). These regulations manage threats to fish, fish habitat, and human health from fish consumption by governing the deposit of deleterious substances from mining and pulp and paper mills into waters frequented by fish. ECCC is considering expanding its enforcement activities to specifically target offenders posing the highest risk to whale populations and their prey. Wastewater releases are a known source of contaminants in the Salish Sea. The Capital Regional District (CRD) plant in Victoria and Vancouver’s Lions Gate and Iona Island wastewater treatment plants collectively release about 700 million litres of untreated and under treated effluent every day into the Salish Sea. ECCC’s Wastewater System Effluent Regulations require wastewater facilities to upgrade to at least secondary treatment, which can remove approximately 90% of contaminants such as flame retardants (and 95% of conventional pollutants). Victoria (CRD) has until the end of 2020 to stop discharging untreated wastewater, and Metro Vancouver Lions Gate and Iona Island wastewater treatment plants have until the end of 2020 and 2030, respectively. ECCC will put in place more protective measures under the Disposal at Sea (DaS) regulations to ensure that PCBs in sediment in marine environments do not increase as a result of disposal of dredged materials. This includes increased sampling at DaS sites to help establish protective limits for disposal at sea, to ensure that we do not increase contaminants (specifically PBDEs) in whale habitat. Specifically regarding spills, under the Ocean Protection Plan, ECCC is supporting the Canadian Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans on the development of a legislative and operational framework to permit the use of the most effective response techniques for ship source spills. ECCC is also supporting legislative changes (amendments to the Canadian Shipping Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999), development of an operational framework on use of alternate response measures, and completing scientific research on the use of response techniques. ECCC is also enhancing its emergency response capacity with new environmental emergency officers on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and additional enforcement officers in British Columbia, wildlife biologists, 24/7 oil spill modelling and emergency communications capacity.

While DFO will conduct research to quantify key contaminants founds in whales, ECCC’s research efforts will focus on identifying the sources of contaminants and how they are entering aquatic environments, in order to better manage them. This research will include air monitoring to measure concentrations of contaminants in air, and the contribution of air pollution from urban centres to whale habitat; increased freshwater sampling to understand the extent to which the Fraser River and other rivers that discharge directly into SRKW habitat are contributing contaminants that are impacting the whales or their prey; sampling of leachate from landfills located close to critical whale habitat to assess the presence of contaminants. Additionally, contaminants of emerging concern such as recycled plastics containing flame retardants and microplastics will be investigated to understand their effects and potential contribution to contaminants found in whales and their prey. The findings from these various research efforts will be used to assess the effectiveness of existing management measures and to identify potential areas where new actions are required.

Many of the activities to address the recommendations are ongoing by the Government of Canada but others are planned for the future. The success of these actions in reducing contaminants in the environment will require long term monitoring and research. Consequently, this threat is still considered to be acting on the population and does require intervention.

Summary Despite ongoing and planned mitigation measures, the key threats affecting the SRKW population are, to date, not being fully abated; further, the effectiveness of these actions has not yet been evaluated, which can take many years. Given the long life-span of the species, recovery is a long-term goal and effects of reducing the threats on the population to ensure survival and advance recovery would not occur over the short term.

5. Conclusions In terms of imminency of threat to species at risk, each case must be considered on its own merit owing to the broad range of species and threats that act on them. The opinion of the Ministers must be formed based on the best available information. What is an imminent threat for one species may not necessarily apply to another. This ITA considered the application of imminent threat to the SRKW population only. When forming an opinion as to the existence of imminent threats, the Ministers should consider factors including whether the threats are of sufficient proximity, taking into account the recovery objectives identified in the recovery strategy for the species if there is one, and whether the threats to the survival or recovery of SRKW are more than a mere possibility or potential future outcome. The more likely the threats are, the more weight they will merit in the Ministers’ assessment of the imminence of the threats. However, the threats need not be guaranteed to materialize and the precautionary principle should guide the Ministers in forming their opinion. The impact of the threats should be considered over a biologically appropriate timescale for SRKW; whether it would render the SRKW recovery or survival impossible or unlikely without intervention should also be considered. The three primary threats to SRKW that are described in this document are present, have ongoing impacts to this population and must be considered. Threats acting on the SRKW population are not new and may be considered chronic in that they have been acting on the population for many years and cannot be eradicated by any one action or activity. However, it is recognized that these threats and the impacts they may be having on the population are also likely increasing. At the present time, due to the current status of the population and the criteria established for recovery, the threats, although chronic and not necessarily immediate, can be considered imminent. Intervention (through current and proposed measures and/or through additional measures) is needed now in order to preserve the current population to allow the SRKW the best chance for survival and recovery. In light of their inherent characteristics, including life history and social factors, the population was likely historically small compared to other cetacean populations, even in the absence of impacts from human activities. However, the current population is considered small, not stable and declining. It does not exhibit population redundancy or connectivity with other Killer Whale populations and it continues to face anthropogenic threats that may be increasing. As described above, there are new measures underway, such as reducing commercial Chinook Salmon harvest and reducing noise, that are expected to help mitigate these threats to SRKW, but the effectiveness of these additional measures in abating the threat and contributing to the survival and recovery of the population will take time to evaluate. The

