Marine Resources

MARINE RESOURCES

WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

Prepared for:

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Suite 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Ph.: (403) 514-6400

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 4370 Dominion Street, Suite 500 Burnaby, BC, V5G 4L7 Ph.: (604) 436-3014

1231-10494 REP-NEB-TERA-00022

December 2013 December 1, 2013

MARINE RESOURCES

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... V

DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYM LIST ...... XI

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1.1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 1.2 1.2 OBJECTIVES ...... 1.3 1.3 REGULATORY STANDARDS ...... 1.3 1.3.1 Federal Standards ...... 1.3

2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 2.1 2.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION, ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT AND LANDOWNER RELATIONS ...... 2.1 2.2 REGULATORY CONSULTATION ...... 2.2

3.0 METHODS ...... 3.1 3.1 PROJECT INTERACTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...... 3.1 3.2 ASSESSMENT INDICATORS AND MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS ...... 3.2 3.3 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ...... 3.5 3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3.5 3.5 LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW ...... 3.5 3.6 FIELD DATA COLLECTION METHODS ...... 3.6 3.6.1 Marine Riparian Habitat Survey ...... 3.6 3.6.2 Intertidal Survey ...... 3.7 3.6.3 Subtidal Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Survey ...... 3.9

4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW ...... 4.1 4.1 ABORIGINAL TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ...... 4.1 4.2 GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 4.1 4.2.1 Physical Setting ...... 4.1 4.2.2 Biological Setting ...... 4.2 4.3 INDICATOR SPECIES AND HABITATS ...... 4.3 4.3.1 Marine Riparian Habitat ...... 4.3 4.3.2 Intertidal Habitat ...... 4.4 4.3.3 Subtidal Habitat ...... 4.6 4.3.4 Dungeness Crab ...... 4.7 4.3.5 Pacific Salmon ...... 4.9 4.3.6 Inshore Rockfish...... 4.14 4.3.7 Harbour Seal ...... 4.16

5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION ...... 5.1 5.1 MARINE RIPARIAN HABITAT ...... 5.1 5.1.1 Summary ...... 5.4 5.2 INTERTIDAL HABITAT ...... 5.4

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx i MARINE RESOURCES

5.2.1 Slope and Substrate Type...... 5.4 5.2.2 Biological Communities ...... 5.5 5.2.3 Zone Characteristics ...... 5.10 5.2.4 Summary ...... 5.12 5.3 SUBTIDAL HABITAT ...... 5.12 5.3.1 Substrate Type ...... 5.15 5.3.2 Algae ...... 5.15 5.3.3 Invertebrates ...... 5.15 5.3.4 Fish ...... 5.16 5.3.5 Summary ...... 5.16 5.4 MARINE MAMMALS ...... 5.16

6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6.1 6.1 SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES ...... 6.2 6.2 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6.3

7.0 SUMMARY ...... 7.1

8.0 REFERENCES ...... 8.1 8.1 LITERATURE CITED ...... 8.1 8.2 FIGURE AND MAPPING REFERENCES ...... 8.10

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Summary of Consultation Activities Related to Marine Resources ...... 2.2 Table 3.1: Marine Resources Indicators and Measurement Endpoints ...... 3.3 Table 3.2: Potential Environmental Effects and Measurement Endpoints ...... 3.4 Table 4.1: Length and Relative Abundance of Shore Types ...... 4.6 Table 5.1: Marine Riparian Habitat Types ...... 5.1 Table 5.2: Relative Abundance of Vascular Plant Species ...... 5.2 Table 5.3: Slope and Length of Vertical Transects ...... 5.4 Table 5.4: Substrate Type (% Cover) Based on Quadrat Average ...... 5.4 Table 5.5: Marine Invertebrate Species Observed in the Intertidal Zone ...... 5.5 Table 5.6: Average Percent Cover/Average Number of Marine Invertebrates per Quadrat ...... 5.6 Table 5.7: Occurrence Rate (%) of Marine Invertebrates ...... 5.7 Table 5.8: Marine Algae Species Observed in the Intertidal Zone ...... 5.8 Table 5.9: Average Percent Cover of Marine Algae per Quadrat ...... 5.9 Table 5.10: Occurrence Rate (%) of Marine Algae ...... 5.9 Table 5.11: Average Percent Cover of Substrate Types in Intertidal Zones ...... 5.10 Table 5.12: Average Percent Cover/Number of Individuals of Marine Invertebrates in Intertidal Zones ...... 5.11 Table 5.13: Average Percent Cover of Marine Algae in Intertidal Zones ...... 5.11 Table 5.14: Marine Species Observed during the Subtidal ROV Survey ...... 5.13 Table 6.1: Potential Effects and Recommended Mitigation Measures for Marine Resources - Westridge Marine Terminal ...... 6.3

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx ii MARINE RESOURCES

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Footprint and Marine Resources LSA ...... A.3 Figure 3.2: Marine RSA ...... A.5 Figure 3.3: Intertidal Survey Transect Locations ...... A.7 Figure 3.4: Subtidal ROV Survey Transect Locations ...... A.9 Figure 4.1: Distribution of Shore Types in the Marine Resources LSA and Marine RSA ...... A.11 Figure 4.2: Distribution of Benthic Classes in the Marine RSA ...... A.13 Figure 4.3: DFO Important Areas for Dungeness Crab in the Marine RSA ...... A.15 Figure 4.4: Salmon-bearing Rivers and Streams Entering the Marine RSA and DFO Important Areas for Pacific Salmon ...... A.17 Figure 4.5: Rockfish Conservation Areas in the Marine RSA ...... A.19 Figure 4.6: DFO Important Areas for Harbour Seals and Haulout Sites ...... A.21 Figure 5.1: Marine Riparian Habitat at the Westridge Marine Terminal ...... A.23 Figure 5.2: Substrate Types Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey ...... A.25 Figure 5.3: Algae Observed during the Subtidal ROV Survey ...... A.27 Figure 5.4: Crab and Shrimp Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey ...... A.29 Figure 5.5: Invertebrates Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey ...... A.31 Figure 5.6: Fish Observed During the Subtidal ROV Survey ...... A.33

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A FIGURES ...... A.1

APPENDIX B SUBTIDAL REMOTELY OPERATED VEHICLE SURVEY DATA SHEETS ...... B.1

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx iii MARINE RESOURCES

Executive Summary

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC is proposing an expansion of its current 1,150-km pipeline between Edmonton, Alberta and Burnaby, British Columbia that would create a twinned pipeline (about 987 km) and increase the nominal capacity of the system from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. Amongst other things, the Project will involve the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal (the Terminal). Currently, in a typical month, five vessels are loaded with heavy crude oil (diluted bitumen) or synthetic crude oil at the terminal. The expanded system will be capable of serving 34 Aframax class vessels per month, with actual demand driven by market conditions. In addition to tanker traffic, the terminal typically loads three barges with oil per month and receives one or two barges of jet fuel per month for shipment on a separate pipeline system that serves Vancouver International Airport (YVR). Barge activity is not expected to change as a result of the expansion.

Key activities associated with the Terminal expansion include: decommissioning and removal of the existing loading berth and utility dock; construction of three new loading berths within an expanded water lot; and possible dredging of two small areas of subtidal substrate adjacent to the new loading berths to support under keel clearance and along the foreshore to support geotechnical stability of proposed infill area. In-water works associated with the Terminal expansion have the potential to affect marine resources located in the vicinity of the Terminal, including marine riparian vegetation, marine algae, marine invertebrates, marine fish and marine mammals.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. was retained by the project consultant, TERA Environmental Consultants, to describe the marine resources that could be affected by the proposed expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal. This technical report describes existing conditions for marine resources, which includes marine fish and fish habitat and marine mammals, in the vicinity of the Westridge Marine Terminal. Field surveys were undertaken to characterize the subtidal, intertidal and riparian habitats found within the study areas and results are provided herein. This report also presents existing information on marine resources indicator species and habitats that was gathered through an extensive review of primary and secondary literature, from academic, government and public sources. Potential interactions between the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal and marine resources were identified through consultation with Aboriginal communities, stakeholders including environmental non-government organizations, the public and regulatory authorities (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO]), and the professional judgment of the discipline experts. This information will be used to assess potential Project-related and cumulative effects on marine resources in support of a comprehensive environmental and socio-economic assessment for submission to the National Energy Board as part of the Section 52 Application for the Project. Finally, this report provides recommendations on mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx v MARINE RESOURCES

influenced by habitat type, with the highest diversity typically associated with rocky intertidal and shallow subtidal areas.

The dominant species of algae in intertidal habitats throughout Burrard Inlet is rockweed, within which juvenile fish and invertebrates forage and avoid predation. Other common species of algae identified within the Marine Resources Local Study Area (LSA; area within 500 m of the expanded water lot) include sea lettuce, Turkish washcloth, sugar kelp and five-ribbed kelp. Eelgrass beds have been mapped in the vicinity of Maplewood Flats, located approximately 4 km northwest of the Terminal just east of the Second Narrows, and provide essential habitat for a number of economically, culturally and ecologically important species including juvenile salmon, Pacific herring, rockfish, and Dungeness crab. No eelgrass beds have been identified within the Marine Resources LSA.

Common intertidal invertebrate species include blue mussel, acorn barnacle, purple ochre stars, snails, shore crabs and limpets. Common subtidal species include Dungeness crab, red rock, anemones, tube worms, sea cucumbers, and shrimps. In addition to these more conspicuous species, a large number of infaunal organisms (i.e., those living beneath the seafloor) have been identified in Burrard Inlet.

All five species of Pacific salmon, including chum, Chinook, pink, coho, and sockeye utilize nearshore habitats in Burrard Inlet from spring through fall and adult salmon have been observed to return to at least 17 streams in Burrard Inlet, 12 of which are located within the Marine Regional Study Area (RSA; area of Burrard Inlet east of the First Narrows). Although there are no salmon bearing streams in the Marine Resources LSA, it is expected that adult salmon will transit through the Marine Resources LSA en route to spawning streams in Indian Arm and Port Moody Arm. Juvenile salmon outmigrating from these streams are also expected to use nearshore habitats within the Marine Resources LSA to some extent for rearing and migration.

In addition to salmon, at least 75 other species of fish are known to use Burrard Inlet. Common species found throughout Inlet include the shiner surfperch, starry flounder, English sole, rock sole, Dover sole and staghorn sculpin. Commercially important species include Pacific herring, anchovy, lingcod, copper rockfish, quillback rockfish and kelp greenling. Some of these species may occur within the Marine Resources LSA, particularly those associated with soft sediment habitats (e.g., flatfish). Herring spawning has not been documented within the Marine Resources LSA.

A survey of marine riparian habitat at the Westridge Marine Terminal was conducted on September 26, 2012. Riparian habitats have been extensively modified by historical development activities, including the original construction of the Terminal in 1954. Riparian vegetation at the Terminal is limited to a narrow fringe of small shrubs and low growing vegetation. Second-growth deciduous trees are found to the north and south of the Terminal, along the shoreline adjacent to the CN rail line. A total of 38 vascular plant species were identified during the survey.

A survey of intertidal habitat in the Marine Resources LSA was conducted from August 18 to 19, 2012. The intertidal zone is dominated by coarse substrate types, particularly boulder and cobble riprap. Two shore types were identified in the intertidal zone including man-made rock ramps and rock cliffs. A total of 17 marine invertebrate species and 8 marine algae species were identified. The most common sessile invertebrate species were common acorn barnacles and blue mussels, and the most common motile

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx vi MARINE RESOURCES

invertebrate species were periwinkles and limpets. The most common algae species were rockweed, Turkish washcloth and green ribbon.

A camera-mounted remotely operated vehicle was used to survey subtidal habitat in the Marine Resources LSA from September 17 to 20, 2012. The substrate observed consisted almost entirely of soft bottom (silt, mud, sand) with traces of broken shells and wood debris. A small section of steeply-sloping rip-rap was identified inshore of the existing berth. A total of 32 species of fish and invertebrates were observed. Brown bladed algae were the dominant algal species in the survey area. Dungeness crabs were very abundant and red rock crabs were moderately abundant. Demersal fish of the family Stichaeidae and various flatfish were very abundant on soft bottom habitat. Shiner perch, pile perch and kelp perch were moderately abundant in the shallow rip-rap and around pilings.

Activities associated with the expansion and operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal have the potential to directly and indirectly affect marine resources through:

• Loss or alteration of marine fish habitat. • Change in the productive capacity of marine fish habitat. • Injury or mortality to marine fish and marine mammals. • Sensory disturbance to marine mammals.

Construction of the marine loading berths and expansion of onshore facilities at the Terminal will result in the loss or alteration of marine riparian habitat, intertidal habitat, and subtidal habitat and an associated decrease in the productive capacity of marine fish habitat. Construction of the marine loading berths will also result in the direct mortality of some intertidal and subtidal biota, primarily through burial and crushing of sessile organisms. Marine fish and mammals that are present at the time of pile installation may experience injury or mortality associated with loud underwater noise generated during pile driving. Likewise, loud in-water construction activities may result in sensory disturbance of marine mammals.

The seven indicators selected to assess potential effects of the expansion and operation of the Terminal on marine resources are: Dungeness crab (for marine invertebrates); Pacific salmon and inshore rockfish (for marine fish); Pacific harbour seal (for marine mammals); and marine riparian habitat, intertidal habitat, and subtidal habitat (for marine fish habitats). These indicators were selected based on a number of criteria, including their sensitivity to potential Project effects, their distribution and abundance near the proposed Terminal expansion, their ecological, economic and cultural importance, and their conservation status.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx vii MARINE RESOURCES

Spatial boundaries for the assessment of marine resources indicators encompass the geographic extent over which potential Project effects are expected to be measurable. The study areas for marine resources are:

• Project Footprint: the area directly affected by construction of the Westridge Marine Terminal. • Marine Resources Local Study Area (LSA): the zone of influence (ZOI) likely to be affected by construction and operations of the Westridge Marine Terminal, defined as the area within 500 m of the proposed water lease expansion. • Marine Regional Study Area (RSA): the area where the direct and indirect influence of other activities could overlap with Project-specific effects and cause cumulative effects on marine resources. This includes the area of Burrard Inlet east of the First Narrows, including Indian Arm and Port Moody Arm.

Rationale for selection of the Marine Resources LSA boundaries is based in part on the need to monitor a 500 m radius surrounding any underwater blasting, as per DFO guidelines. Although there will be no blasting for the Terminal expansion, pile driving will produce loud underwater sound that could result in the injury or mortality of marine fish and marine mammals. The 500 m radius is considered conservative for the sound levels produced by pile driving. Selection of the Marine RSA boundaries considered the confined nature of this system of inlets and the fact that effects associated with development of the Terminal are not expected to extend westward beyond First Narrows. A broader RSA was selected in consideration of effects associated with marine transportation (i.e., increased Project-related vessel traffic), which are discussed in a separate report (see Marine Resources – Marine Transportation Technical Report of Volume 8B).

Potential adverse effects to marine riparian habitat, intertidal habitat and subtidal habitat will be reduced by limiting the spatial extent of construction to what is absolutely necessary for Project construction. This includes minimizing the area of riparian clearing, minimizing the footprint of infilling, and minimizing the number of piles installed to support the new trestles and berths. Where the loss or permanent alteration of marine fish habitat cannot be avoided, a habitat compensation/offset program will be implemented as required to ensure there is no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitat. A detailed marine fish habitat compensation/offset plan will be developed during the permitting phase of the Project (i.e., post-regulatory review). This plan will quantify the amount of marine fish habitat affected by Terminal construction (based on final engineering and design plans), identify and describe the compensation/offset measures that will be implemented to offset the effects to marine fish habitat (e.g., creation of new habitats or enhancement/restoration of existing habitats), and discuss how the compensation/offset measures will ensure there is no net loss of productive capacity. The plan will also present a habitat effectiveness monitoring program that will be conducted to ensure the compensation/offset measures are successful.

To minimize the potential for injury or mortality to marine fish, construction activities that have the greatest potential to harm benthic biota and less motile fish through burial or crushing (i.e., dredging and infilling) will be scheduled within the DFO least-risk work window for Burrard Inlet, which is from August 16 to February 28. If this becomes impractical, timing will be determined in consultation with DFO. In addition, a crab salvage program will be implemented within the dredge and fill footprint immediately prior to the commencement of dredging and infilling to reduce potential injury or mortality to Dungeness

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx viii MARINE RESOURCES

crabs. Crabs will be collected using baited traps and relocated to a nearby site, outside of the construction area.

Potential effects of underwater noise from pile driving will be reduced through a variety of mitigation measures. The preferred pile installation method is a vibratory driver, for its decreased noise production. Where a vibratory driver cannot be used due to engineering constraints, bubble curtains will be deployed to assist in attenuating sound levels. Details concerning appropriate type and usage of bubble curtains will be discussed with DFO. A hydrophone will be used to monitor pressure levels during pile driving, so as to reduce potential fish injury or mortality. This hydrophone will also be monitored at the onset of pile-driving to confirm the assumptions concerning source levels, potential exceedance of marine mammal auditory injury levels, and effectiveness of mitigations. A marine mammal monitoring program will also be implemented to enforce a pre-determined exclusion zone during pile driving operations. If cetaceans or species at risk are detected within the exclusion zone, the underwater construction activity will be immediately stopped until the marine mammal has been observed to exit the exclusion zone, or has not been re-sighted for 30 minutes.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx ix MARINE RESOURCES

DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYM LIST

Definition/Acronym Full Name ATK Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Avoidance a means to prevent a potential adverse effect through routing/siting of the project, changes to project design or construction timing BC British Columbia CEA Canadian Environmental Assessment CEA Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Chart datum mean lowest low water level as defined by the Canadian Hydrographic Service Compensation a means intended to compensate unavoidable and potentially significant or unacceptable effects any may consist of offsets (no net loss), research, education programs, and financial compensation (considered only when all other options have been exhausted) COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CPUE catch per unit effort dB decibel Demersal at the bottom of a body of water (in contrast to pelagic) DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada Element a technical discipline or discrete component of the biophysical or human environment identified in the NEB Filing Manual. EPP Environmental Protection Plan ESA Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment FLNRO Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations FSC food, social, and ceremonial GIS global information system GPS global positioning system HADD harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction HHWM highest high water mark Hz hertz IFMP integrated fisheries management plan Indicator a biophysical, social, or economic property or variable that society considers to be important and is assessed to predict Project-related changes and focus the effects assessment on key issues. One or more indicators are selected to describe the present and predicted future condition of an element. Societal views are understood by the assessment team through published information such as management plans and engagement with regulatory authorities, public, Aboriginal communities, and other interested groups. Intertidal marine habitat between the mean lowest low water (MLLW) level and the mean highest high water (MHHW) level LSA local study area – the zone of influence or area where the element and associated indicators are most likely to be affected by Project construction and operation. Mitigation mean measures for the elimination, reduction or control of the adverse environmental effects of the project, and includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means MHHW mean highest high water MLLW mean lower low water MOE Ministry of Environment

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx xi MARINE RESOURCES

Definition/Acronym Full Name Motile possessing the ability to move NEB National Energy Board Pelagic open water (i.e., near the surface or in the water column but not at the bottom of a body of water [in contrast to demersal]) Post-construction a type of monitoring program that may be used to verify that mitigation monitoring measures were properly implemented and that such measures effectively mitigate the predicted adverse environmental effects Footprint area affected by construction activities associated with expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal RCA rockfish conservation area ROV remotely operated vehicle RSA regional study area – the area extending beyond the Local Study Area boundary where the direct and indirect influence of other activities could overlap with project-specific effects and cause cumulative effects on the environmental or socio-economic indicator. SARA Species at Risk Act Stantec Stantec Consulting Ltd. SEP Salmonid Enhancement Program Subtidal marine habitat below the mean lower low water (MLLW) level Supplemental studies studies to be conducted post submission of the application to confirm the effects assessment conclusions and gather site-specific information for the implementation of mitigation from the Project-specific environmental protection plans the Project the Trans Mountain Expansion Project TERA TERA Environmental Consultants Terminal Westridge Marine Terminal Trans Mountain Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC µPa microPascal ZOI zone of influence

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx xii MARINE RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION December 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is proposing an expansion of its current 1,150-km pipeline (the “Trans Mountain pipeline”) between Edmonton, Alberta and Burnaby, British Columbia (BC). The proposed expansion would create a twinned pipeline that would increase the nominal capacity of the system from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day. The Project will involve the construction of 987 km of new buried pipeline, 35 new pumping units at 12 locations, additional storage capacity at the existing Edmonton, Sumas and Burnaby tank terminals, and the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal (the Terminal).

Should the proposed expansion be approved, the number of vessels, including tankers and barges, being loaded at the Westridge Marine Terminal would increase from approximately 8 vessel per month (5 tankers and 3 barges) to 37 vessels per month, 34 of which would be tankers. Expansion of the dock facilities at the Terminal will be required to accommodate this greater number of vessels. Key activities associated with the Terminal expansion include:

• Decommissioning and removal of the existing loading berth and utility dock. • Construction of three new loading berths within an expanded water lot. • Infilling of shoreline habitats to accommodate new onshore infrastructure. • Possible dredging of two small areas of subtidal substrate: − Adjacent to the new loading berths to provide adequate under-keel clearance for Aframax tankers. − Along the foreshore to support geotechnical stability of proposed infill area.

In-water works associated with the Terminal expansion have the potential to affect marine resources located in the vicinity of the Terminal, including marine riparian vegetation, marine algae, marine invertebrates, marine fish and marine mammals.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the project consultant, TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA), to describe the marine resources that could be affected by the proposed expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal. The primary objective of this report is to present information on the existing marine environment to support the preparation of a comprehensive environmental and socio-economic assessment (ESA) for submission to the National Energy Board (NEB) as part of the Section 52 Application for the Project.

This report describes the field surveys that were undertaken to characterize the subtidal, intertidal and riparian habitats found in the vicinity of the Terminal. It also presents existing information on indicator species and habitats that will be used to assess potential Project-related and cumulative effects on marine resources. Finally, this report provides recommendations on mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 1.1 MARINE RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION December 2013

1.1 Project Overview

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is a Canadian corporation with its head office located in Calgary, Alberta. Trans Mountain is a general partner of Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P., which is operated by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC), and is fully owned by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Trans Mountain is the holder of the National Energy Board (NEB) certificates for the Trans Mountain pipeline system (TMPL system).

The TMPL system commenced operations 60 years ago and now 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 TMPL system currently supplies much of the crude oil and refined products used in BC. The TMPL system is operated and maintained by staff located at Trans Mountain’s regional and local offices in Alberta (Edmonton, Edson, and Jasper) and BC (Clearwater, Kamloops, Hope, Abbotsford, and Burnaby).

The TMPL system has an operating capacity of approximately 47,690 m3/d (300,000 bbl/d) using 23 active pump stations and 40 petroleum storage tanks. The expansion will increase the capacity to 141,500 m3/d (890,000 bbl/d).

The proposed expansion will comprise the following:

• Pipeline segments that complete a twinning (or “looping”) of the pipeline in Alberta and BC with about 987 km of new buried pipeline. • New and modified facilities, including pump stations and tanks. • Three new berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC, each capable of handling Aframax class vessels.

The expansion has been developed in response to requests for service from Western Canadian oil producers and West Coast refiners for increased pipeline capacity in support of growing oil production and access to growing West Coast and offshore markets. NEB decision RH-001-2012 reinforces market support for the expansion and provides Trans Mountain the necessary economic conditions to proceed with design, consultation, and regulatory applications.

Application is being made pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) for the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (referred to as “TMEP” or “the Project”). The NEB will undertake a detailed review and hold a Public Hearing to determine if it is in the public interest to recommend a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for construction and operation of the Project. Subject to the outcome of the NEB Hearing process, Trans Mountain plans to begin construction in 2016 and go into service in 2017.

Trans Mountain has embarked on an extensive program to engage Aboriginal communities and to consult with landowners, government agencies (e.g., regulators and municipalities), stakeholders, and the general public. Information on the Project is also available at www.transmountain.com.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 1.2 MARINE RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION December 2013

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this marine resources technical report were to:

• Characterize the subtidal, intertidal and marine riparian habitats that could be affected by the proposed expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal. • Select key indicator species and habitats for the assessment of potential Project effects on marine resources, and present existing information on the biology, ecology, distribution and abundance of these species and habitats within the study area. • Identify potential Project effects on marine resources and describe the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce or eliminate these effects.

This report describes the methods by which existing information was collected for marine resources, the approach for and results of three marine field surveys (intertidal habitat survey, subtidal habitat survey and marine riparian vegetation survey), as well as general marine mitigation recommendations for the construction and reclamation phases of the Project. The results of this marine resources technical report do not identify residual environmental or socio-economic effects nor provide conclusions regarding significance. Volume 5A provides the potential residual and cumulative effects of the pipeline and facilities components of the Project on marine resources, including an evaluation of significance. Similarly, Volumes 8A and 8B include the effects assessment and technical reports for Marine Transportation.

1.3 Regulatory Standards

1.3.1 Federal Standards

Federal standards applicable to marine resources within the Project study areas include the following:

NEB Filing Manual (2013)

The assessment of marine resources was designed to meet the requirements of an application under Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act, as outlined in the NEB Filing Manual (2013). Although the Filing Manual does not outline specific requirements for marine biophysical elements, it does outline the filing requirements for fish and fish habitat, wildlife and wildlife habitat and species at risk or species of special status (Section A.2.8, Table A-2). For the purposes of assessing potential Project effects on marine resources, these requirements were interpreted in a marine context and were applied to marine fish and fish habitat, marine mammals, and marine species at risk. The NEB provided further clarification of its requirements to consider the environmental and socio-economic effects of the increase in marine tanker traffic in its Filing Requirements Related to the Potential Environmental and Socio-Economic Effects of Increased Marine Shipping Activities, Trans Mountain Expansion Project (September 10, 2013).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 1.3 MARINE RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION December 2013

Fisheries Act

In-water activities associated with the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal are regulated under the Fisheries Act and through policies and programs established by DFO. Under the Fisheries Act, “fish” are defined as all fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals, and their eggs, spawn, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals. “Fish habitat” is defined as the spawning grounds and any other areas, including nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

Sections of the Fisheries Act that are pertinent to the Project include the following:

• Section 35—prohibits ‘serious harm’ to marine fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or fish that support such a fishery, without authorization. Serious harm is defined as the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat • Section 36—prohibits the deposition of a deleterious substance into waters used by fish.

The Marine Mammal Regulations, under the Fisheries Act, prohibit the disturbance of marine and killing for reasons other than fishing under a license (Department of Justice Canada 1993).

The previous long-term policy objective of DFO was the achievement of an overall “net gain” of the productive capacity of fish habitats (DFO 2001a, 2010a). That policy’s objective was guided by the “no net loss” principle where DFO strived to balance unavoidable habitat losses with habitat replacement on a project-by-project basis. The management of effects to fish resulting from habitat degradation or loss remains the primary focus of DFO’s new Fisheries Protection Program, as proponents are directed to avoid, mitigate and offset harmful impacts to fish and fish habitat (DFO 2013a).

In 2012, amendments to the Fisheries Act received Royal Assent. Policy and regulations have now been developed to support the new fisheries protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, which will focus on the sustainability and ongoing productivity of recreational, commercial and Aboriginal fisheries (DFO 2013a,b). In November 2013, amendments proposed to the Fisheries Act came in to force. New guidance and policy that accompanies these changes to the Fisheries Act now apply (DFO 2013a).

Species at Risk Act and Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

Marine species of conservation concern receive legal protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). SARA is a federal commitment to prevent “at risk” wildlife species from becoming extinct and to secure the necessary actions for their recovery. It provides for the legal protection of wildlife species and the conservation of biological diversity. Through the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), species are ranked according to their level of conservation concern (i.e., Extinct, Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, Special Concern, Not at Risk or Data Deficient). If a species is listed under Schedule 1 of SARA as Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened, it is an offence to kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual, and that species has legal protection related to the species’ residence and critical habitats.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 1.4 MARINE RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION December 2013

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012

On July 7, 2012 the 1992 version of CEA Act was replaced in its entirety by CEA Act, 2012. Environmental assessments are required for “designated projects”. These are defined as one or more physical activities that: (a) are carried out in Canada or on federal lands; (b) are designated by regulations or designated in an order made by the Minister; and (c) are linked to a federal approval responsibility.

CEA Act, 2012 focuses the environmental assessment on potential effects to issues under federal jurisdiction, including: fish and fish habitat; aquatic species at risk; migratory birds; federal lands; effects that cross provincial or international boundaries; and, induced effects on Aboriginal peoples. The environmental assessment of a designated project must consider a range of factors such as:

• Environmental effects of the designated project, including effects of malfunctions or accidents, and any resulting cumulative environmental effects. • The significance of the environmental effects. • Comments from the public and any interested party. • Mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the designated project. • The requirements of the follow-up program in respect of the designated project. • The purpose of the designated project. • Alternative means of carrying out the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means. • Any change to the designated project that may be caused by the environment.

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) is typically documented as a means to “preserve” historical and familial connections, territorial occupation, land and resource use, and temporal execution strategies. ATK is considered within this report as per guidance from the NEB Filing Manual (2013) and Section 19(3) of the CEA Act, 2012.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 1.5 MARINE RESOURCES

CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT December 2013

2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

Trans Mountain and its consultants have conducted a number of consultative and engagement activities to inform Aboriginal communities, stakeholders, the public and regulatory authorities about the approach to assessing potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project, and to seek input throughout the Project planning process.

2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations

Trans Mountain has implemented and continues to conduct open, extensive and thorough public consultation, Aboriginal engagement and landowner relations programs. These programs were designed to reflect the unique nature of the Project as well as the diverse and varied communities along the proposed pipeline and marine corridors. These programs were based on Aboriginal communities, landowner and stakeholder groups’ interests and inputs, knowledge levels, time and preferred methods of engagement. In order to build relationships for the long-term, these programs were based on the principles of accountability, communication, local focus, mutual benefit, relationship building, respect, responsiveness, shared process, sustainability, timeliness, and transparency.

Feedback related to the Project that was raised through various Aboriginal engagement and public consultation activities including public open houses, ESA Workshops, Community Workshops and one-on-one meetings, is summarized below and was considered in the development of this technical report, and the assessment of marine resources (i.e., marine fish and marine mammals) in Volume 5A:

• Effects of expanding the Westridge Marine Terminal footprint. • Pollution at the Westridge Marine Terminal. • Dredging in proximity to the Westridge Marine Terminal. • Introduction of invasive species.

In addition, concerns related to the potential effects of spills on marine resources were also raised and detailed information on pipeline and facility spills, including a loading spill at the Westridge Marine Terminal, is provided in Volume 7.

The full description of the public consultation, Aboriginal engagement and landowner relations programs are located in Volumes 3A, 3B, and 3C respectively. Section 3.0 of Volume 5A summarizes the consultation and engagement activities that have focused on identifying and assessing potential issues and concerns related to marine resources that may be affected by the construction and operation of the Project. Information collected through the public consultation, Aboriginal engagement and landowner relations programs for the Project was considered in the development of this technical report, and the assessment of marine resources in Volume 5A.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 2.1 MARINE RESOURCES

CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT December 2013

2.2 Regulatory Consultation

On September 14, 2012, representatives of Trans Mountain, TERA, Stantec and GeoMarine Environmental Consultants met with DFO representatives in Vancouver, BC. The principal objective of the meeting was to discuss field survey methods and obtain feedback from DFO. Stantec presented three proposed field surveys scheduled to take place in the vicinity of the Westridge Marine Terminal: an intertidal/foreshore survey; a subtidal remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey; and a marine riparian vegetation survey. DFO did not raise any concerns with the proposed methodologies. At the end of the meeting, DFO recommended that a follow-up meeting be scheduled in 2013, following the introduction of changes to the Fisheries Act and the release of new policy for fisheries protection.

On April 16, 2013, representatives of TERA and Stantec met with Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)/Environment Canada (EC) representatives in Delta, BC. At this meeting, Stantec described the types of effects that would be considered in the assessment of potential Project-related effects on marine resources, as well as the indicators that would be used in this assessment. CWS/EC did not raise any concerns with the proposed marine resources indicators or the scope of effects.

In the summer of 2013, staff changes and internal restructuring at DFO led to a change in the DFO staff assigned to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. On September 25, 2013, Trans Mountain, Stantec and GeoMarine organized a meeting with the new DFO contact in Kamloops, BC. The objectives of the meeting were to: 1) present an overview of the Project; 2) present the marine resources indicators selected for the environmental assessment and discuss the key issues/effects that would be considered; and 3) discuss the approach to habitat compensation/offsetting for the Project. DFO did not raise any concerns with the marine resources indicators and indicated that the effects being considered were appropriate for the scope of the Project.

Table 2.1: Summary of Consultation Activities Related to Marine Resources

Stakeholder Name and Method Date of Commitments/ Group/ Title of of Consultation Reason For Issues/ Follow-up Actions/ Agency Name Contact Contact Activity Engagement Concerns Comments FEDERAL CONSULTATION DFO Brenda Meeting September 14, Project No concerns Agreed to schedule Andres, EA 2012 Introduction. with proposed another meeting in Analyst, EA Intertidal, subtidal, survey 2013 and Major methodology or Projects Unit and riparian habitat survey approach to methodology. assessment were raised. Overview of assessment methodology for marine resources. LSA/RSA boundaries.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 2.2 MARINE RESOURCES

CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT December 2013

Stakeholder Name and Method Date of Commitments/ Group/ Title of of Consultation Reason For Issues/ Follow-up Actions/ Agency Name Contact Contact Activity Engagement Concerns Comments CWS/EC Harp Gill, Meeting April 16, 2013 Scope of effects No concerns Provided CWS/EC Senior and indicator with indicator with list of marine Environmental selection for selection or resources indicators Assessment marine resources. effects being for further Officer considered were consideration. raised. DFO David Pehl Meeting September 25, Project No concerns Agreed to develop 2013 introduction. with indicator habitat compensation/ Marine resources selection or offsetting plans during indicators. effects being the permitting phase considered were of the Project. Key issues/effects raised. for marine resources. Approach to habitat compensation/ offsetting. ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION Members of the Various local Open August 2012 to Project Effects of Consideration of public, contacts Houses and October 2013 introduction. expanding the issues/concerns raised Aboriginal ESA Marine resources Westridge by Aboriginal communities, Workshops indicators and key Marine communities and local recreation issues/effects for Terminal members of the public and nature Westridge Marine footprint. in the ESA. groups, Terminal Pollution at the environmental expansion and Westridge NGOs, Marine Marine environmental Transportation. Terminal. consultants LSA/RSA Dredging in boundaries for proximity to the marine effects Westridge assessment. Marine Terminal. Introduction of invasive species. Oil spill effects on marine resources.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 2.3 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects

Activities associated with the expansion and operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal have the potential to directly and indirectly affect marine resources through:

Construction of the marine loading berths and expansion of onshore facilities at the Westridge Marine Terminal will result in the loss or alteration of marine riparian habitat, intertidal habitat, and subtidal habitat. The demolition of the existing berth will result in a loss of anthropogenic intertidal and subtidal habitat (e.g., pilings). Construction and demolition may result in a decrease in the productive capacity of marine fish habitat, affecting those species that spend all or part of their lives within the Footprint. The degree to which a given species will be affected depends on the type and amount of habitat lost or altered, the local and regional availability of that habitat type, and the importance of the habitat for rearing, spawning or migration.

Construction of the marine loading berths will result in the direct mortality of some intertidal and subtidal organisms, primarily through burial and crushing. Sessile organisms (e.g., barnacles, mussels, limpets) will be most susceptible to harm, whereas mobile species (e.g., crabs, salmon, and marine mammals) will generally be able to avoid harm by dispersing from the work area.

Construction of the marine loading berths will involve the installation of large diameter steel piles (i.e., pile driving). Pile driving can result in the generation of high energy pressure waves that radiate outwards from the sound source. This can cause harm to fish when the pressure waves pass through a fish’s swim bladder, resulting in physical injury or mortality. Likewise, these activities may result in physical injury or temporary or permanent auditory damage to marine mammals in the vicinity.

The production of loud underwater noise associated with construction activities could also cause sensory disturbance to marine mammals, and may result in habitat avoidance, changes in activity state (e.g., feeding, resting, or travelling) and/or interference with communication (i.e., masking). The extent of this sensory disturbance depends on a number of factors, including: the source level of the underwater sound, the frequency and duration of the underwater sound, the context, and the species in question.

The potential direct and indirect effects on traditional marine resource use from the expansion and operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal are considered in the Traditional Land and Resource Use Technical Report of Volume 5D.