24 maximum lifespan of a female SRKW is approximately 50 to 80 years and a generation is considered to be 26 to 29 years; the effectiveness of threat mitigation actions can be expected to take many years to come to fruition. Therefore, in following the precautionary approach committed to by the Government of Canada, and the information presented above, the following recommendations are made:

Imminent threat to survival Based on the information reviewed and analysis undertaken as part of this assessment, it is considered that SRKW are likely facing imminent threat to survival. Unless mitigated, the current threats may make survival of the population unlikely or impossible.

Imminent threat to recovery Based on the information reviewed and analysis undertaken as part of this assessment, it is considered that SRKW are likely facing imminent threat to recovery. Unless mitigated, the current threats may make recovery of the population unlikely or impossible.

6. References

Adam v. Canada (Environment), [2013] 2 FCR 201, 2011 FC 962 (CanLII). Amos, B., C. Schloetterer, and D. Tautz. 1993. Social structure of pilot whales revealed by analytical DNA profiling. Science 260: 670-672. Au, W.W.L., J.K.B. Ford, and K.A. Newman Allman. 2004. Echolocation signals of free-ranging Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) and modeling of foraging for chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 221: 559-564. Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of Killer Whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 115:676- 701. Barrett-Lennard, L.G. and G.M. Ellis. 2001. Population structure and genetic variability in Northeastern Pacific Killer Whales: toward an assessment of population viability. CSAS Res. Doc. 2001/065. 35 pp. Barrett-Lennard, L.G., J.K.B. Ford and K. Heise. 1996. The mixed blessing of echolocation: Differences in sonar use by fish-eating and mammal-eating Killer Whales. Animal Behaviour 51: 553-565. Black, N., R. Ternullo, A. Schulman-Janiger, A.M. Hammers, and P. Stap. 2001. Occurrence, behaviour, and photo-identification of Killer Whales in Monterey Bay, California. In 14th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Vancouver, British Columbia. Society for Marine Mammalogy, San Francisco, California. Bigg, M.A., G.M. Ellis, J.K.B. Ford, and K.C. Balcomb. 1987. Killer Whales: a study of their identification, genealogy, and natural history in British Columbia and Washington State. Phantom Press, Nanaimo, British Columbia. Bigg, M.A., P.F. Olesiuk, G.M. Ellis, J.K.B. Ford, and K.C. Balcomb. 1990. Social organization and genealogy of Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 12:383-405. Bigg, M.A. and A.A. Wolman. 1975. Live-capture Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) fishery, British Columbia and Washington, 1962-73. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 1213-1221. Branstetter, B.K., St Leger, J., Acton, D., Stewart, J., Hauser, D., Finneran, J.J., Jenkins, K. 2017. Killer whale (Orcinus orca ) behavioural audiograms. J. Acous. Soc. of Amer. COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Killer Whale Orcinus orca, Southern Resident population, Northern Resident population, West Coast Transient population, Offshore population and Northwest Atlantic / Eastern Arctic population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 65 pp. Dahlheim, M.E. and C.O. Matkin. 1994. Assessment of injuries to Prince William Sound Killer Whales. Pages 163-171 in T.R. Loughlin (editor). Marine mammals and the Exxon Valdez. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Dahlheim, M.E. and J.E. Heyning. 1999. Killer Whale Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758). Pages 281-322 in S. Ridgway and R. Harrison (editors). Handbook of marine mammals, Volume 6. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

DFO. 2011. Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, ix + 80 pp. DFO. 2017a. Action Plan for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 33 pp. DFO. 2017b. Southern Resident Killer Whale: A science based review of recovery actions for three at-risk whale populations. [accessed February 2018]. DFO. 2017c. Identification of habitats of special importance to Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) off the west coast of Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2017/011 DFO. 2017d. Evaluation of the Scientific Evidence to Inform the Probability of Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures in Reducing Shipping-Related Noise Levels Received by Southern Resident Killer Whales. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2017/041. Donague, M., R. Reeves, and G.S. Andrews. 2002. Report of the Workshop On Interactions Between Cetaceans And Longline Fisheries. Apia, Samoa: November 2002. New England Aquarium Aquatic Forum Series Report 03-1, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA, USA. ECHO 2016. Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program. Advisory Working Group Meeting Presentation, June 2016. Erbe, C. 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on Killer Whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science 18:394-418. Erbe, C., MacGillivray, A., and Williams, R.. 2012. Mapping cumulative noise from shipping to inform marine spatial planning. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 132:EL423 Ewald,G., Larsson,P., Linge,H., Okla,L., and Szarzi,N. 1998. Biotransport of organic pollutants to an inland Alaska lake by migrating sockeye salmon (Oncorhyncus nerka). Arctic 51:40-47. Fearnbach, H., Durban, J.W., Ellifrit, D.K. and Balcomb, K.C., 2015. Individual-based photogrammetric measures of length, growth and shape to infer body condition and reproductive status of Southern Resident Killer Whales. Unpublished report by Center for Whale Research and NOAA, USA. Ford, J.K.B. 1989. Acoustic behaviour of Resident Killer Whales Orcinus orca off Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 727-745. Ford, J.K.B. and G.M. Ellis. 1999. Transients: Mammal-Hunting Killer Whales. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 96 pp. Ford, J.K.B. and G.M. Ellis. 2002. Reassessing the social organization of Resident Killer Whales in British Columbia. Pages 72-75 in the Fourth International Orca Symposium and Workshop, September 23-28, 2002. CEBC-CNRS, France. Ford, J.K.B. and G.M. Ellis. 2005. Prey selection and food sharing by fish-eating ‘Resident’ Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2005/041. Ford, J.K.B. and G.M. Ellis. 2006. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in British Columbia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 316: 185-199.

Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, and K.C. Balcomb. 2000. Killer Whales: the natural history and genealogy of Orcinus orca in British Columbia and Washington, second edition. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. 104 pp. Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, A.B. Morton, R.S. Palm, and K.C. Balcomb. 1998. Dietary specialization in two sympatric populations of Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in coastal British Columbia and adjacent waters. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1456-1471. Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, P.F. Olesiuk. 2005. Linking prey and populations dynamics: did food limitation cause recent declines of ‘Resident’ Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2005/042. Ford, J.K.B., G.M. Ellis, P.F. Olesiuk, and K.C. Balcomb. 2010. Linking Killer Whale survival and prey abundance: food limitation in the oceans’ apex predator? Biology letters 6:139–42. Ford, J.K.B, E.H. Stredulinsky, G.M. Ellis, J.W. Durban, and J.F. Pilkington. 2014. Offshore Killer Whales in Canadian Pacific Waters: Distribution, Seasonality, Foraging Ecology, Population Status and Potential for Recovery. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2014/088. vii + 55 p. Ford, J.K.B, J.F. Pilkington, A. Reira, M. Otsuki, B. Gisborne, R.M. Abernethy, E.H. Stredulinsky, J.R. Towers, and G.M. Ellis. Habitats of Special Importance to Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) off the West Coast of Canada. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2017/035. Ford, M.J., K.M. Parsons, E.J. Ward, J.A. Hempelmann, C.K. Emmons, M.B. Hanson, K.C. Balcomb, L.K. Park. Inbreeding in an endangered killer whale population. Anim Conserv 21(2). Foote, A.D., R.W. Osborne, and A. R. Hoelzel. 2004. Whale-call response to masking boat noise. Nature 428: 910. Gaydos, J.K., K.C. Balcomb, R.W. Osborne, and L. Dierauf. 2004. Evaluating potential infectious disease threats for Southern Resident Killer Whales, Orcinus orca: a model for endangered species. Biological Conservation 117: 253-262. Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1982. Sea mammals and oil: confronting the risks. Academic Press, New York, New York. Grant, S.C.H. and P.S. Ross. 2002. Southern Resident Killer Whales at risk: toxic chemicals in the British Columbia and Washington environment. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2412:1-111. Hanson, M.B., R.W. Baird, J.K.B. Ford, J. Hempelmann-Halos, D.M. Van Doornik, J.R. Candy, C.K. Emmons, G.S. Schorr, B. Gisborne, K.L. Ayres, S.K. Wasser, K.C. Balcomb, J.G. Sneva, and M.J. Ford. 2010. Species and stock identification of prey consumed by endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales in their summer range. Endangered Species Research 11: 69–82. Hanson, M.B., C.K. Emmons, E.J. Ward, J.A. Nystuen, and M.O. Lammers. 2013. Assessing the coastal occurrence of endangered killer whales using autonomous passive acoustic recorders. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134:3486-3495. Heise, K., L. G. Barrett-Lennard, E. Saulitis, C. Matkin, and D. Bain. 2003. Examining the evidence for Killer Whale predation on Steller sea lions in British Columbia and Alaska. Aquatic Mammals 29: 325-334.