All figures supporting this technical report can be found in Appendix A.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.1 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints

The assessment of potential residual and cumulative effects of the proposed expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal on marine resources will focus on indicator species and habitats. An indicator is defined as a biophysical, social, or economic property or variable that society considers to be important and is assessed to predict Project-related changes and focus the effects assessment on key issues. Societal views are understood by the assessment team through published information such as management plans and engagement with Aboriginal communities, stakeholders, the public and regulatory authorities and other interested groups. Criteria used for the selection of indicators include:

• A species or habitat that is sensitive to effects associated with the proposed expansion of the Terminal or has been documented as susceptible to anthropogenic disturbances. • A species that has life requisites shared by a broad group of species that could be affected by the proposed expansion of the Terminal. • A species confirmed to utilize the Footprint or Burrard Inlet regularly or seasonally for rearing, spawning/breeding, or migrating. • A species of conservation concern, considered to be restricted in range, or associated with critical habitat or a sensitive ecological community. • A species or habitat that supports a commercial, recreational or tourism use. • A species or habitat that supports an Aboriginal food, social and ceremonial (FSC) fishery. • Measurement endpoints and the mechanism by which the species is affected by potential Project-related effects are comparable across the group of species they have been selected to represent. • A species with established baseline information on biology, population abundance, and distribution. • A species whose disappearance could alter or disrupt the function of the ecosystem. • A species or habitat that is of particular value or interest to Aboriginal communities, stakeholders, the public and regulatory authorities. • A species or habitat that has been used as an indicator in regional effects-based assessments and, therefore, has been the focus of academic and/or regulatory studies.

Based on these criteria, the following indicator species and habitats were selected for assessing potential effects of the expansion and operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal on marine resources: Dungeness crab (Cancer magister); Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.); inshore rockfish (Sebastes sp.); Pacific harbour seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi); marine riparian habitat; intertidal habitat; and subtidal habitat. These seven indicators represent marine invertebrates, marine fish, marine mammals, and marine habitats, respectively. Rationale for the selection of these indicators is provided in Table 3.1.

Feedback on the marine fish and fish habitat indicators were solicited from DFO at meetings held on September 14, 2012 and September 25, 2013, as well as from Environment Canada at a meeting held on April 16, 2013. Representatives from DFO and Environment Canada did not raise any concerns with the indicators selected for the assessment.

Feedback on marine mammal indicator selection was solicited from Environment Canada at a meeting held on April 16, 2013. Environment Canada did not raise any concerns with the selection of the harbour seal, but did suggest that the river otter be considered for possible inclusion. Although river otters in Burrard Inlet forage in intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats, they dwell in burrows on land and are

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.2 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013 generally classified as a terrestrial mammal. For this reason, the harbour seal was considered a more appropriate indicator for assessing potential Project effects on marine mammals. Mitigations developed to reduce effects of marine construction activities on marine mammals are assumed to also reduce potential effects to river otters.

No issues were raised concerning selection of the marine resources indicators at any of the Open Houses or ESA Workshops.

Table 3.1: Marine Resources Indicators and Measurement Endpoints

Indicator Rationale for Selection Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Marine Riparian Habitat • Marine Resources LSA overlaps with areas of marine riparian habitat • Habitat for commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fish stocks Intertidal habitat • Marine Resources LSA overlaps with areas of intertidal habitat • Habitat for commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fish stocks including Pacific herring, Pacific salmon, and Dungeness crab Subtidal habitat • Marine Resources LSA overlaps with areas of subtidal habitat • Habitat for commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fish stocks, including Pacific herring, Pacific salmon and Dungeness crab Dungeness crab • Representative benthic invertebrate • Important Area for Dungeness crab, as identified by DFO, overlaps with the Marine Resources LSA • Supports commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries Pacific salmon • Representative of all five species of Pacific salmon (i.e., chum ([Oncorhynchus keta], Chinook [O. tshawytscha], pink [O. gorbuscha], coho [O. kisutch], and sockeye [O. nerka]), and other species of large pelagic fish • Important Area for Pacific salmon, as identified by DFO, overlaps with the Marine Resources LSA • Migrates along shoreline habitats • Supports commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries • Important prey for marine fish, marine birds, and marine mammals Inshore Rockfish • Representative demersal fish • Rockfish Conservation Area overlaps with the Marine Resources LSA • Supports commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries Marine Mammals Pacific harbour seal • Representative marine mammal • Most common and abundant marine mammal in Burrard Inlet • Uses both marine and terrestrial habitat year-round within Burrard Inlet • Forages, breeds, and raises young in Burrard Inlet • Well-studied species with an established baseline of population information • Valued for socio-economic and cultural importance

Measurement endpoints facilitate quantitative or qualitative measurement of potential Project and cumulative effects, and provide a means to determine the level or amount of change to an indicator. The measurement endpoints that will be used to assess potential effects of the Project on marine resources are described in Table 3.2.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.3 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

Table 3.2: Potential Environmental Effects and Measurement Endpoints

Potential Indicator(s) Measurement Endpoint(s) Environmental Effect 2 Loss or alteration of • Marine riparian habitat • Area of habitat altered or lost (m ) marine fish habitat • Intertidal habitat • Subtidal habitat Change in productive • Dungeness crab • Change in productive capacity of suitable habitat capacity of marine fish • Inshore rockfish (evaluated qualitatively) • habitat • Pacific salmon Relative importance and quality of habitat affected Injury or mortality to • Dungeness crab • Potential for injury due to in-water Project marine fish and marine • Inshore rockfish construction activities (evaluated qualitatively) • mammals • Pacific salmon Relative importance and quality of habitat affected • Harbour seal Sensory disturbance to • Harbour seal • Potential for sensory disturbance due to in-water marine mammals Project construction activities (evaluated qualitatively) • Relative importance and quality of habitat affected

The assessment of loss or alteration of habitat will focus on the spatial extent (m2) of affected marine fish habitats. As per the Fisheries Act, Section 35(2), any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat will require compensation/offsetting to ensure that there is no net loss of productive capacity. The spatial extent of lost or disturbed fish habitats will be used in the development of a Project-specific habitat compensation/offsetting plan. The expected change in productive capacity of marine fish habitat will be evaluated qualitatively for each indictor with consideration of the relative importance and quality of the habitat affected.

The assessment of injury or mortality to marine fish related to smothering will focus primarily on sessile and slow-moving marine organisms within the Footprint (e.g., intertidal and subtidal invertebrates [i.e., Dungeness crab indicator]). These organisms may be crushed or buried during shoreline infilling, dredging and/or pile installation. Faster moving organisms (e.g., fish and marine mammals) are expected to avoid harm by dispersing from the work area.

The potential for injury or mortality related to intense underwater sound from pile driving will focus primarily on the potential for harm to fish (i.e., inshore rockfish and Pacific salmon indicators) and marine mammals (i.e., harbour seal indicator). The assessment of potential harm will be based in part on predicted underwater sound levels associated with the construction activity. Source levels for underwater noise (at 1 m from source) are generally characterized based on frequency (in hertz [Hz]), duration (i.e., continuous or impulse) and sound pressure level (in decibels [dB]) and are often expressed at a reference pressure of 1 µPa (micropascal) (i.e., source levels will be referenced as X dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m). To determine potential effects of underwater sound on marine organisms, received sound levels (expressed as X dB re 1 µPa) will be estimated at various distances from the source and contrasted with commonly used threshold sound levels that are predicted to result in temporary or permanent auditory damage.

The assessment of sensory disturbance to marine mammals will focus on Project activities that produce underwater sounds that could induce habitat avoidance, behavioural change, or communication masking in marine mammals. Similar to the assessment of injury or mortality, construction-related underwater

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.4 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

sound levels will be compared to commonly used thresholds for predicted behavioural change. The area (in m2) of marine mammal habitat affected (i.e., ensonified) and the qualitative importance of this habitat will also be considered.

3.3 Study Area Boundaries

Spatial boundaries used for the assessment of potential effects of the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal on marine resources are defined as follows:

• Project Footprint: the area directly affected by construction of the Westridge Marine Terminal. • Marine Resources LSA: the zone of influence (ZOI) likely to be affected by construction and operations of the Westridge Marine Terminal, defined as the area within 500 m of the proposed water lease expansion. • Marine RSA: the area where the direct and indirect influence of other activities could overlap with Project-specific effects and cause cumulative effects on marine resources. This includes the area of Burrard Inlet east of the First Narrows, including Indian Arm and Port Moody Arm.

Rationale for selection of the Marine Resources LSA boundaries is based in part on the need to monitor a 500 m radius surrounding any underwater blasting, as per DFO guidelines (Wright and Hopky 1998). Although there will be no blasting for the Terminal expansion, pile driving will produce loud underwater sound that could result in the injury or mortality of marine fish and marine mammals. The 500 m radius is considered conservative for the sound levels produced by pile driving.

Selection of the Marine RSA boundaries considered the confined nature of this system of inlets and the fact that effects associated with development of the Westridge Marine Terminal are not expected to extend westward beyond First Narrows. A broader RSA was selected in consideration of effects associated with marine transportation (i.e., increased Project-related vessel traffic), which are discussed in a separate report (see Marine Resources – Marine Transportation Technical Report of Volume 8B).

Study areas for marine resources are shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

3.4 Existing Conditions

Existing conditions for the assessment of potential Project-related effects on marine resource indicators are defined as the current state of the environment prior to the commencement of the Project construction. Existing conditions were determined through literature review, Aboriginal engagement, and field surveys and are presented in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 below.

3.5 Literature/Desktop Review

Existing information on marine resources in Burrard Inlet was obtained from numerous literature sources, including books, academic journals, consultant reports, government technical reports, and government-administered data repositories as well as expert opinion. The literature/desktop review also includes a review of any publicly available ATK, traditional marine resource use or harvest data reports. A complete list of references is provided in Section 8.0.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.5 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

3.6 Field Data Collection Methods

Three field surveys were conducted in the vicinity of the Westridge Marine Terminal: an intertidal survey; a subtidal remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey; and a marine riparian vegetation survey. The primary objective of these surveys was to characterize existing habitat conditions and identify the dominant species of marine biota that could be affected by expansion of the Terminal. This information will be used to assess potential effects of the Project on marine resources, to support an application for a Section 35(2) Fisheries Act authorization for serious harm to fish, and to prepare a marine fish habitat compensation/offsetting plan for the Project. This subsection describes the methods employed for the three marine field surveys completed. Detailed results are presented in Section 5.0.

The field data collection approach was discussed with DFO and no concerns were raised (see Section 2.0). Stantec has implemented proper record keeping practices for information obtained in the field to ensure that survey results are accessible for future reference.

3.6.1 Marine Riparian Habitat Survey

The marine riparian habitat survey was conducted on September 26, 2012. For the purposes of the survey, the marine riparian zone was defined as the area extending 30 m landward from the highest high water mark (HHWM) or to the first anthropogenic structure, whichever distance is shorter. A visual survey of the riparian habitat was conducted by walking alongshore at the HHWM and recording detailed observations and photographs of the general physical and biological characteristics of the riparian habitat in 100 m segments. A coordinate was marked using hand-held GPS units (Garmin 76CSx and Garmin GPSMAP 78) at the start and end of each 100 m segment.

Species of vascular plants in each riparian zone were identified using Pojar and MacKinnon (1994). Algae, lichen, and moss species were not recorded during the survey. Each species of vascular plant was assigned one of three qualitative rankings of relative abundance:

• Present: 1-3 individuals or ≤ 10% of vegetative cover. • Common: 4-10 individuals or 11-25% of vegetative cover. • Abundant: > 10 individuals or > 25% of vegetative cover.

Additional observations of the marine riparian zone were collected during the intertidal survey on August 18-19, 2012 (see Section 3.6.2). The combined results of these surveys are presented in Section 5.2.

The area of marine riparian habitat present within the Westridge Marine Terminal property was quantified (in m2) using GIS software (ArcMap 10). This was completed by digitizing the extent of riparian vegetation on a satellite image of the Terminal area. This approach was considered to be more accurate than mapping the riparian habitat with a hand-held GPS unit because of the narrow width of the riparian zone and the error typically associated with GPS track lines.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.6 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

3.6.2 Intertidal Survey

The intertidal survey was conducted in the intertidal zone of the Marine Resources LSA on August 18-19, 2012. The survey was completed during the best available low tide sequence in August 2012 to maximize the surface area of the intertidal zone exposed for sampling. The intertidal survey consisted of a visual survey of the backshore zone and five vertical transects in the intertidal zone (Figure 3.3). Ecosystem descriptors used to characterize the intertidal zone are defined in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Ecosystem Descriptors

Descriptor Definition Backshore zone Zone that extends landward from the higher high water line for large (spring) tides, to the top of a coastal cliff or limit of marine processes. Intertidal zone Zone between the higher high water line and the lower low water line for spring tides. Subtidal zone Zone that extends below the lower low water line. Exposed High exposure to wave energy. Moderate exposure Moderate exposure to wave energy. Sheltered Low exposure to wave energy. Slope Inclination of the intertidal zone measured from the waterline in percent. Substrate type The type of material or substance that comprise the surface on or in which marine algae and/or invertebrates live or grow. Shoreline type Shoreline types are defined by an association of one or more continuous across-shore geomorphic features, processes, and substrate types. Sources: Williams (1993), Howes et al. (1994)

Updated and more detailed information on shoreline type and character within the Marine Resources LSA and all of the Central Harbour of Burrard Inlet will be available in the first quarter of 2014. This is currently being completed under a separate Trans Mountain initiative which is developing a pre-spill SCAT database for the purpose of enhancing emergency preparedness and response capability within this area of Burrard Inlet.

Transect survey methods were based on the marine habitat information requirements and recommended survey procedures established by the DFO (DFO 2004, 2007, 2011a) and the procedures outlined in Williams (1993). In addition to the procedures recommended by DFO, the survey design included quadrat sampling to obtain a more precise estimate of relative species abundance and ensure the greatest possible representation of the study area. A total of five transects were surveyed in the intertidal zone of the Marine Resources LSA. Transects were distributed to ensure adequate coverage of all habitat types in the Marine Resources LSA.

The transects consisted of a tape measure extending from the highest high water mark (HHWM) to the mean lower low water mark (MLLW), perpendicular to the waterline. In instances where tide levels were above the MLLW, transects extended from the HHWM to the waterline. Surveys were conducted within two hours of low tide. A coordinate for the backshore and shoreward end of each transect was marked using hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Garmin 76CSx and Garmin GPSMAP 78).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.7 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

Detailed notes and photographs of the general physical and biological conditions of each area sampled were taken.

At each vertical transect, the intertidal zone was sub-divided into low, mid, and high zones based on differences in the dominant species assemblages (Table 3.4). The length and slope of each zone was measured using a tape measure and clinometer, respectively. Substrates were classified by substrate type (Table 3.5) for each transect following the standard methods in Williams (1993) and DFO (2007).

Table 3.4 Biotic Characteristics of the High, Mid, and Low Intertidal Zones

Zone Characteristics High intertidal zone Dense band of rockweed (Fucus gardneri) and common acorn barnacles (Balanus glandula) dominates this zone. Mid intertidal zone Start of this zone is marked by the lower edge of the rockweed band and the start of the green algae band. Low intertidal zone Start of this zone is marked by the presence of red algae species and the lower edge of the band of common invertebrate species including periwinkles (Littorina spp.), common acorn barnacles, and blue mussels (Mytilus spp. complex).

Table 3.5 Classification of Substrate Types

Substrate Type Definition Bedrock Continuous solid rock exposed by the scouring forces of water. Boulder Rocks greater than 256 mm in diameter. Cobble Moderate to small-sized rocks 64-256 mm in diameter. Gravel Small stones between 2-64 mm in diameter. Sand Fine deposits frequently found on margins of streams or between rocks and stones, ranging from 0.06-2 mm in diameter. Mud/Clay A material of organic origin with a greasy feel between the fingers and no apparent structure, less than 0.06 mm in diameter. Organics/Detritus A soft material composed of silt and clay and containing 85% or more organic materials such as sticks, leaves, remnants of decayed aquatic plants, etc. Shell Debris Calcareous remains of shellfish or invertebrates containing shells.

At each vertical transect, three alongshore transects were run parallel to the waterline. The alongshore transects were placed so that they intersected the vertical transect at the approximate middle of each intertidal zone (i.e., low, mid, high). The alongshore transects were 25 m long, and intersected the vertical transects at their mid-point (12.5 m). Five 0.25 m x 0.25 m quadrats were randomly placed along each of the alongshore transects, for a total of 15 quadrats. The marine plant and invertebrate species in each quadrat were identified and quantified using percent cover or individual counts. Field guides were used to identify species, including Druehl (2000), Lamb and Handby (2005), and Harbo (2011). Organisms that could not be identified to the species level were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.8 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

For each quadrat, the following information was recorded:

• A photograph of each quadrat in position. • The location of the quadrat on the alongshore transect. • Substrate types recorded as percent cover per quadrat following general substrate classification methods (Table 3.5 above). Substrate types were cumulative and recorded as percentages out of a total of 100%. • Marine plants (Table 3.6) recorded as estimates of percent cover per quadrat. • Sessile invertebrates (e.g., barnacles, mussels, sponges, etc.) recorded as estimates of percent cover per quadrat. • Motile invertebrates (e.g., shore crabs, snails, worms, etc.) recorded as number of individuals per quadrat. In cases where numbers were too large to count, abundance was estimated as an approximate range (e.g., 10-100) per quadrat.

Table 3.6 Types of Marine Plants

Plant Type Definition Brown Algae Common name for species from the Phylum Ochrophyta. Typically brown, with a large broad-bladed thallus attached to the substrate by a tough stalk and holdfast. Brown algae may be light olive-green, brown, yellow, golden, or almost black in colour. Green Algae Common name for species from the Phylum Chlorophyta. Green algae are green in colour due to the dominant chlorophyll pigment. Red Algae Common name for species from the Phylum Rhodophyta. The majority of seaweed species are found in this Phylum. Red algae may be green, yellow, brown, red, pink, or purple in colour. Seagrass Flowering plants that evolved on land but have adapted to the marine environment. Found in the low intertidal and subtidal zone to depths > 5 m. Common on mud flats that are exposed at low tide, in estuaries, and shallow, protected bays. Species found in BC include the native eelgrass, Zostera marina, and an exotic species, Zostera japonica.

Detailed results of the intertidal habitat survey are presented in Section 5.3.