Holt, M.M. 2017. Research Efforts to Address Noise and Vessel Effects on Southern Resident Killer Whales. Presentation made at the DFO-NOAA Strategic Planning of Activities Meeting, March 708, 2017, Seattle, WA. Holt, M.M., D.P. Noren, V. Viers, C.K. Emmons, and S. Viers. 2009. Speaking up: killer whales (Orcinus orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125(1): 27-32. Holt, M.M., Noren D.P., and Emmons, C.K. 2011. Effects of noise levels and call types on the source levels of killer whale calls. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130:3100. Krahn, M.M., M.J. Ford, W.F. Perrin, P.R. Wade, R.P. Angliss, M.B. Hanson, B.L. Taylor, G.M. Ylitalo, M.E. Dahlheim, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2004. 2004 Status review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC- 62, 73 p. [accessed January 2005]. Krahn, M.M., P.R. Wade, S.T. Kalinowski, M.E. Dahlheim, B.L. Taylor, M.B. Hanson, G.M. Ylitalo, R.P. Angliss, J.E. Stein, and R.S. Waples. 2002. Status review of Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-54. 133p. Lusseau, D., D. Bain, R. Williams, and J. Smith. 2009. Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging behavior of Southern Resident Killer Whales Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research 6:211–221. Matkin, C.O., G.M. Ellis, E.L. Saulitis, L.G. Barrett-Lennard, and D.R. Matkin. 1999. Killer Whales of Southern Alaska. North Gulf Oceanic Society, Homer, Alaska. Matkin, C. O, Moore M. J., and Gulland F.M.D. 2017. Review of Recent Research on Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) to Detect Evidence of Poor Body Condition in the Population. Independent Science Panel Report to the SeaDoc Society. 3 pp. + Appendices. DOI 10.1575/1912/8803 Matkin, C.O., E.L. Saulitis, G.M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, and S.D. Rice. 2008. Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 356:269-281. NMFS. 2006a. Designation of critical habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales, biological report, October 2006, 44 pp. [accessed March 2007]. Noren, D., Johnson A.H., Rehder D., and Larson A.. 2009. Close approaches by vessels elicit surface active behaviors by Southern Resident Killer Whales. Endangered Species Research 8:179–192. O'Hara, T.M., O'Shea, T.J., 2001. Toxicology. In: Dierauf, L.A., Gulland, F.M.B. (Eds.), CRC Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine, 2nd Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 309–335. Olesiuk, P.F., M.A. Bigg, and G.M. Ellis. 1990. Life history and population dynamics of Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in the coastal waters of British Columbia and Washington State. Report of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 12: 209-243. O’Neill, S.M., J.E. West, and J.C. Hoeman. 1998. Spatial trends in the concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (O. kisutch) in Puget Sound and factors affecting PCB accumulation: results from the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Research ’98:312-328. [accessed January 2005]

Osborne, R.W. 1999. A historical ecology of Salish Sea “Resident” Killer Whales (Orcinus orca): with implications for management. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia. Pike, G.C. and I.B. MacAskie. 1969. Marine mammals of British Columbia. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 171: 1-54. Rayne, S., M.G. Ikonomou, P.S. Ross, G.M. Ellis, and L.G. Barrett-Lennard. 2004 PBDEs, PBBs, and PCNs in three communities of free-ranging Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) from the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Environmental Science and Technology 38: 4293-4299. Ross, P.S. 2000. Marine mammals as sentinels in ecological risk assessment. Humans and Ecological Risk Assessment 6: 29-46. Ross, P.S. 2002. The role of immunotoxic environmental contaminants in facilitating the emergence of infectious diseases in marine mammals. Humans and Ecological Risk Assessment 8: 277-292. Ross, P.S. 2006. Fireproof Killer Whales (Orcinus orca): Flame retardant chemicals and the conservation imperative in the charismatic icon of British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 224-234. Scammon, C.M. 1874. The marine mammals of the northwestern coast of North America, together with an account of the American whale fishery. J.H. Carmany and Company, San Francisco, California. Taylor, M. and B. Plater. 2001. Population viability analysis for the Southern Resident population of the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca). Centre for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona. 30 p. Veirs, S., Veirs, V. and Wood, J.D. 2015. Ship noise in an urban estuary extends to frequencies used for echolocation by endangered killer whales. PeerJ 4:e1657 Vélez-Espino, L.A., Ford, J.K.B., Araujo, H.A., Ellis, G., Parken, C.K., and Balcomb, K.C. 2014. Comparative demography and viability of northeastern Pacific resident killer whale populations at risk. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3084: v + 58 p. Ward, E.J., E.E. Holmes, and K.C. Balcomb. 2009. Quantifying the effects of prey abundance on killer whale reproduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(3): 632-640. WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2004. Vessel entry and transit for Washington waters VEAT 2003. WDOE Publication 04-08-002. Olympia Washington. [accessed December 2004]. Wiles, G.J. 2004. Washington state status report for the Killer Whale. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 p. Williams, R., C. Erbe, E. Ashe, A. Beerman, and J. Smith. 2014. Severity of killer whale behavioral responses to ship noise: A dose–response study. Marine Pollution Bulletin 79: 254–260. Williams, R., D. Lusseau, and P.S. Hammond. 2006. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 133: 301-311. Zamon, J.E., Guy, T.J., Balcomb, K. and Ellifrit, D. 2007. Winter observations of southern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) near the Columbia River plume during the 2005 spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning migration. Northwestern Naturalist, 88:193-198.

APPENDIX 4: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO PROTECT SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALES

Annex 3.F.9   Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Home  Pacific Region  Fisheries

 Fisheries management measures to protect Southern Resident Killer Whales

June 1 to Sept. 30 Fisheries management measures to protect Southern Resident Killer Whales The seasonal distribution and movement patterns of Southern Resident killer whales are strongly associated with the availability of their preferred prey, Chinook salmon.

Wild populations of Chinook salmon have declined dramatically in recent years. This lack of prey has been a critical factor in the decline of Southern Resident killer whales. To address this, the Government of Canada is imposing fishery management measures to reduce the total harvest for Chinook salmon by 25-35 per cent. These measures include closures that will help increase the availability of this critical food source for Southern Resident killer whales.

The closures will take place in three key foraging (feeding) areas: Strait of Juan de Fuca, Gulf Islands and the mouth of the Fraser River.

These measures will be implemented for the 2018 salmon fishing season, with monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the closures.

 FN0428

Maps of closures

Strait of Juan de Fuca

Strait of Juan de Fuca – Full closure Full closures for recreational finfish and commercial salmon fisheries. Goal: To reduce disturbance from recreational and commercial salmon fishing vessels in key foraging areas, and increase availability of preferred prey.

575 Map of closures for the Strait of Juan de Fuca June 1 to Sept. 30: Finfish closure for recreational fishery and salmon closure for commercial fishery in Subareas 20-3, 20-4 and a portion of Subarea 20-5 west of Otter Point.

Related material Government of Canada takes action to protect Southern Resident Killer Whales Coastal Restoration Fund supports chinook habitat Summary of Imminent Threat Assessment Government’s actions to date on Southern Resident Killer Whales

576 Oceans Protection Plan actions on three endangered whales Action Plan for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada

Date modified: 2018-05-31 Terms and conditions Transparency

About Contact us News Stay connected Our organization DFO Regional offices News releases LinkedIn

Our Minister Canadian Coast Media advisories Facebook Guard Acts and regulations Charges and YouTube Report a problem convictions Jobs and careers Twitter Emergency Publications Feeds assistance

577 APPENDIX 5: MARINE MAMMAL RESPONSE PROGRAM

Annex 3.F.10   Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Home  Aquatic species  Marine mammals and sea turtles

Marine Mammal Response Program There are a wide range of human activities that affect marine mammals and sea turtles including:

Fishing activities; Marine traffic; Noise; Coastal development; and, Pollution.

Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for assisting marine mammals and sea turtles in distress. In collaboration with conservation groups and non-governmental organizations, the Department supports marine mammal incident response networks in all regions under the umbrella of the Marine Mammal Response Program.

The Marine Mammal Response Program works with partners to:

Track and responds to marine mammal entanglements, strandings (dead & live), ship strikes, contaminated animals (oiled), and other threats; Quantify threats affecting marine mammal species, with a special focus on species assessed as at risk; Provide data and information to support Species at Risk recovery planning initiatives, mitigation options, and policy development; and, Coordinate with Conservation and Protection on enforcement cases.

Annual Reports Annual Report 2016 Annual Report 2015 Annual Report 2014 Annual Report 2013-2014 Annual Report 2012-2013 Annual Report 2011-2012 Annual Report 2010-2011 Annual Report 2009-2010

578 Share this  Date modified: 2018-01-18 page

Terms and conditions Transparency

About us Contact us News Stay connected Our organization DFO Regional offices News releases Facebook

Our Minister Canadian Coast Media advisories Twitter Guard Parliamentary Convictions YouTube Secretary Report emergencies LinkedIn and concerns Acts and regulations Feeds Jobs and careers

Publications

579 APPENDIX 6: WHALE INNOVATION CHALLENGE

Annex 3.F.11

WHALE INNOVATION Français Home Partners Contact CHALLENGE

Whale Innovation

Challenge

We're seeking real-time tracking

solutions to keep whale populations safe

in Canada's waters.

KEEP ME UPDATED

By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. We use cookies to provide you with a great experience and to help our website run effectively. ×

580 Canada's waters are getting busier

Vessel trafc is increasing in many Canadian ports where endangered and threatened whale species are found, including the iconic North Atlantic Right

Whale and Southern Resident The North Atlantic Right Whale: mother and calf. Image in the public domain Killer Whale. Vessel collisions, entanglements and acousic disurbances threaten the well- being and survival of these whale populations.

581 Below: A Bathymetric chart of Atlantic Canada. The pink polygon shows the North Atlantic Right Whale's critical habitats. The stars indicate the first observed locations of right whale carcasses from 1987 through 2017. Red stars indicate the death was attributable to a vessel strike, and blue stars indicate the death was due to fishing gear entanglements or unknown causes. (Credit: Fisheries and Oceans Canada)

582 Mariners need Mariners on the Pacifc and Atlantic

coass lack real-time information about real-time the location of whales. Exising information solutions, such as radio frequency

tagging and aerial surveys, provide

limited data and are expensive. The

Whale Innovation Challenge is

therefore seeking new detection and

tracking technologies to reduce the risk

of collisions, entanglements and other

harmful events.

583 Southern Resident Killer Whales. (Published with permission from Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Credit: Graeme Ellis)

Southern Resident Killer Whale range and designated critical habitat within Canadian and adjacent waters in Washington State. (Published with permission from Coastal Ocean Research Institute)

A prize fund for new solutions

584 Early 2019 2019/20 Late 2020

Teams from around the Finalists will have 18 Finalists will present world will be invited to months to develop proof- their solutions for testing submit their ideas. A of-concept stage by the expert panel. The panel of engineers and solutions, backed by winning solution will be biologists will select grants from the announced by the end of Finalists to participate in Challenge fund. the year and receive a the Challenge. cash prize.

Stay updated

585 We'll be announcing more details soon. If you're interesed in entering the Challenge, or following its progress, regiser for email updates or get in touch directly.

586 APPENDIX 7: COMPILATION OF DFO RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 Design of any future offsetting habitat concepts should consider potential eutrophication/anoxia and changes in water drainage that could occur as a result of Project construction.

Recommendation 2 Monitoring of sediment, and organic and redox indicators is recommended to be included in the follow-up monitoring program to verify the accuracy of the environmental effects predictions. Monitoring should include various spatial and temporal scales specific to 1) both near- and far- field scales; 2) sensitive and critical habitats (e.g. eelgrass habitats, Dungeness Crab nursery); 3) sedimentary provinces; 4) predicted zones of deposition; 5) drainage channels, etc.).