3.6.3 Subtidal Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) Survey

The subtidal ROV survey was carried out by International Underwater Surveyors Inc. on September 17-20, 2012 using a Deep Ocean Phantom DHD2 ROV. The typical flight speed was 0.3 m/s and the ROV was generally less than 1 m above the seabed. The camera provided a composite video signal to an overlay unit that stamped the GPS position data (latitude/longitude), together with date and time, on each video frame. The video signal was also displayed in real-time on the vessel, where it was used to adapt the survey to particular features that were seen while underway and to avoid underwater obstacles.

A high intensity white LED light as well as a tungsten-halogen light were mounted on the ROV frame to provide illumination when it was required. The camera was fitted with parallel scaling lasers mounted 15 cm apart to allow for accurate size estimation of organisms and objects.

A total of 11 transects in a grid formation covering the existing and proposed new water lease areas were flown. This included four transects perpendicular to shore and seven transects parallel to shore (Figure 3.4). Transect line spacing ranged from 125-150 m for perpendicular transects and 25-50 m for parallel transects.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.9 MARINE RESOURCES

METHODS December 2013

All transects perpendicular to the shore covered the seafloor from the outer edge of the proposed water lease expansion to the site property as shallow as possible. This was typically 1 m water depth or the limit of safe navigation. Transects parallel to shore extended across the width of the water lease area. Surveys were carried out in waters ranging from 0-27 m depth.

Due to the site location and the nature of the soft bottom substrate, water turbidity was high and visibility was generally poor throughout the survey (0.5-1.5 m). High intensity LED lights on the ROV were used to provide light; however, back-scattering of light from suspended particles created additional visibility issues. In addition, strong currents occasionally made navigation of plotted transects difficult.

Raw video of transects was reviewed and a data record of substrate type, marine vegetation and marine fauna was produced for each second of video imagery. Field guides were used to identify species, including Druehl (2000), Lamb and Handby (2005), and Harbo (2011). Organisms that could not be identified to the species level were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. GIS software was used to map the observed distributions of dominant species and/or taxa.

Detailed results of the subtidal habitat survey are presented in Section 5.4.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 3.10 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

4.0 RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW

4.1 Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

Traditional marine resource harvesting within the Marine RSA remains an important activity for coastal Aboriginal communities, sometimes defined in terms of spiritual, emotional, mental and physical components (Gardner 2009). Coastal communities traditionally and actively managed the marine environment to maintain ecological integrity and to protect and preserve biodiversity; an example reported by Gardner (2009) described how “shellfish resources were managed by transplanting shellfish from one area to another, digging over beaches and modifying intertidal zones to increase clam and oyster growing grounds to increase production.” Marine resources are used culturally to highlight special events such as feasts while an extensive recorded vocabulary for sustainable management of marine resources demonstrates an historical understanding of the economic implications of marine subsistence, the food chain, the location and movement of food sources and currents (Gardner 2009).

Marine resources traditionally harvested within the Marine RSA include barnacles, butter clams, cockle clams, manila clams, horse clams, littleneck clams, Dungeness and red rock crab, giant red chiton, green and red sea urchin, mussels, native and pacific oysters, northern abalone, octopus, prawns, sea cucumber and herring roe. Sandy, exposed shorelines were important habitats for harvesting clams, oysters and mussels, and eelgrass beds were locations for harvesting crabs (Jacques Whitford 2006).

4.2 General Information

4.2.1 Physical Setting

Burrard Inlet is a glacial fjord located on the south coast of BC. It is bordered by the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby to the south and the North Shore Mountains (Coast Range) to the north. Burrard Inlet can be divided into three sub-areas: English Bay (comprising False Creek and the area between Point Grey, Point Atkinson, and the First Narrows); The Harbour (comprising the area between the First Narrows and Port Moody); and Indian Arm (from Belcarra and North Vancouver to the Indian River estuary). The Harbour area can be further divided into three sub-areas: the Inner Harbour (between the First and Second Narrows); the Central Harbour (extending from the Second Narrows to Barnet Marine Park); and Port Moody Arm (between Barnet Marine Park and Port Moody).

Burrard Inlet is approximately 50 km in length and ranges from 0.5-3 km in width. It includes over 11,000 ha of water and seabed, 190 km of shoreline, and a drainage basin of 98,000 ha (Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program [BIEAP] 2011, Stantec 2009). The maximum water depth in Burrard Inlet is approximately 220 m, which is found in the deep basin of Indian Arm. English Bay and The Harbour are much shallower, with typical water depths of 25-35 m and a maximum depth of about 65 m. The mean tidal range within Burrard Inlet is 3.3 m. Currents vary according to location, with the highest velocities occurring at locations where the inlet narrows, constricting water movement. Maximum currents at the First Narrows are on the order of 5.5 knots.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.1 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

The main freshwater inputs into Burrard Inlet are from the Seymour River in the Inner Harbour (monthly mean discharges of 3.8-24.9 m3/s) and the Capilano River, located just west of the First Narrows (5.7-42.8 m3/s) (Nijman 1990). Other important sources of freshwater inflow include Lynn Creek, Mosquito Creek, and MacKay Creek in the Inner Harbour and Noons Creek in Port Moody Arm. Surface water salinity in Burrard Inlet is strongly influenced by local and regional freshwater inputs, ranging from 20-25 parts per thousand (ppt) during the winter to less than 10 ppt during the summer; in deeper waters, salinity is typically 29-30 ppt (Nijman 1990). Surface water temperatures vary seasonally, from as low as 5ºC in the winter to over 20 ºC in the summer.

4.2.2 Biological Setting

Burrard Inlet is a productive marine environment, supporting a diverse assemblage of algae, invertebrates, fish and marine mammals. Over 100 taxa of invertebrates and over 75 species of fish have been documented to inhabit intertidal and subtidal habitats in Burrard Inlet (Renyard 1988, Hanrahan 1994, Richoux et al. 2006). Species diversity is strongly influenced by habitat type, with the highest diversity typically associated with rocky intertidal and shallow subtidal areas.

The dominant species of algae in intertidal habitats throughout Burrard Inlet is rockweed. With its gas filled bladders, rockweed provides a three dimensional matrix for juvenile fish and invertebrates to forage and avoid predation. Other common species of algae include sea lettuce (Ulva spp.), Turkish washcloth (Mastocarpus papillatus), sugar kelp (Laminaria saccharina) and five-ribbed kelp (Costaria costata) (Druehl and Hsiao 1977, Stantec 2012a). All of these species have been previously identified within the Marine Resources LSA. Eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) have been mapped in the vicinity of Maplewood Flats, located approximately 4 km northwest of the Terminal just east of the Second Narrows, and may occur at other locations in Burrard Inlet as well. Eelgrass beds are essential habitats for a number of economically, culturally and ecologically important species including juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), rockfish (Sebastes spp.), and Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) (Nelson and Waaland 1997, Wilson and Atkinson 1995). No eelgrass beds have been identified within the Marine Resources LSA.

Invertebrate surveys conducted throughout Burrard Inlet have identified over 100 taxa inhabiting a wide range of habitat types (Burd and Brinkhurst 1990, Richoux et al. 2006). Common intertidal species include blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), acorn barnacle, purple ochre stars (Pisaster ochraceus), snails (Littorina spp.), shore crabs (Hemigrapsus spp.) and limpets (Lottia spp.) (Foreshore 1996 in Haggarty 2001, Richoux et al. 2006, Stantec 2012a). Common subtidal species include Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), red rock crab (Cancer productus), anemones, tube worms, sea cucumbers, and shrimps (Foreshore 1996 in Haggarty 2001, Richoux et al. 2006, Stantec 2012a). In addition to these more conspicuous species, a large number of infaunal organisms (i.e., those living beneath the seafloor) have been identified in Burrard Inlet. These include species from the following groups: polychaeta; oligochaeta; bivalvia; aplacophora; scaphopoda; isopoda; cumacea; decapoda; mysidacea; amphipoda; sipunculida; nemertean; holothuroidea; and ophiuroidea (Burd and Brinkhurst 1990, Richoux et al. 2006).

All five species of Pacific salmon, including chum (Oncorhynchus keta), Chinook (O. tshawytscha), pink (O. gorbuscha), coho (O. kisutch), and sockeye (O. nerka) utilize nearshore habitats in Burrard Inlet from

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.2 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

spring through fall (Levy 1996, Macdonald and Chang 1993, Naito and Hwang 2000). Adult salmon have been observed to return to at least 17 streams in Burrard Inlet (BC Ministry of Environment [MOE] 2013, Haggarty 2001). Although there are no salmon bearing streams in the Marine Resources LSA, it is expected that adult salmon will transit through the Marine Resources LSA en route to spawning streams in Indian Arm and Port Moody Arm. Juvenile salmon outmigrating from these streams are also expected to use nearshore habitats within the Marine Resources LSA to some extent for rearing and migration.

In addition to salmon, at least 75 other species of fish are known to use Burrard Inlet (Renyard 1988, Hanrahan 1994). Common species found throughout the Inlet include shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregate), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), English sole (Pleuronectes vetulus), rock sole (Lepidospetta bilineata), Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus) and staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) (Renyard 1988). Commercially important species include Pacific herring, anchovy (Engaulis mordax), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), copper rockfish (Sebastes caurinus), quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) and kelp greenling (Hexagrammos decagrammus) (Renyard 1988). Some of these species may occur within the Marine Resources LSA, particularly those associated with soft sediment habitats (e.g., flatfish). Herring spawning has not been documented within the Marine Resources LSA.

Marine mammal diversity and abundance in Burrard Inlet is generally considered low. The most abundant and commonly observed species is the harbour seal, which is resident within the Inlet and throughout the coastal waters of BC. Over the years, there have been occasional but rare sightings of other marine mammal species such as Steller (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis 1) and California (Zalophus californianus) sea lions, northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), and harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (Marine Mammal Research Unit 2012). Killer whale (Orcinus orca), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) have also made the occasional appearance in Burrard Inlet or nearby waters (BC Cetacean Sightings Network 2013), though their use of this habitat is limited.

4.3 Indicator Species and Habitats

4.3.1 Marine Riparian Habitat

The shore zone can be divided into three vertical zones based on biophysical characteristics including the backshore zone (riparian), the intertidal zone, and the subtidal zone (Howes et al. 1997, Williams 1993). The intertidal and subtidal zones are discussed below in Section 4.3.2 and Section 4.3.3, respectively. The marine riparian zone is the area that extends landward from the higher high water line for spring tides, to the top of a coastal cliff or limit of marine processes (Williams 1993).

1 In 2009, Phillips et al. argued for sub-species designation between the western and eastern stocks of Steller sea lion. In 2012, the Society for Marine Mammalogy Ad-Hoc Committee on Taxonomy recognized two subspecies of Eumetopias jubatus: the western Steller sea lion (E. j. jubatus) and the Loughlin’s northern sea lion (E. j. monteriensis). However, since the vernacular “Loughlin’s northern sea lion” is relatively new, and at the time of writing of this document, COSEWIC, the SARA registry, and the BC Conservation Data Centre still use “Steller sea lion”, the more common “Steller sea lion” will be used in this document.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.3 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

While freshwater riparian areas have been studied extensively; the processes, structure, and functions of marine riparian areas and their role as fish and fish habitat are poorly understood (Brennan and Culverwell 2004, Lemieux et al. 2004, Levings and Jamieson 2001). However, marine riparian habitats appear to provide similar ecological functions to marine ecosystems as freshwater riparian habitats provide to freshwater ecosystems (Lemieux et al. 2004). Marine riparian areas contribute to the productive capacity of spawning, rearing, and migration habitat for marine fish as well as habitat for organisms that are eaten by fish (Lemieux et al. 2004, Levings and Jamieson 2001). They provide a number of other key ecological functions including water quality and pollution abatement, wave energy absorption, terrain formation and stabilization, microclimate regulation, nutrient input, and habitat structure (Brennan and Culverwell 2004, Lemieux et al. 2004).

Marine riparian habitats are influenced by physical factors such as substrate type as well as biological factors such as the plant communities that are present. Marine riparian vegetation in BC includes numerous species of marsh plants, grasses, sedges, shrubs, and trees found at or near HHWM (Levings and Jamieson 2001, Williams 1993). Vegetation and woody debris in marine riparian areas serve a number of ecological functions including foraging, refuge, and spawning substrate for fishes; and foraging, refuge, spawning, and attachment substrate for invertebrates and algae (Brennan and Culverwell 2004, Lemieux et al. 2004). Marine riparian habitat does not necessarily have to be vegetated to be considered important fish habitat (Levings and Jamieson 2001). For example, studies from Puget Sound show that unvegetated sand and gravel substrates near high tide are used as spawning and incubation habitat by marine fish (Levings and Jamieson 2001).

Removal of upland vegetation and shoreline modification have been identified as the main threats to marine riparian habitat in urban areas of the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound (Lemieux et al. 2004). Levings and Thom (1994) estimate that the total area of salt/brackish marshes and marine riparian vegetation in Burrard Inlet decreased by 93 % between 1930 and 1989 (Levings and Thom 1994).

Canadian fisheries resources, including the protection of fish and fish habitats associated with a recreational, commercial, or Aboriginal fishery are regulated by the Federal Fisheries Act. The Government of BC has established mandatory riparian buffers for streams under the Fish Protection Act, but there are no federal or provincial requirements for riparian buffers around marine waters (Levings and Jamieson 2001).

4.3.2 Intertidal Habitat

The intertidal zone is defined as the area between the HHWM line and MLLW line for spring tides (Williams 1993). Intertidal habitat is strongly influenced by a range of physical and biological factors including substrate type, slope, wave exposure, shore width, tidal range, salinity, light, temperature, and species assemblages (Burd et al. 2008, Howes et al. 1997, Levings et al. 1983; Williams 1993). Differences in the relative degree of influence among these factors can result in different species assemblages in similar intertidal habitats (Burd et al. 2008). Common intertidal species assemblages in BC include marsh plants, seagrass, algae, invertebrates, and fish (Williams 1993).

BC’s intertidal zone provides spawning, rearing, migration and foraging habitat for a diverse range of marine organisms including algae, invertebrates, and fish. Pacific salmon are known to use the intertidal

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.4 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

zone of estuaries as rearing and migration habitat (Healey 1980; Levings and Thom 1994; Levings and Jamieson 2001). Pacific salmon also feed on organisms that originate in seagrass and algae in the intertidal zone (Levings and Thom 1994, Levings and Jamieson 2001). Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) use intertidal seagrass and algae as spawning substrate for their eggs (Humphreys and Hourston 1978, Levings and Thom 1994). Surf smelt (Hypomesus pretious) and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) spawn on intertidal sand and gravel substrates (Penttila 1997, 2002, Robards et al. 1999). Certain species of gunnels and sculpins use the low to mid intertidal zone for nesting and incubation (Hart 1973, Levings and Jamieson 2001). Larvae of Dungeness crabs and Manila clams settle in intertidal areas with shell, gravel, and eelgrass substrates (Burd et al. 2008).

Since 2007, Stantec has conducted annual surveys of intertidal habitat and communities at six sites in Burrard Inlet, including the Westridge Marine Terminal, as part of a long-term monitoring program initiated after the accidental hydrocarbon release that occurred upland of the Westridge Marine Terminal in July 2007. Immediately following the release, which occurred when a third-party contractor accidentally ruptured the existing Trans Mountain pipeline on Barnet Highway, crude oil flowed through stormwater infrastructure to Burrard Inlet, primarily affecting shoreline around the Westridge Marine Terminal. Post-spill monitoring surveys identified a total of 7 species of algae and 11 species of marine invertebrates in the intertidal zone of Burrard Inlet between 2007 and 2012 (Stantec 2010a,b, 2011, 2012a,b). Rockweed, Turkish washcloth, and sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) were the most common algal species observed, while barnacles (Balanus glandula), blue mussels, periwinkles (Littorina sp.), and limpets (Lottia sp.) were the most common invertebrate species. Richoux et al. (2006) identified a total of 103 taxa of invertebrates during a survey of 29 intertidal sites in Burrard Inlet.

The Government of BC has developed a Biophysical Shore-Zone Mapping System for describing the biophysical character of the province’s shore zone (Howes et al. 1997, Searing and Frith 1997). Physical and biological information about the shore zone is collected during spring low tides using high-quality aerial video imagery. Professional geoscientists then divide the shore zone into discrete “shore units” defined as a section of coastline that is continuous and homogenous in the alongshore direction in terms of morphology and sediment type (Howes et al. 1997, Williams 1993).

The location of various shore types in Burrard Inlet are shown in Figure 4.1. The length and relative abundance of shore types in the Marine Resources LSA and Marine RSA are shown in Table 4.1. The total length of shoreline in the Marine Resources LSA is 2.34 km. ‘Man-made’ is the most common shore type in the Marine Resources LSA covering 1.04 km and 44.5% of the total shoreline (BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations [MFLNRO] 2005). ‘Sand flat’ and ‘mud flat’ shore types are the second and third most common in the LSA, covering 30.1% and 25.4% of the total shoreline, respectively (BC MFLNRO 2005).

The total length of shoreline in the Marine RSA is 157.52 km. ‘Man-made’ is also the most common shore type in the Marine RSA covering 53.45 km and 33.9% of the total shoreline (BC MFLNRO 2005). ‘Rock cliff’ and ‘sand and gravel flat’ shore types are the second and third most common in the Marine RSA, covering 21.5% and 11.0% of the total shoreline, respectively (BC MFLNRO 2005).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.5 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

Table 4.1: Length and Relative Abundance of Shore Types

Shore Type LSA - Length (km) LSA - % Total RSA - Length (km) RSA - % Total Length Length Channel 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Estuary, marsh or lagoon 0.00 0.0 4.52 2.9 Gravel beach 0.00 0.0 8.57 5.4 Gravel flat 0.00 0.0 0.44 0.3 Man-made 1.04 44.5 53.45 33.9 Mud flat 0.59 25.4 4.79 3.0 Rock cliff 0.00 0.0 33.79 21.5 Rock platform 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Rock with gravel beach 0.00 0.0 11.80 7.5 Rock, sand and gravel beach 0.00 0.0 3.39 2.1 Rock with sand beach 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Sand and gravel beach 0.00 0.0 15.22 9.7 Sand and gravel flat 0.00 0.0 17.30 11.0 Sand beach 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Sand flat 0.71 30.1 4.25 2.7 Total 2.34 100.0 157.52 100.0

Vancouver harbour is one of Canada’s largest urban centres and many areas of the harbour have been developed and industrialized. As a result, intertidal habitats in Burrard Inlet have been altered by a range of human activities, particularly dredge and fill activities for harbour construction and development (Levings and Thom 1994).

4.3.3 Subtidal Habitat

The subtidal zone is defined as the area below the MLLW line for spring tides (Williams 1993). Subtidal habitat is strongly influenced by physical factors of the seabed including topography (macro relief), roughness (micro relief), sediment type and distribution, grain size and shape, patchiness, rock composition, and sediment thickness (Fader et al. 1998, Levings et al. 1983, Todd and Kostylev 2010). Oceanographic factors such as oxygen saturation, temperature variability, water stratification, and chlorophyll-a concentration also influence subtidal habitat (Todd and Kostylev 2010).

Shallow subtidal habitats (< 20 m) cover an estimated 1,245 km2 or 18% of the surface area of the Strait of Georgia (Levings et al. 1983). Sand and mud are the dominant substrate types and represent an estimated 66.8% of the total subtidal habitat in the region (Levings et al. 1983). Subtidal habitats of Burrard Inlet are dominated by shallow (< 30 m) mud substrates in inner portions of the Inlet, mid-depth (30-100 m) mud substrates in outer areas of the Inlet, and mid-depth silt/sand substrates in the vicinity of the First Narrows bridge and near the south side of the mouth of the Inlet (Burd et al. 2008, Burd 1990). Shallow and mid-depth mud substrates tend to be protected from wave exposure and are typically associated with low tidal currents (Burd et al. 2008). Information about marine sediment and water quality in Burrard

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.6 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

Inlet is provided in the Marine Sediment and Water Quality – Westridge Marine Terminal Technical Report of Volume 5C.

The BC Marine Conservation Analysis (BC MCA 2009) classified the sea floor based on landscape features and substrate to identify areas of similar benthic characteristics which may be related to habitat types and different species assemblages. The distribution of benthic classes in Burrard Inlet is shown in Figure 4.2. The dominant benthic classes include muddy flat, muddy depression, muddy slope, and muddy ridges (BC MCA 2009).

Benthic substrates provide habitat for a diverse range of infauna, epifauna, and bottom-dwelling fish. Subtidal species assemblages in BC may include seagrass, algae, invertebrates, and fish (Williams 1993). Benthic communities in shallow to mid-depth soft substrates in the Strait of Georgia are typically comprised of bivalves, polychaetes, amphipods, shrimp, gastropods, mud stars, brittle stars, heart urchins, spoon worms, and various fish species (Burd et al. 2008). Extensive bacterial and/or algal mats are common in these habitats due to the considerable particulate organic matter contained in soft substrates (Burd et al. 2008). Studies on macrobenthic infauna in Burrard Inlet indicate that the most abundant species include bivalves, gastropods, and polychaetes (Burd 1990). The abundance and species richness of macrobenthic infauna in Port Moody Arm appear to be more temporally variable and much lower relative to the rest of Burrard Inlet (Burd et al. 2008, Burd 1990). According to Levings and Thom (1994), studies of kelp beds in the southern Strait of Georgia have identified only two kelp beds in Burrard Inlet at Coal Harbour and Brockton Point, both outside of the Marine Resources LSA. A variety of fish and invertebrates harvested in commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries in BC are also present in subtidal habitats of Burrard Inlet including Pacific salmon, lingcod, rockfish, bivalves, crabs, shrimp and prawns.

The status and trends of non-commercial benthic organisms and habitat in the Strait of Georgia are generally unknown (DFO 2010c). Subtidal habitats in the Strait of Georgia have been affected by log storage, dredging, and contaminants (Levings and Thom 1994). While there is no pre-development existing information about subtidal habitats and communities in Burrard Inlet, benthic infauna communities appear to be relatively healthy (Burd 1990).

4.3.4 Dungeness Crab

Dungeness crabs range from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska to Magdalena Bay, Mexico, from the intertidal to depths of 230 m (DFO 2012a, Fong and Gillespie 2008). They are usually found on sandy bottoms less than 50 m deep with moderate to strong current (DFO 2000).

Dungeness crabs grow spasmodically rather than continuously by moulting, a process by which they produce a new shell and shed their old shell (DFO 2000, Fong and Gillespie 2008). The new shell quickly swells with water to a size 15-30% larger and remains soft for several weeks (DFO 2012a). The moulting frequency depends on temperature, size, sex and sexual maturity (Fong and Gillespie 2008). Immature crabs may moult several times a year while mature crabs may moult once a year or every two years. Dungeness crabs reach sexual maturity at about 2-3 years of age which corresponds to 10-11 moults (Fong and Gillespie 2008). Males have a carapace width of approximately 116 mm at maturity, and females have a carapace width of approximately 100 mm at maturity (Fong and Gillespie 2008, MacKay 1942). In BC,

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.7 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013 male Dungeness crabs reach a maximum size of 215 mm carapace width and a maximum weight of 2 kg, and have a lifespan of approximately 6-9 years (DFO 2000, 2012a, Fong and Gillespie 2008).

Dungeness crabs mate immediately after the female moults and the fertilized eggs are carried on the underside of the female’s abdomen. During its lifetime, a female Dungeness crab produces approximately three to five million eggs (MacKay 1942, Fong and Gillespie 2008). In BC, mating occurs from April to September and hatching occurs from December to June, with a peak in March (Fong and Gillespie 2008, MacKay 1942). The larvae develop for 3-4 months and become dispersed by currents before settling on the bottom (DFO 2000).

The diet of a Dungeness crab depends on its life stage. Larvae feed offshore in the water column on zooplankton and phytoplankton, while juveniles forage in littoral habitats for clams and mussels, small fish, molluscs, shrimp, and other crabs (DFO 2012a). Adult crabs feed on clams and mussels, crustaceans, worms, and fish (DFO 2012a).

Dungeness crabs have great social, cultural, and economic importance in BC and are harvested by commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries (Fong and Gillespie 2008). Due to the high natural variability in Dungeness crab populations caused by changing marine environmental conditions, it is difficult to obtain reliable abundance estimates from year to year (Fong and Gillespie 2008). All major Dungeness crab fishing areas in BC are considered to be fully exploited and the demand and competition among the various fishing sectors is increasing (DFO 2000, Fong and Gillespie 2008). In 2010, 4,543 tonnes of Dungeness crab was landed by the commercial fishery in BC with a value of $32.2 million (DFO 2012a). The 2010 landings marked the fourth consecutive year of harvest decline (DFO 2012a). In 2005, over 800,000 pounds of Dungeness crab was harvested in BC’s recreational fishery, with 63% of this total harvested from the Strait of Georgia (DFO 2012a).

DFO maintains a database of Important Areas that are considered relevant to a species in terms of uniqueness, aggregation, and/or fitness (DFO 2013c). The DFO Important Areas for Dungeness crab in Burrard Inlet is shown in Figure 4.3. Several areas in eastern Burrard Inlet have been identified as DFO Important Areas for Dungeness crab. This includes portions of the Central Harbour, Port Moody Arm and Indian Arm (Jamieson and Levesque 2012a,b). One DFO Important Area for Dungeness crab overlaps with the Marine Resources LSA (Figure 4.3).

Commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries for Dungeness crab in BC are managed by DFO under Canada’s Fisheries Act. Each year, DFO produces an Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) for the Dungeness crab fishery in BC. The IFMP outlines management objectives, access and allocation guidelines, decision guidelines, and management measures. Dungeness crabs in Burrard Inlet fall within DFO’s Crab Management Area I. DFO conducts surveys in this area twice each year, before and after the commercial fishing season, to assess the status of the stock (DFO 2012a). This data is used to determine the catch per unit effort (CPUE), a common index of abundance for invertebrate species. In 2011, a total of 51 commercial licenses were issued for Area I (DFO 2012a). In 2012, each license holder was permitted to fish a maximum of 100 traps between June 15 and August 1, and 164 traps from August 1 to November 30 (DFO 2012a).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.8 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

4.3.5 Pacific Salmon

Pacific salmon belong to the family Salmonidae which includes whitefishes, graylings, salmon, trout, and char. There are five species of Pacific salmon in Canada belonging to the genus Oncorhynchus including pink, chum, sockeye, coho, and Chinook. Pacific salmon are of great cultural and economic importance in BC and all species are harvested in commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries. They are also ecologically important species because they support oceanic, estuarine, freshwater, and terrestrial food webs by providing nutrients to the ecosystem during their migration from the ocean to rivers and streams to spawn (DFO 2012b).

Pacific salmon are anadromous which means that they spawn in fresh water but spend a good portion of their lives in marine waters where they feed until maturity (DFO 2012b). The life span of Pacific salmon ranges from two years for pink salmon to seven or eight years for sockeye, Chinook, and chum salmon (DFO 2001b, 2012b). Depending on the species, salmon will spend one to seven years in marine waters before returning to their natal streams to spawn from spring to fall (DFO 2001b, 2012b). All Pacific salmon are semelparous, meaning that individual fish spawn once in their lifetime and then die.

Spawning female salmon seek out stream beds with gravel substrate to create a nest, known as a redd, where they deposit their eggs. Waiting male fertilizes the eggs by releasing a cloud of milt. The female then covers up the redd with gravel to protect it, constructs a second nest, and repeats the process until all of her eggs are deposited. After fertilization, eggs are buried in gravel substrate on the river/stream bed. The eggs hatch into alevins in mid-winter and emerge as fry in spring where they stay in freshwater streams and lakes for periods ranging from 1 week to 2 years, depending on species (DFO 2012b).

The range of Pacific salmon includes the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Strait, southwestern Beaufort Sea, and surrounding freshwater rivers and streams (DFO 2012b). Pacific salmon occur in an estimated 1,300-1,500 rivers and streams in BC and the Yukon (DFO 2012b). The most important rivers for Pacific Salmon in BC include the Skeena River and Nass River in the north and the Fraser River in the south which together account for 75% of the salmon population in the province (DFO 2012b). The Fraser River system is considered the largest single salmon production system in the world (Northcote and Larkin 1988) and accounts for, on average, about 50% of salmon production in BC (Henderson and Graham 1998). Burrard Inlet has been identified by DFO as an Important Area for Pacific salmon (Jamieson and Levesque 2012a, b) and 12 salmon-bearing rivers and streams draining into the Marine RSA have been identified (BC MOE 2013). The location of the salmon-bearing rivers and streams in the Marine RSA are shown in Figure 4.4.

Nearly 10,000 salmon stocks have been identified in Canadian Pacific waters (DFO 2001b). The vast number of stocks and the complex life cycles of Pacific salmon present a substantial assessment and management challenge (DFO 2012b). Fisheries for Pacific salmon are managed by DFO under the Fisheries Act and Canada's Policy for Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon (Wild Salmon Policy). Under the Wild Salmon Policy, wild salmon populations are managed by conservation units that reflect their geographic and genetic diversity. Each year, DFO prepares a Southern BC Salmon Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) to guide the management of the salmon fishery. The IFMP provides a context to the management of the Pacific salmon fishery and the interrelationships of all fishing sectors involved

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.9 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

in the fishery (DFO 2012b). The IFMP outlines management objectives, access and allocation, decision guidelines, and management measures. DFO also administers the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) which is comprised of over 300 projects involving hatcheries, fishways, spawning and rearing channels, and small classroom incubators (DFO 2012b).

Pacific salmon are sensitive to changes in both marine and freshwater ecosystems (DFO 2012b). Fishing pressure and loss of habitat from human activities such as logging and agriculture are the key threats to Pacific salmon populations (COSEWIC 2002, 2003a,b, 2006, DFO 2001b, 2012b). Four populations of Pacific salmon have been designated as species of conservation concern by COSEWIC including one coho population, one Chinook population, and two sockeye populations (see below). No Pacific salmon populations are currently listed under SARA. DFO’s 2012 salmon outlook identified a number of Pacific salmon stocks of conservation concern (DFO 2012b).

The physical characteristics, life histories, and spawning habits vary from species to species. This information is summarized below for each of the five Pacific salmon species.

4.3.5.1 Pink Salmon

Pink salmon are the smallest and most abundant of the five species of Pacific salmon. Adult pink salmon weigh an average of 1-3 kg but can reach a maximum size of 76 cm in length and weigh up to 6.8 kg (DFO 2001b, 2012b, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Mature pink salmon are silver with bluish backs and large oval spots on their tail fin and back (DFO 2001b, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Spawning pink salmon develop a pale grey back and a white to yellowish body (DFO 2001b). Spawning males also develop a distinctive humped back and are sometimes referred to as “humpbacks” or “humpies”.

Pink salmon have a life span of only two years; most of which is spent feeding at sea (DFO 2001b, 2012b). Their diet consists primarily of plankton, euphausiids, coepods, amphipods, fish, and squid (DFO 2012b, Hart 1973). In North America, pink salmon demonstrate a fixed two-year life cycle where even-year fish and odd-year fish are completely reproductively isolated (DFO 2001b, Heard 1991, Holtby and Ciruna 2007). As adults, pink salmon leave the ocean in the late summer and early fall and usually spawn in streams a short distance from the sea (DFO 2012b, Hart 1973, Holtby and Ciruna 2007). Pink salmon are the least dependent on fresh water of all the Pacific salmon and trout species and they have the ability to spawn in the lower reaches of coastal streams that are tidally inundated (Holtby and Ciruna 2007). Pink salmon display a high fidelity to spawning in their native streams (Hard et al. 1996, Heard 1991), but larger populations of pink salmon may also colonize new habitat (Holtby and Ciruna 2007). Pink fry begin migrating to the sea in April and May where they remain for approximately 18 months before returning to their natal streams to spawn in September and October (DFO 2001b, 2012b, Hart 1973).

The abundance of Pacific salmon populations is difficult to assess from year to year due to the random variability in annual survival rates (Grant and MacDonald 2012). In 2010, the abundance of Fraser pink salmon fry was estimated at 1 billion, which was the largest abundance of outmigrating fry on record and was more than double the long-term average of 376 million fry. While there was a high degree of uncertainty associated with the 2011 forecast, the estimated Fraser River pink salmon run size was between 9.2 million and 37.5 million fish (Grant and MacDonald 2012).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.10 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

Even-year and odd-year pink salmon generally occur in equal abundance throughout BC waters, but there are some geographic patterns in their relative abundance (Holtby and Ciruna 2007). Even-year pink salmon are either absent or rare in Puget Sound, southeast Vancouver Island, and the Fraser River, but are the dominant brood in Haida Gwaii (Holtby and Ciruna 2007). Due to the dominance of odd-year pink salmon in the Fraser River system, there is relatively low abundance of pink salmon that return to the Fraser River in even numbered years (DFO 2012b). Pink salmon on BC’s south coast belong to a regional group whose range includes mainland portions around the Strait of Georgia and northeast Vancouver Island (Beacham et al. 1988, Holtby and Ciruna 2007). Odd-year pink salmon in Burrard Inlet are managed under the East Howe Sound-Burrard Inlet Conservation Unit (Holtby and Ciruna 2007).

Pink salmon populations in BC are considered relatively stable and the 2012 salmon outlook did not identify any pink salmon stocks of conservation concern (DFO 2012b).

4.3.5.2 Chum Salmon

Adult chum salmon can weigh up to 20 kg and measure more than 100 cm (DFO 2001b, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Chum salmon are metallic blue and silver in colour and may have black speckling on their backs (DFO 2001b). They also have dark tips on their pectoral, anal, and caudal fins (Hart 1973). Mature fish have reddish to purplish bars across the sides and dark edges on their fins (DFO 2001b, Lamb and Edgell 2010).

Chum salmon have a maximum life span of eight years and their age at maturity ranges from three to five years (DFO 2012b). Chum fry emerge in spring and begin migrating to feeding grounds in the Pacific Ocean (DFO 2001b, 2012b). At sea, their diet consists primarily of plankton and crustaceans such as shrimp (DFO 2012b). After 2-7 years in the ocean, chum salmon return to their natal rivers to spawn in late fall and early winter (DFO 2012b, Hart 1973). Chum salmon prefer lower tributaries near the coast and rarely migrate more than 150 km inland to spawn (DFO 2012b).

Nearly 900 moderate-sized chum spawning streams have been identified in BC (DFO 2001b). Over 400 populations of chum salmon have been identified in the Johnstone Strait, Strait of Georgia, and Fraser River watersheds with the majority of production (85%) occurring in the Fraser River system (DFO 1999, 2001b). These chum stocks are grouped into a single unit known as the Inner South Coast chum stock which spawn between September to January (DFO 2001b).

The status of the Inner South Coast chum stock has varied over time. The stock declined sharply between the early 1950s and mid 1960s but had recovered by 1973 following closure of the chum fishery in 1965 and 1966 (DFO 1999). The stock declined again between 1974 and 1981, but recovered through the 1980s and 1990s following the implementation of new management strategies (DFO 1999). The 2012 salmon outlook did not identify any chum stocks of conservation concern (DFO 2012b).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.11 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

4.3.5.3 Sockeye Salmon

Sockeye salmon are the most commercially valuable of the five Pacific salmon species due to the superior quality of their flesh (DFO 2001b). Sockeye can weigh up to 7 kg and reach a maximum length of 84 cm (DFO 2001b, Hart 1973, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Adult sockeye are silver with blue-green backs with fine black specks on the dorsal surface and turn bright red when spawning (DFO 2001b, Lamb and Edgell 2010).

Sockeye salmon have a lifespan of five to eight years (DFO 2001b). Fry emerge in spring, rear in freshwater lakes for 1-3 years, and then migrate to the ocean for another 2-3 years before returning to their natal stream to spawn (DFO 2001b, Hart 1973). Their diet consists primarily of plankton and crustaceans such as shrimp (DFO 2012b). Sockeye are preyed upon by seals, bears, and gulls during migration and spawning (Hart 1973). Major sockeye runs in BC include watersheds drained by the Fraser, Skeena, and Nass rivers and those of Rivers and Smith Inlets (DFO 2001b, Hart 1973). Some sockeye spawn in rivers and streams along the coast but most make long migrations upstream to and through inland lakes (Hart 1973). Fraser River sockeye typically mature and spawn at four years of age and have a four-year life cycle with a dominant year every four years (DFO 2001b). During dominant years, the abundance of some population can be many times larger than that of other years (DFO 2012b). Historically, the Adams River sockeye has been the largest spawning population in the Fraser River watershed (DFO 2001b).

Cultus Lake and Sakinaw Lake sockeye stocks were identified as stocks of conservation concern in the 2012 salmon outlook (DFO 2012b). Returns of these stocks are particularly low compared to historic levels and a number of management measures have been implemented to support rebuilding of these stocks. The Cultus and Sakinaw sockeye populations have been designated as Endangered by COSEWIC (2003a,b).

Fraser River sockeye stocks experienced a steady and profound decline between 1990 and 2009 (Cohen 2012). In 2009, the pre-season forecast was for a return of 11.4 million Fraser River sockeye but only 1.36 million fish returned (Cohen 2012). In 2010 and 2011, 29 million and 5 million sockeye returned to the Fraser River respectively (Cohen 2012). Following the dismal return in 2009, the federal government established the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, known as the ‘Cohen Commission’ after the Commissioner Bruce Cohen, to investigate the causes of the decline. The final report of the Cohen Commission concluded that it was likely a combination of multiple Fraser River-specific and region-wide influences and stressors that contributed to the long-term decline of the Fraser River sockeye (Cohen 2012).

4.3.5.4 Coho Salmon

Adult coho have silver sides, metallic blue backs, white gums, and irregular black spots on their back and the upper lobe of their tail fin (DFO 2001b, Hart 1973, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Spawning males may develop bright red colouration on their sides, bright green on their backs and heads, and dark colouration on their bellies (DFO 2001b). Coho salmon can weigh up to 18 kg and reach lengths of 108 cm (Lamb and Edgell 2010).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.12 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

The age at maturity of coho salmon is typically three years (DFO 2012b). Juvenile coho remain in their spawning stream for 1-2 years before migrating to marine waters in the spring (DFO 2001b, 2012b). While at sea, coho remain in surface waters near the coast (DFO 2001b). Many coho remain in the Strait of Georgia, but some migrate offshore up to 1,600 km into the Pacific Ocean (Hart 1973). Their diet consists of plankton, small fish such as herring, and crustaceans such as shrimp (DFO 2001b, 2012b). Mature coho salmon migrate to their natal streams from October to December to spawn (DFO 2001b, 2012b). Coho primarily spawn in small streams, but some spawning takes place in large rivers (Hart 1973).

In the Strait of Georgia, coho are found in more than 350 streams including the lower Fraser River system (DFO 2001b). The 2012 salmon outlook has identified the Interior Fraser River, Lower Fraser River, Strait of Georgia coho stocks as stocks of conservation concern (DFO 2012b). COSEWIC has designated the Interior Fraser coho population as Endangered (COSEWIC 2002). Poor marine survivals and effects to freshwater habitat are ongoing concerns for these stocks.

4.3.5.5 Chinook Salmon

Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon species and can weigh up to 61 kg and reach lengths of 160 cm (Lamb and Edgell 2010). Chinook salmon are greenish blue to black, have black spots on their back, dorsal fin, and tail fin, and have black gums (Hart 1973, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Spawning fish have a darker colouration and a reddish hue around their fins and bellies (DFO 2001b). Spawning males develop enlarged teeth and hooked snouts (DFO 2001b).

Chinook salmon have a maximum life span of eight years and their age at maturity ranges from three to seven years (DFO 2012b). Chinook salmon populations are categorized based on two major life-cycle types: stream and ocean (DFO 2001b). Stream-type Chinook typically spend 1-2 years in fresh water before migrating to marine waters, while ocean-type Chinook typically spend no more than 90 days in fresh water before migrating to sea (DFO 2001b, 2012b). Some Chinook will travel up to 1600 km into the Pacific Ocean where they tend to remain well below the surface (Hart 1973). Chinook salmon feed primarily on plankton, small fish such as herring, and crustaceans such as shrimp (DFO 2012b). Both stream and ocean types will then spend anywhere from 1-6 years in the ocean before returning to freshwater streams to spawn (DFO 2001b). Most Chinook return to spawn in their fourth or fifth year (Hart 1973).

Spawning times for Chinook vary among stocks. They are often referred to as “spring salmon” because they spawn earlier than other Pacific salmon species. Chinook generally migrate upstream to the middle to upper regions of large rivers in BC from the spring through fall to spawn (DFO 2001b, 2012b, Hart 1973). These upstream migrations can be as far as 1,500 km inland (DFO 2012b). The majority of Chinook salmon in BC come from the Fraser River watershed where spawning occurs from August to December (DFO 2001b). Fry emerge in the spring.

The 2012 salmon outlook has identified the Lower Strait of Georgia and Fraser River Chinook stocks as stocks of conservation concern (DFO 2012b). Escapement of the Lower Strait of Georgia Chinook stock is currently at low levels due in large part to poor marine survival (DFO 2012b). A number of the Fraser River Chinook stocks have demonstrated poor survival rates and poor spawning escapements in recent

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.13 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

years and are well below the long-term average (DFO 2012b). COSEWIC has designated the Okanagan Chinook population as Threatened (COSEWIC 2006).

4.3.6 Inshore Rockfish

There are 102 species of rockfish belonging to the genus Sebastes, of which 36 species are known to occur in Canadian Pacific waters (COSEWIC 2009). Rockfish have long lifespans and are slow to mature. Rockfish eggs are fertilized internally and females provide nutrients to the developing embryos (COSEWIC 2009, DFO 2006, Hart 1973). Juveniles are born as larvae which undergo a pelagic phase before settling in benthic habitats (COSEWIC 2009). Rockfish populations may display episodic recruitment during periods of favourable environmental conditions every 15-20 years (COSEWIC 2009, Yamanaka and Lacko 2001). Rockfish have a gasbladder which greatly expands if they are brought to the surface rapidly, often resulting in death (Hart 1973).

Quillback rockfish (S. maliger) and copper rockfish (S. caurinus) are relatively common in BC and prefer rocky habitats with high structural complexity. These two species are among the most likely species of rockfish to be found in Burrard Inlet. Quillback and copper rockfish are managed by DFO as “inshore” rockfish along with yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), china rockfish (S. nebulosus), black rockfish (S. melanops) and tiger rockfish (S. nigrocinctus) (COSEWIC 2009). Inshore rockfish inhabit rock reefs in relatively shallow water (Yamanaka and Lacko 2001). Management of the inshore rockfish fishery in Canada is separated into two management areas: inside and outside waters. Inside waters include marine waters between the east side of Vancouver Island and the mainland, while outside waters include the remainder of BC’s coast.

Quillback rockfish have a distinctive high, spiny dorsal fin with deeply notched spines (COSEWIC 2009, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Adult fish are primarily brown with yellow or light tan toward the front of their body, dark fins, and a light coloured saddle patches extending into the dorsal fin (COSEWIC 2009, Hart 1973). Quillback rockfish can live as long as 95 years in BC and can reach lengths of 61 cm (COSEWIC 2009, DFO 2006, Hart 1973, Yamanaka and Lacko 2001). Approximately half of all fish will reach maturity at age 11 (COSEWIC 2009). Quillback rockfish mate from November to February and release their larvae between March and July with a subsequent pelagic larval phase lasting approximately 1-2 months (COSEWIC 2009).

Quillback rockfish range from the Gulf of Alaska to southern California (COSEWIC 2009, Lamb and Edgell 2010). They occur in depths ranging from 16-182 m but are most common between 50-100 m (COSEWIC 2009, DFO 2006, 2012c). This species prefers habitat with hard substrates such as rock reefs and ridges, steep relief, and high benthic complexity (COSEWIC 2009, DFO 2012c). They are often found in inlets near rocky reefs and in shallow rock piles (DFO 2006, Hart 1973). Larvae and juvenile rockfish are found in the water column at depths of < 300 m where they are dispersed by oceanographic processes (COSEWIC 2009). At 6-9 months of age, juvenile rockfish will settle in benthic habitats where they feed on small invertebrates (COSEWIC 2009, Love et al. 2002). The diet of adult rockfish consists of fish and invertebrates (COSEWIC 2009).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.14 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

Visual surveys in the Strait of Georgia estimated the abundance of quillback rockfish to be 2.23 million individuals in the 527 km2 survey area (COSEWIC 2009). Studies on quillback rockfish populations in BC indicate they have declined 50 to 75% since the mid-1980s (DFO 2012c).

Copper rockfish have olive brown to copper colouration with pink and yellow blotches, white undersides, and a clear, whitish, or pink lateral line (Hart 1973, Lamb and Edgell 2010). This species has a maximum life span of 45-50 years and can reach lengths of 66 cm (DFO 2006, Love et al. 2002). Like quillback rockfish, copper rockfish mate in the fall and release their larvae in the spring with a subsequent pelagic larval phase lasting approximately 1-2 months.

Copper rockfish range from Baja California to the Gulf of Alaska (Hart 1973, Lamb and Edgell 2010). They are found from the subtidal to depths of 180 m but are most common in shallow waters less than 40 m (DFO 2006). They prefer rocky habitats and kelp beds and are often found around pilings and jetties (DFO 2006, Lamb and Edgell 2010). Copper rockfish are known to prey on crab, squids, octopi, spiny dogfish, sand lance, herring, anchovy, surf perches, sculpins, greenlings, and other rockfishes (Alaska Marine Fisheries Center 2013, Lamb and Edgell 2010). The overall status of copper rockfish populations in BC is unknown although they are considered to be relatively common on rocky reefs in shallow waters of the Strait of Georgia (Hart 1973).

The life history traits of rockfish such as their late age-at-maturity, slow growth, and episodic recruitment make them inherently vulnerable to human activities and overexploitation in fisheries (COSEWIC 2009). Rockfish are targeted in commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries in BC. They are also caught incidentally in the hook and line fishery and as bycatch in the prawn trap, groundfish trawl, and shrimp trawl fisheries (DFO 2012c). A number of rockfish populations in BC have been overfished and fishing is the primary threat to rockfish. There is a lack of information about the overall status of rockfish habitat in BC, but their relatively deep subtidal habitat (14-143 m deep) remains largely unchanged since the last glaciation (COSEWIC 2009, DFO 2012c).

Eight species of rockfish that occur in Canadian Pacific waters have been identified as species of conservation concern by COSEWIC and three have been listed under SARA. The quillback rockfish has been designated as Special Concern by COSEWIC but is not currently listed under SARA. The copper rockfish has not been identified as a species of conservation concern.

In an effort to conserve inshore rockfish populations in Canadian Pacific waters, DFO (2002) developed a Rockfish Conservation Strategy. The strategy is focused on monitoring catch levels, reducing harvest levels, stock assessment, and the establishment of Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs). RCAs are areas where commercial and recreational fishing activities that negatively affect rockfish are prohibited year-round (DFO 2011b). A total of 164 RCAs have been established in BC to date which together account for an estimated 30% of inshore rockfish habitat in the province (COSEWIC 2009).

Figure 4.5 shows the location of three RCAs in the Marine RSA including Indian Arm – Croker Island RCA, Indian Arm – Twin Islands RCA, and Eastern Burrard Inlet RCA. The Marine Resources LSA is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Burrard Inlet RCA; however, rockfish are not expected to be abundant in the Marine Resources LSA because the subtidal habitat in the area is dominated by soft, muddy substrate rather than the hard substrate preferred by rockfish.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.15 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

4.3.7 Harbour Seal

Harbour seals belong to the Family Phocidae (true seals) and are among the most widely distributed pinnipeds (i.e., seal or sea lion) in the northern hemisphere. In Canada, they are found in Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic waters. Harbour seals on the Pacific coast belong to a separate sub-species (Pacific harbour seal; subspecies richardsi). Their range in the northeast Pacific Ocean extends from Baja California north to Bristol Bay, Alaska and west through the Aleutian Islands (DFO 2010b).

Harbour seals use both aquatic and terrestrial environments and do not migrate but instead reside in BC’s coastal waters and inlets year-round (Baird 2001, Bigg 1981). They are likely the most commonly sighted marine mammal in BC and prefer nearshore habitats including sounds, inlets, straits, marinas and harbours, and have also been known to occur in river estuaries (Baird 2001). Terrestrial haulout sites, used for resting, mating, and pupping, include isolated rocks or islets, sandbars, log booms, and recreational floats (Baird 2001).

As a true seal, harbour seals lack external ear flaps and have short flippers. Their coats vary in colour from light grey to dark brown or black with spots, rings, and blotches. Harbour seals average 0.8 m in length at birth and 1.5 m as adults; males are slightly larger than females (Baird 2001, Bigg 1981, McLaren 1993). Male and female harbour seals reach maturity at about 3-5 years of age (DFO 2010b). Harbour seals give birth to a single pup per year within a 1-2 month pupping season which varies geographically (Bigg 1981). In BC, pups are born on land from mid-May to early-July in northern BC, and from early-July to mid-August in southern BC (DFO 2010b).

The diet of harbour seals varies between seasons, geographic areas, age, and habitat (Baird 2001). In the Strait of Georgia, their diet consists primarily of Pacific hake (Merluccius productus), Pacific herring, plainfin midshipman (Porichthys notatus), salmon, and lingcod (Ophidon elogatus) (Baird 2001, Olesiuk 1993).

Harbour seals in BC were commercially harvested for pelts between 1879-1914 and 1962-1968 (Baird 2001, DFO 2010b). From 1914-1964, harbour seals were also harvested as part of a predator control program. DFO estimates that half a million seals were killed in BC between the 1879 and 1968 (DFO 2010b). In 1970, harbour seals were legally protected by the Government of Canada under the Seal Protection Regulations. These regulations were later incorporated into the Marine Mammal Regulations in 1993 under the Fisheries Act. These regulations prohibit the unauthorized killing, hunting, and disturbance of harbour seals in Canada. Since these regulations came into effect, the Pacific coast population of harbour seals has returned to or exceeded historic levels. As such, they are not listed on SARA and were last designated by COSEWIC as Not at Risk in 1999 (COSEWIC 2011).

DFO has conducted aerial surveys of harbour seals in BC since the early 1970s to determine abundance and distribution and to monitor population trends (DFO 2010b). As of 2009, approximately 82% of BC’s 27,200 km coastline had been surveyed, with nearly 1,400 haulout sites identified. Data from these surveys indicate that the harbour seal population grew exponentially during the 1970s and 1980s at a rate of about 11.5% per year, before slowing in the 1990s (DFO 2010b). In 2008, the harbour seal population in BC was estimated to be 105,000 individuals and appears to have stabilized (DFO 2010b). Highest densities were observed in the Strait of Georgia, with an average of 3.1 seals per kilometre of shoreline.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.16 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW December 2013

DFO estimates that the BC population represents about 29% of the 360,000 harbour seals estimated to inhabit the Northeast Pacific Ocean (DFO 2010b).

Harbour seals show high site fidelity (Baird 2001, DFO 2010b). They gather in groups as large as several hundred to several thousand individuals at haulout sites, but they are usually solitary or in small groups in the water and do not congregate to breed (Baird 2001, Bigg 1981). The mean haulout group size in the Strait of Georgia is 22 individuals (Baird 2001, Bigg 1981). Estimated seal densities in the Marine RSA are moderate (BC Marine Conservation Analysis 2010) and seals may be observed year-round. Important Areas identified by DFO for harbour seals are shown on Figure 4.6; there are none that overlap with the Marine RSA (Jamieson and Levesque 2012a, b). Haulout sites in the Marine RSA (current only to 1999) are also shown on Figure 4.6.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 4.17 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

5.0 RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION

This section describes the results of the marine riparian habitat survey conducted on September 26, 2012, the intertidal survey conducted on August 18-19, 2012, and the subtidal ROV survey conducted on September 17-20, 2012.

5.1 Marine Riparian Habitat

Marine riparian habitat within the Westridge Marine Terminal property limit covers a total area of approximately 4,270 m2 (Figure 5.1). Four riparian habitat types were identified based on differences in dominant biophysical characteristics (Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1). The riparian habitat is either modified (type 1, type 2, and type 4) or artificial (type 3) habitat.

Table 5.1: Marine Riparian Habitat Types

Riparian Area Description Photo Type (m2) Type 1 740 • Landward boundary marked by the CN rail tracks • Modified riparian habitat consisting of trees, shrubs, ferns, peas, grasses, and horsetails • Steep rock (riprap) cliff from CN rail tracks transitioning to a moderately sloped rock/sand beach • Concrete slabs, riprap, wood pilings, metal cables, storm outfall pipe, culvert (1 m diameter)

Type 2 621 • Landward boundary marked by graded gravel area adjacent to the CN rail tracks • Modified riparian habitat consisting of shrubs, asters, ferns, grasses, and horsetails • Rock (riprap) ramp from CN rail tracks transitioning to a moderately sloped rock/sand beach • Vessel dock at eastern end of riparian zone

Type 3 1,388 • Landward boundary of this segment is marked by a 2.5 m chain-link fence and paved/graded gravel surface • Narrow strip of man-made riparian habitat above steep rock (riprap) cliff • Riparian habitat consists of shrubs, grasses, and horsetails growing on top of landscaping fabric • Chain-link fence and metal walkway at eastern end of riparian zone

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.1 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Riparian Area Description Photo Type (m2) Type 4 1,521 • Landward boundary marked by the CN rail tracks • Modified riparian habitat consisting of trees, shrubs, ferns, horsetails, and grasses • Rock (riprap) ramp from CN rail tracks transitioning to a moderately sloped rock/sand beach

A total of 38 vascular plant species were identified during the marine riparian habitat survey, including asters, ferns, grasses, holly, horsetail, morning-glory, peas, plantains, rushes, saxifrages, shrubs, and trees. The relative abundance of these plant species in each riparian habitat type is shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: Relative Abundance of Vascular Plant Species

Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Tanacetum Dune tansy Aster NO C NO NO bipinnatum

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis Aster NO C NO NO

Pathfinder Adenocaulon bicolor Aster NO P NO NO

Unidentified thistle Cirsium sp. Aster NO C P NO

Unidentified Asteraceae sp. Aster P NO P NO sunflower

Sword fern Polystichum munitum Fern A A P A

Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum Fern P NO NO P

Unidentified grass Poaceae spp. Grass A A A C

English holly Ilex aquifolium Holly NO P NO NO

Common horsetail Equisetum arvense Horsetail A A C A

Unidentified Morning- Convolvulus sp. P NO NO NO morning-glory glory

Unidentified pea Vicia spp. Pea C NO C P

Ribwort Plantago lanceolata Plantain P P P NO

Unidentified rush Juncus spp. Rush NO P NO NO

Five-stamened Mitella pentandra Saxifrage P NO NO NO mitrewort

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.2 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Habitat Habitat Habitat Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Type Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana Shrub NO P C NO

Sitka willow Salix sitchensis Shrub NO NO NO P

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera Shrub NO NO C NO

Pacific willow Salix lucida Shrub NO NO P NO

Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Shrub NO NO P NO

Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor Shrub A A A A

Salmonberry Rubus spectabilas Shrub A A C A

Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus Shrub C NO NO C

Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus Shrub P NO NO A

Vine maple Acer circinatum Shrub P NO NO P

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius Shrub NO A C NO

Sitka mountain-ash Sorbus sitchensis Shrub NO P NO NO

Symphoricarpos Common snowberry Shrub NO NO C NO albus

Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor Shrub NO NO C NO

Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata Shrub NO NO C NO

Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa Shrub NO NO NO P

Saskatoon Amelanchier alnifolia Shrub NO NO C NO

Spiraea douglasii Hardhack Shrub A NO P NO spp. douglasii

Pacific crab apple Malus fusca Tree NO NO NO P

Red alder Alnus rubra Tree P C P A

Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum Tree P NO NO P

Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood Tree NO NO NO P spp. trichocarpa

Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata Tree C NO NO P

Note: NO = not observed; P = present; C = common; A = abundant

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.3 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

5.1.1 Summary

A total of 38 vascular plant species were identified during the marine riparian habitat survey. Four riparian habitat types were identified based on differences in dominant biophysical characteristics. The entire area of marine riparian habitat within the Westridge Marine Terminal property limits is modified or entirely anthropogenic.

5.2 Intertidal Habitat

Intertidal habitat within the Marine Resources LSA was characterized according to slope, substrate type, and biological assemblages.

5.2.1 Slope and Substrate Type

The slope and length of each transect and intertidal zone is shown in Table 5.3. The slope of the intertidal zone along all five transects was moderate to high, ranging from 14% to 60%. No differences in slope were observed between intertidal zones.

Table 5.3: Slope and Length of Vertical Transects

Low Low Mid Mid High High Transect Transect Transect Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Length Number Slope Slope Length Slope Length Slope Length (m) (%) (%) (m) (%) (m) (%) (m) 1 24 16.5 24 3.5 24 3.0 24 10.0 2 38 11.9 38 3.0 38 3.4 38 5.5 3 60 8.3 60 3.0 60 1.8 60 3.5 4 25 15.0 25 3.0 25 2.6 25 9.4 5 14 26.0 14 2.5 14 8.0 14 13.0

The average percent cover of each substrate type is shown in Table 5.4. The intertidal zone was dominated by coarse substrate types, particularly boulder and cobble riprap. Transect 5 had a much higher proportion of sand substrate than the other transects, with an average cover of 32.4%.

Table 5.4: Substrate Type (% Cover) Based on Quadrat Average

Transect Metal Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Mud Number Debris 1 29.7 49.5 13.2 7.6 0.0 0.0 2 84.0 14.3 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 3 90.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 18.7 65.1 6.3 1.7 0.0 1.5 5 14.3 35.0 18.3 32.4 0.0 0.0 Total Avg. 47.4 34.7 7.8 8.4 0.0 0.3

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.4 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

5.2.2 Biological Communities

This subsection describes the dominant intertidal species and communities identified during the intertidal survey.

5.2.2.1 Marine Invertebrates

A total of 17 marine invertebrate species from seven different phyla were identified during the intertidal survey (Table 5.5).

Table 5.5: Marine Invertebrate Species Observed in the Intertidal Zone

Low Mid High Phylum Description Common Name Scientific Name Zone Zone Zone Arthropoda Common acorn Barnacle Balanus glandula x x x (Crustacea) barnacle Arthropoda Barnacle Little brown barnacle Chthamalus dalli x x x (Crustacea) Arthropoda Shore crab Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus x (Crustacea) Arthropoda Hemigrapsus Shore crab Green shore crab x (Crustacea) oregonensis Arthropoda Shore crab Shore crab Hemigrapsus spp. x x x (Crustacea) Arthropoda Hermit crab Hermit crab Pagarus spp. x x x (Crustacea) Arthropoda Gammarid Amphipod Amphipod x x x (Crustacea) amphipod spp. Arthropoda Isopod Rockweed isopod Idotea wosnesenskii x (Crustacea) Mollusca Mussel Blue mussel Mytilus spp. complex x x x Mollusca Periwinkle Sitka periwinkle Littorina sitkana x x Mollusca Periwinkle Periwinkle Littorina sp. x x x Mollusca Limpet Limpet Lottia spp. x x x Echinodermata Sea star Purple sea star Pisaster ochraceus x Annelida Polychaete Polychaete worm Polychaeta sp. x worm Nemertea Nemertean Green ribbon worm Emplectonema gracile x Worm Nemertea Nemertean Nemertean worm Nemertea sp. x worm Bryozoa Bryozoan Moss animal Bryozoa spp. x Demospongiae Porifera Unidentified sponge Demospongiae spp. x Sponge

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.5 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

The percent cover of sessile invertebrates and number of individuals of motile invertebrates were recorded in each of the quadrats sampled. The average percent cover or number of individuals per quadrat of each species of invertebrates is shown in Table 5.6. The most common sessile invertebrate species observed in the intertidal zone were the common acorn barnacle with an average cover of 16.2% per quadrat followed by blue mussels with an average cover of 12.3% per quadrat. Relative to these species, all other sessile invertebrates were present in low abundance.

The most common motile invertebrate species observed in the intertidal zone were periwinkles with an average of 50.5 individuals per quadrat and limpets with an average of 10.3 individuals per quadrat. Relative to these species, all other motile invertebrates were present in low abundance.

Common acorn barnacles, little brown barnacles, amphipods, blue mussels, periwinkles, and limpets were present in all five transects. Purple sea stars, polychaete worms, green ribbon worms (Emplectonema gracile), nemertean worms, and sponges were only present in one transect.

Table 5.6: Average Percent Cover/Average Number of Marine Invertebrates per Quadrat

Common Name Scientific Name Units 5 sect Total Total Average Transect 1 Transect Tran Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect Transect 4 Transect

Common acorn Balanus glandula % cover 25.6 6.7 13.9 14.9 20.1 16.2 barnacle Little brown Chthamalus dalli % cover 1.2 2.4 7.6 6.3 1.3 3.8 barnacle Hemigrapsus # of Purple shore crab 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 nudus individuals Hemigrapsus # of Green shore crab 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 oregonensis individuals Hemigrapsus # of Shore crab 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 spp. individuals # of Hermit crab Pagarus spp. 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 individuals Gammarid # of Amphipod 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.8 amphipod spp. individuals Idotea # of Rockweed isopod 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 wosnesenskii individuals Mytilus spp. Blue mussel % cover 11.1 10.1 32.9 7.1 0.4 12.3 complex # of Sitka periwinkle Littorina sitkana 0.0 2.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 individuals # of Periwinkle Littorina spp. 30.1 15.7 19.3 57.9 129.3 50.5 individuals # of Limpet Lottia spp. 32.8 1.5 3.2 6.5 7.5 10.3 individuals

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.6 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Common Name Scientific Name Units 5 sect Total Total Average Transect 1 Transect Tran Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect Transect 4 Transect

Pisaster # of Purple sea star 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ochraceus individuals # of Polychaete worm Polychaeta spp. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 individuals Green ribbon Emplectonema # of 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 worm gracile individuals # of Nemertean worm Nemertea spp. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 individuals Moss animal Bryozoa spp. % cover 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unidentified Demospongiae % cover 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sponge spp. Note: A low percent cover of sponges (n=0.5%) were observed in only one quadrat in transect 2. Therefore, the average percent cover of sponges is near zero.

The occurrence rate of marine invertebrates is shown in Table 5.7. This shows the percentage of quadrats within a transect in which each invertebrate species was present. Common acorn barnacles had the highest total occurrence rate at 84.0%. This species was present in 100% of the quadrats sampled in transect 1 and transect 5. Periwinkles, limpets, and little brown barnacles also had high total occurrence rates of 72.0%, 69.3%, and 62.7% respectively. Little brown barnacles were present in 100% of quadrats sampled in transect 4. Green shore crabs (Hemigrapsus oregonensis), rockweed isopods (Idotea wosnesenskii), purple sea stars, polychaete worms, nemertean worms, and sponges were each present in only one of the 75 quadrats sampled. Therefore, these species had the lowest total occurrence rate of 1.3%.

Table 5.7: Occurrence Rate (%) of Marine Invertebrates

Common Name Scientific Name Transect 1 Transect Total Rate Total Transect 5 Transect Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect Transect 4 Transect

Common acorn Balanus glandula 100.0 46.7 86.7 86.7 100.0 84.0 barnacle Little brown barnacle Chthamalus dalli 60.0 46.7 40.0 100.0 66.7 62.7 Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 2.7 Hemigrapsus Green shore crab 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 1.3 oregonensis Shore crab Hemigrapsus spp. 0.0 6.7 0.0 13.3 13.3 6.7 Hermit crab Pagarus spp. 6.7 13.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 5.3 Gammarid amphipod Amphipod 6.7 26.7 20.0 26.7 26.7 21.4 spp. Rockweed isopod Idotea wosnesenskii 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.3

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.7 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Common Name Scientific Name Transect 1 Transect Total Rate Total Transect 5 Transect Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect Transect 4 Transect

Blue mussel Mytilus spp. complex 86.7 26.7 66.7 40.0 46.7 53.4 Sitka periwinkle Littorina sitkana 0.0 6.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 Periwinkle Littorina spp. 93.3 33.3 66.7 73.3 93.3 72.0 Limpet Lottia spp. 93.3 33.3 53.3 93.3 73.3 69.3 Purple sea star Pisaster ochraceus 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Polychaete worm Polychaeta spp. 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 Green ribbon worm Emplectonema gracile 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 Nemertean worm Nemertea spp. 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Moss animal Bryozoa spp. 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.7 Unidentified sponge Demospongiae spp. 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3

5.2.2.2 Marine Plants

A total of eight species of marine algae from three different phyla were identified during the intertidal survey (Table 5.8). No seagrass species were observed during the survey.

Table 5.8: Marine Algae Species Observed in the Intertidal Zone

Low Mid High Phylum Description Common Name Scientific Name Zone Zone Zone Chlorophyta Green algae Sea lettuce Ulva spp. x x Chlorophyta Green algae Green ribbon Ulva intestinalis x x Chlorophyta Green algae Green rope Acrosiphonia spp. x x Chlorophyta Green algae Single cell green algae - x Ochrophyta Brown algae Rockweed Fucus gardneri x x x Rhodophyta Red algae Turkish washcloth Mastocarpus spp. x x x Rhodophyta Red algae Red spaghetti Gracilaria/Gracilariopsis sp. x Rhodophyta Red algae Sea moss Endocladia muricata x x x

The percent cover of algal species was recorded in each of the quadrats sampled. The average percent cover per quadrat of each algal species is shown in Table 5.9. The most common algal species observed in the intertidal zone were rockweed with a total average cover of 26.7% and Turkish washcloth with a total average cover of 10.6%. Green ribbon was also relatively common with a total average cover of 5.3%. Relative to these species, all other algal species were present in low abundance. Single cell green algae and red spaghetti algae (Gracilaria/Gracilariopsis sp.) were the least abundant algal species, each with a total average cover near zero percent.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.8 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Rockweed and Turkish washcloth were the only algae species present in all five transects. Single cell green algae and red spaghetti algae were each present in only one transect.

Table 5.9: Average Percent Cover of Marine Algae per Quadrat

Common Name Scientific Name Total Total ransect 5 ransect Average Transect 1 Transect T Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect Transect 4 Transect

Sea lettuce Ulva spp. 0.0 2.4 0.0 5.4 0.0 1.6 Green ribbon Ulva intestinalis 0.0 8.6 13.8 4.1 0.0 5.3 Green rope Acrosiphonia spp. 0.0 2.7 9.0 0.1 0.0 2.4 Single cell green algae - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Rockweed Fucus gardneri 12.1 60.1 34.1 21.5 5.8 26.7 Turkish washcloth Mastocarpus spp. 2.9 25.4 6.5 13.0 5.4 10.6 Red spaghetti Gracilaria/Gracilariopsis sp. 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Sea moss Endocladia muricata 0.0 5.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.4

The occurrence rate of marine algal species is shown in Table 5.10. Turkish washcloth and rockweed had the highest total occurrence rates of 85.3% and 81.3%, respectively. Turkish washcloth was present in 100% of quadrats sampled in transect 4 and rockweed was present in 100% of quadrats sampled in transect 2. Single cell green algae and red spaghetti algae were each present in only one of the 75 quadrats sampled and had total occurrence rates of only 1.3%.

Table 5.10: Occurrence Rate (%) of Marine Algae

Common Name Scientific Name Transect 1 Transect Total Rate Total Transect 5 Transect Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect Transect 4 Transect

Sea lettuce Ulva spp. 0.0 33.3 0.0 26.7 0.0 12.0 Green ribbon Ulva intestinalis 0.0 66.7 66.7 26.7 6.7 33.4 Green rope Acrosiphonia spp. 0.0 20.0 40.0 6.7 0.0 13.3 Single cell green algae - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.3 Rockweed Fucus gardneri 60.0 100.0 93.3 93.3 60.0 81.3 Turkish washcloth Mastocarpus spp. 80.0 93.3 80.0 100.0 73.3 85.3 Red spaghetti Gracilaria/Gracilariopsis sp. 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Sea moss Endocladia muricata 0.0 13.3 13.3 13.3 0.0 8.0

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.9 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

5.2.3 Zone Characteristics

This subsection describes the characteristics of the low, mid, and high intertidal zones in terms of substrate type, the relative abundance of species, and species diversity.

5.2.3.1 Substrate Type

The average percent cover of substrate types in the low, mid, and high intertidal zones is shown in Table 5.11. The distribution of substrate types in all three intertidal zones was similar, with boulder and cobble as the dominant substrate types. Pebble and sand substrates were also relatively common in all intertidal zones. The low intertidal zone had approximately three times more sand substrate than the mid or high intertidal zones. A small amount of metal debris was observed in the high and low intertidal zones of transect 4.

Table 5.11: Average Percent Cover of Substrate Types in Intertidal Zones

Intertidal Boulder Cobble Pebble Sand Mud Metal Zone Debris Low 44.8 32.2 7.0 15.4 0.0 0.6 Mid 50.4 36.6 7.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 High 47.0 35.3 8.6 4.8 0.0 0.3

5.2.3.2 Relative Abundance

The total number of species observed per transect ranged from 9 to 19. The total number of species in the low intertidal zone ranged from 7 to 15 per transect. In the mid intertidal zone, the total number of species ranged from seven to 11 per transect. In the high intertidal zone, the total number of species ranged from 9 to 11 per transect.

The average abundance of marine invertebrate species in the low, mid, and high intertidal zones is shown in Table 5.12. Overall, the average abundance of invertebrate species was highest in the high intertidal zone and lowest in the low intertidal zone. Periwinkles were the most abundant motile invertebrate species observed in all three intertidal zones, but were most abundant in the high intertidal zone. Common acorn barnacles were the most abundant sessile invertebrates in the high and mid intertidal zones, while little brown barnacles were the most abundant sessile invertebrate species in the low intertidal zone.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.10 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Table 5.12: Average Percent Cover/Number of Individuals of Marine Invertebrates in Intertidal Zones

Common Name Scientific Name Unit Low Mid High Common acorn % cover 4.6 11.4 32.7 Balanus glandula barnacle Little brown barnacle Chthamalus dalli % cover 5.5 3.8 2.0 Purple shore crab Hemigrapsus nudus # of individuals 0.0 0.0 0.1 Hemigrapsus # of individuals 0.0 0.0 0.1 Green shore crab oregonensis Shore crab Hemigrapsus spp. # of individuals 0.0 0.1 0.1 Hermit crab Pagarus spp. # of individuals 0.0 0.1 0.1 Gammarid amphipod # of individuals 0.0 1.4 0.9 Amphipod spp. Rockweed isopod Idotea wosnesenskii # of individuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Blue mussel Mytilus spp. complex % cover 2.0 10.4 24.5 Sitka periwinkle Littorina sitkana # of individuals 0.0 0.4 1.4 Periwinkle Littorina spp. # of individuals 11.4 46.5 93.4 Limpet Lottia spp. # of individuals 11.1 16.4 3.4 Purple sea star Pisaster ochraceus # of individuals 0.1 0.0 0.0 Polychaete worm Polychaeta spp. # of individuals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Green ribbon worm Emplectonema gracile # of individuals 0.0 0.0 0.3 Nemertean worm Nemertea spp. # of individuals 0.2 0.0 0.0 Moss animal Bryozoa spp. % cover 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unidentified sponge Demospongiae spp. % cover 0.0 0.0 0.0

The average abundance of marine algal species in the low, mid, and high intertidal zones is shown in Table 5.13. Rockweed was the most abundant algae species in all three intertidal zones and Turkish washcloth was the second most abundant.

Table 5.13: Average Percent Cover of Marine Algae in Intertidal Zones

Common Name Scientific Name Low Mid High Sea lettuce Ulva spp. 3.4 1.2 0.0 Green ribbon Ulva intestinalis 11.8 4.1 0.0 Green rope Acrosiphonia spp. 4.3 2.7 0.0 Single cell green algae - 0.1 0.0 0.0 Rockweed Fucus gardneri 16.4 14.0 49.8 Turkish washcloth Mastocarpus spp. 13.2 11.7 6.9 Red spaghetti Gracilaria/Gracilariopsis sp. 0.2 0.0 0.0 Sea moss Endocladia muricata 3.9 0.3 0.0

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.11 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

5.2.4 Summary

The majority of intertidal habitat within the Marine Resources LSA is characterized by steep boulder and cobble rip rap substrate. A total of 17 marine invertebrate species and 8 marine algae species were observed in the intertidal zone. None of these species are considered to be species of conservation concern by provincial or federal regulatory authorities (BC MOE 2013). The intertidal habitat and species assemblages observed in the Marine Resources LSA are typical of Strait of Georgia Ecodistrict (Environment Canada 1997, Druehl 2000, Harbo 2011, Lamb and Hanby 2005).

5.3 Subtidal Habitat

The subtidal video revealed a relatively low diversity of vegetation and fauna within the survey area. Summaries of substrate type, vegetation, fish, and invertebrates are provided below. A complete list of species identified during the survey is provided in Table 5.14. For details of the subtidal video and figures of biophysical survey results, see Figures 5.2 to 5.6 and the transect datasheets in Appendix B.

It should be noted that due to poor underwater visibility, restrictions in camera articulation and resolution limitations, the ROV video is biased towards larger, non-motile organisms. The species listed in Table 5.14 represent the organisms that were observed during the survey; however, this is not an exhaustive list and the absence of a particular species does not necessarily mean that it does not occur within the survey area.

A total of 32 marine species were observed during the subtidal ROV survey including eight species of arthropods, seven species of echinoderms, nine species of fish, four species of cnidarians, three species of molluscs, and one species of tunicate.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.12 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Table 5.14: Marine Species Observed during the Subtidal ROV Survey

Scientific Common Transect Name Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Cancer magister Dungeness Crab 14 33 40 56 116 19 13 17 10 0 3 Cancer productus Red Rock Crab 0 0 1 10 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 Hemigrapsus Hairy Shore 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 oregonensis Crab Pagurus sp. Hermit Crab 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Unidentified Decorator Crab 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 decorator crab Balanus glandula Acorn Barnacle 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pandalus danae Coonstripe 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Shrimp Unidentified 0 0 1 3 17 0 0 0 10 0 0 shrimp Parastichopus California Sea 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 californicus Cucumber Pycnopodia Sunflower Star 0 1 37 3 12 2 5 5 3 11 11 helianthoides Pisaster Ochre Star 4 9 4 11 5 0 1 1 10 30 89 ochraceus Pisaster Giant Pink Star 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 brevispinus Solaster sp. Sunstar 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dermasterias Leather Star 1 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 1 4 6 imbricata Unidentified Sea 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Star Ophiodon Lingcod 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 elongates

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.13 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Scientific Common Transect Name Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Embiotoca Striped Perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 lateralis Brachyistius Kelp Perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 1 frenatus Cymatogaster Shiner Perch 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 aggregata Rhacochilis vacca Pile Perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 Stichaeidae mostly Snake Prickleback 65 52 56 94 124 74 95 169 19 0 0 (Lumpensus sagita) Pleuronectidae Flatfish 8 4 4 3 6 20 12 6 6 0 0 Cottidae Sculpin 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unidentified Fish 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 Metridium Giant Plumose 52 60 30 14 4 29 95 51 11 1 0 farcimen Anemone Unidentified 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 anemone Ptilosarcus Orange Sea Pen 105 128 10 14 140 112 67 87 22 0 0 gurneyi Hydroids 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Armina Striped 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 25 californica Nudibranch Unidentified 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nudibranch Unidentified 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 bivalve Unidentified 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tunicate

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.14 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

5.3.1 Substrate Type

Video of the subtidal transects revealed relatively uniform substrate across the survey area. The substrate observed consisted almost entirely of soft bottom (silt, mud, sand) with traces of broken shells and wood debris in areas. The sheltered wave effect of Burrard Inlet and the input from several rivers/streams in the area has resulted in the deposition of large amounts of organic debris in that area. Shallow areas near the beach to the north and south of the existing terminal were sandy with some gravels and small cobbles. A section of rip rap exists along the shoreline which has been installed to reinforce marine infrastructure and prevent bank erosion. This altered area along the shoreline represents the only observation of rocky features within the study area. Figure 5.2 provides a summary of substrate types and locations within the study area.

5.3.2 Algae

Shallow subtidal areas within the survey area exhibited a community of algae of relatively low diversity. The majority of algal diversity occurred in the areas of rip rap, which supported substantially higher numbers of species and densities. This survey was conducted in September towards the end of the growing season and is considered to be an accurate measure of marine vegetation in the area. Algal abundance declined moving away from the shore due to the decrease in available rocky substrate as well as a decrease in light with increasing depth. Brown bladed algae (Laminaria spp.) were the dominant algal species in the survey area, while sea lettuce (Ulva spp.) was the most abundant green algae. Filamentous red algae were observed throughout the shallow areas of rip rap along the shoreline adjacent to the existing Terminal. Lower densities of rockweed (Fucus gardneri) and wireweed (Sargassum muticum) were observed in shallow rocky areas. Figure 5.3 provides a summary of algal types (by phylum) and their locations within the survey area.

5.3.3 Invertebrates

Several species of crabs were observed throughout the study area. Dungeness crabs were very abundant and red rock crabs moderately abundant. Dungeness were observed primarily on soft bottom whereas red rock crabs were more frequently observed in rocky areas. Low abundances of hermit crabs (Pagurus spp.), decorator crabs and shore crabs (Hemigrapsus spp.) were also observed. Coonstripe shrimp (Pandalus danae) were observed in low abundance on soft bottom and rocky habitats as well as on wharf pilings. Figure 5.4 provides a summary of crab and shrimp species observed and their locations within the survey area.

Several other species of invertebrates were observed in high abundance including sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) and giant plumose anemones (Metridium farcimen). Sea pens were observed exclusively on soft bottom and the giant plumose anemones were observed on both soft bottom and rocky substrates. Nudibranchs, sea cucumbers, tunicates, bryozoans, hydroids and barnacles were observed in low abundance on both soft and rocky substrates.

Several species of sea stars were observed throughout the study area. Sunflower stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides) and ochre stars (Pisaster ochraceus) were very abundant, leather stars (Dermasterias imbricata) moderately abundant, and morning sunstars (Solaster dawsoni) and giant pink stars (Pisaster brevispinus) were observed in low abundance. One unidentifiable sea star species was likely a rainbow star (Orthasterias koehleri). Sea stars were observed on all substrate types.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.15 MARINE RESOURCES

RESULTS OF FIELD DATA COLLECTION December 2013

Invertebrate species richness was highest in the rip rap sections of the study area. This higher species diversity is likely correlated with the fact that it is in shallow, well-lit regions that support good algal growth and rocky, rugged terrain that provides adequate attachment opportunity for organisms, and abundant interstitial spaces for shelter.

There were a number of commercially important invertebrate species observed in the survey area. Dungeness crab were considered to be very abundant and red rock crab (Cancer productus) moderately abundant. Coonstripe shrimp, California sea cucumbers (Parastichopus californicus) and several species of bivalves were present at low to very low abundance in the survey area. Figure 5.5 provides a summary of invertebrate species observed and their locations within the survey area.

5.3.4 Fish

Several species of fish were observed throughout the survey site. Demersal fish of the family Stichaeidae (mostly snake pricklebacks - Lumpensus sagita) and various flatfish (Pleuronectidae) were very abundant on soft bottom habitat. Based on the known distributions and habitat requirements of flatfish in BC, it is likely that the observed flatfish included English sole (Parophrys vetulus), rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineta) and starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus). Other fish similar to Stichaeidae that were likely to be present include gobbies (Gobiidae) and ronquils (Bathymasteridae).

Shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata), pile perch (Rhacochilis vacca) and kelp perch (Brachyistius frenatus) were moderately abundant in the shallow rip rap sections and around pilings. Striped perch (Embiotoca lateralis) were observed in low abundance. Two sculpin (Cottidae) were observed on soft bottom and two lingcod in rip rap sections. Poor visibility and fleeting glimpses of several small, likely juvenile fish, prevented their accurate identification.

Flatfish of the family Pleuronectidae were the most abundant commercially and/or recreationally important fish species observed in the survey area. Very low numbers of lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) and no rockfish (Sebastes spp.) were observed. Figure 5.6 provides a summary of invertebrate species observed and their locations within the survey area.

5.3.5 Summary

The majority of the survey area consisted of soft bottom habitat that was populated by flatfish (Pleuronectidae), pricklebacks (Stichaeidae), Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister), sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi), and plumose anemones (Metridium farcimen). Algal diversity and density was low in this habitat. Red rock crabs, California sea cucumbers, sunflower stars, ochre stars, leather stars and coonstripe shrimp were observed on both soft bottom and rip rap. Rocky habitat (rip rap) represented only a small portion of the survey area but supported a greater diversity of flora and fauna compared to soft bottom. Lingcod and most of the perch species observed were found in the shallow rocky sections.

5.4 Marine Mammals

No marine mammal field work was conducted for the Project, as available information suggests that aside from harbour seals, marine mammal diversity and abundance in Burrard Inlet is low.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 5.16 MARINE RESOURCES

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS December 2013

6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal will involve the construction of three new loading berths capable of handling Aframax-sized tankers, two trestles, and a utility dock for small tugs and workboats. It will also involve the demolition of the existing berth. The new structures will be supported by steel pipe piles driven into the marine sediment and rock-socketed into the underlying bedrock. A small amount of dredging may be required around the berth faces to provide underkeel clearance; however, no underwater blasting is required. Due to the limited space available at the foreshore, some marine reclamation (i.e., infilling) will be required along the shoreline to accommodate new onshore infrastructure.

Construction and demolition activities associated with the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal have the potential to directly and indirectly affect marine resources through: alteration or loss of marine fish habitat; change in productive capacity of marine fish habitat; injury or mortality to marine fish and marine mammals; and sensory disturbance to marine mammals.

Potential adverse effects to marine riparian habitat, intertidal habitat and subtidal habitat will be reduced by limiting the spatial extent of construction to what is absolutely necessary for Project construction. This includes minimizing the area of riparian clearing, minimizing the footprint of infilling, and minimizing the number of piles installed to support the new trestles and berths. Where the loss or permanent alteration of marine fish habitat cannot be avoided, a habitat compensation/offset program will be implemented to ensure there is no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitat. A detailed marine fish habitat compensation/offset plan will be developed during the permitting phase of the Project (i.e., post-regulatory review). This plan will quantify the amount of marine fish habitat affected by Terminal construction (based on final engineering and design plans), identify and describe the compensation/offset measures that will be implemented to offset the effects to marine fish habitat (e.g., creation of new habitats or enhancement/restoration of existing habitats), and discuss how the compensation/offset measures will ensure there is no net loss of productive capacity. The plan will also present a habitat effectiveness monitoring program that will be conducted to ensure the compensation/offset measures are successful.

Due to the time required for pile installation (anticipated 2 years), it will not be possible to schedule this activity during the DFO least-risk window. However, additional mitigation measures will be applied during pile installation to minimize, if not eliminate, potential injury or mortality to marine fish and marine mammals. Noise levels produced during pile driving are highly variable and situation-specific;

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 6.1 MARINE RESOURCES

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS December 2013

however, use of a vibratory driver generally produces sound pressure levels that are roughly 25 dB lower, on average, than those produced by an impact hammer in a comparable setting and vibratory drivers do not produce the high impulse signatures of impact pile driving (Illinworth and Rodkin 2007, McCauley and Salgado Kent 2008). The preferred pile installation method is therefore vibratory driver, for its decreased noise production.

Where a vibratory driver cannot be used due to engineering constraints (e.g., unfavourable substrate conditions), an impact hammer will likely be used. If an impact or hydraulic hammer is required for pile installation, Trans Mountain will implement several mitigation measures when driving the piles. These recommendations are in accordance with Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations (BMPs) for driving steel pipe piles with a diameter greater than 61 cm (24 inches). The BMPs were developed by the BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association (2003) to minimize effects to fish habitat.

Bubble curtains will be deployed over the full length of the wetted pile to assist in attenuating sound levels. While there are a variety of styles of bubble curtains, they all rely on the same basic principle: surrounding the pile with air assists in attenuating the noise produced during impact. When designed and used effectively, bubble curtains have generally been shown to provide a reduction in sound pressure levels of between 10 and 15 dB (Illinworth and Rodkin 2007). Actual attenuation values will vary depending on factors such as design of the bubble curtain, installation, current velocity, water depth, and substrate type (Koschinski 2011). Should use of a vibratory driver not be technically feasible, details concerning appropriate type and usage of bubble curtains will be discussed with DFO.

A hydrophone will be used to monitor pressure levels during pile-driving, so as to reduce potential fish injury or mortality. This hydrophone will also be monitored at the onset of pile-driving to confirm the assumptions concerning source levels, potential exceedance of marine mammal auditory injury levels, and effectiveness of mitigations.

A marine mammal monitoring program will also be implemented to enforce a pre-determined exclusion zone during pile driving operations. The area of the exclusion zone (generally set at 500 m from the sound source) will be confirmed through discussion with DFO, and may involve acoustic modelling if deemed necessary. Trained observers will monitor the Marine Resources LSA and surrounding waters for all marine mammals during loud underwater construction activities. Pile driving will only occur during daylight hours to ensure that marine mammals can be seen if they approach or enter the exclusion zone. If cetaceans or species at risk are detected within the exclusion zone, the underwater construction activity will be immediately stopped until the marine mammal has been observed to exit the exclusion zone, or has not been re-sighted for 30 minutes.

6.1 Supplemental Studies

No supplemental studies are considered necessary at this time.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 6.2 MARINE RESOURCES

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS December 2013

6.2 General Recommendations

The potential effects on marine resource indicators associated with construction and operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal listed in Table 6.1 were identified based on the results of the literature review, desktop analysis, field surveys, consultation with regulatory authorities and stakeholders and the professional judgment of the discipline experts.

A summary of recommended mitigation measures provided in Table 6.1 was principally developed in accordance with federal regulatory policies and guidelines including the DFO Fisheries Protection Policy (DFO 2013a), industry best management practices including the Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations (BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association 2003), as well as in accordance with Trans Mountain standards. Through the implementation of these measures, potential adverse effects on marine fish and fish habitat and marine mammals will be minimized.

Table 6.1: Potential Effects and Recommended Mitigation Measures for Marine Resources - Westridge Marine Terminal

Spatial Potential Effect Indicator(s) Boundary1 Recommendations/Mitigation Measures2 Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Loss of marine fish • Marine riparian Footprint • Limit the area of shoreline clearing, marine infilling habitat due to habitat and dredging to what is absolutely necessary for construction activities. • Intertidal habitat Project construction. • Implement a marine fish habitat • Subtidal habitat compensation/offset program to ensure there is no net loss of the productive capacity of marine fish habitats. Decrease in productive • Dungeness crab LSA • Limit the area of shoreline clearing, marine infilling capacity of marine fish • Inshore rockfish and dredging to what is absolutely necessary for habitat due to Project construction. construction activities. • Pacific salmon • Reduce the risk of sedimentation into areas of fish habitat by properly installing appropriate terrestrial erosion and sediment control measures and marine sediment/turbidity control measures, as required. • Implement a marine fish habitat compensation/offset program to ensure there is no net loss of the productive capacity of marine fish habitats.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 6.3 MARINE RESOURCES

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS December 2013

Spatial Potential Effect Indicator(s) Boundary1 Recommendations/Mitigation Measures2 Injury or mortality to • Dungeness crab LSA • Limit the area of marine infilling and dredging to marine fish during • Inshore rockfish what is absolutely necessary for Project construction. construction activities. • Prior to the commencement of marine infilling and • Pacific salmon dredging, implement a crab salvage program to trap and relocate Dungeness crabs away from construction areas. • Conduct marine infilling and dredging during the DFO least-risk timing window for Burrard Inlet (August 16-February 28) to minimize the potential for injury or mortality to sensitive life stages of marine fish and invertebrates. If this becomes impractical, timing will be determined in consultation with DFO. • Reduce the risk of sedimentation into areas of fish habitat by properly installing appropriate terrestrial erosion and sediment control measures and marine sediment/turbidity control measures, as required. • Use a vibratory method of pile installation, where possible. • Deploy bubble curtains during pile installation to reduce underwater noise levels where an impact hammer is required for pile installation. Marine Mammals Permanent or • Harbour seal LSA • Use a vibratory method of pile installation, where temporary auditory possible. injury to marine • Deploy bubble curtains during pile installation to mammals during loud reduce underwater noise levels where an impact underwater hammer is required for pile installation. construction activities. • Monitor the Marine Resources LSA and surrounding waters for all marine mammals and temporarily stop loud underwater construction activities if cetaceans or species at risk are detected within a pre-determined exclusion zone. Sensory disturbance to • Harbour seal RSA • Use a vibratory method of pile installation, where marine mammals possible. during loud • Deploy bubble curtains during pile installation to underwater reduce underwater noise levels where an impact construction activities. hammer is required for pile installation. Notes: 1 LSA = Marine Resources LSA; RSA = Marine RSA. 2 Detailed mitigation measures are outlined in the Westridge Marine Terminal EPP (Volume 6D).

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 6.4 MARINE RESOURCES

SUMMARY December 2013

7.0 SUMMARY

• Burrard Inlet is approximately 50 km in length and ranges from 0.5-3 km in width. It includes over 11,000 ha of water and seabed, 190 km of shoreline, and a drainage basin of 98,000 ha. • Maximum water depth in Burrard Inlet is approximately 220 m, which is found in the deep basin of Indian Arm. English Bay and the Harbour are shallower, with typical water depths of 25-35 m and a maximum depth of approximately 65 m. The mean tidal range in the Inlet is 3.3 m. Currents vary according to location, with the highest velocities occurring at locations where the Inlet narrows, constricting water movement. Maximum currents at the First Narrows are on the order of 5.5 knots. • At least 75 species of fish are known to use Burrard Inlet including a number of species targeted in commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries such as all five species of Pacific salmon, Pacific herring, anchovy, lingcod, copper rockfish, quillback rockfish, and kelp greenling. • Marine mammal diversity and abundance in Burrard Inlet is generally considered low. The most abundant and commonly observed species by far is the Pacific harbour seal, which is resident within the Inlet and throughout the coastal waters of BC. • Three marine fish habitats, two marine finfish, one marine invertebrate and one marine mammal were selected as indicators for the assessment of Project-related effects associated with construction and operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal. These are: marine riparian habitat; intertidal habitat; subtidal habitat; Pacific salmon; inshore rockfish; Dungeness crabs; and harbour seal. • Marine riparian, intertidal, and subtidal habitats are used by marine fish and invertebrates for spawning, rearing, migration, and foraging. • The total length of shoreline in the Marine Resources LSA is 2.34 km. ‘Man-made’ is the most common shore type, covering 1.04 km and 44.5% of the total shoreline. The total length of shoreline in the Marine RSA is 157.5 km. ‘Man-made’ is also the most common shore type, covering 53.5 km and 33.9% of the total shoreline. Subtidal habitats of Burrard Inlet are dominated by soft, muddy substrates. • Adult Pacific salmon have been observed to return to at least 17 streams in Burrard Inlet, 12 of which are located in the Marine RSA. Four populations of Pacific salmon have been designated as species of conservation concern by COSEWIC, however, none of these populations spawn in streams entering Burrard Inlet. Burrard Inlet has been identified as a DFO Important Area for Pacific salmon which overlaps with the Marine RSA. • Quillback rockfish and copper rockfish are the most likely rockfish species to occur in Burrard Inlet. The quillback rockfish has been designated as Special Concern by COSEWIC but is not currently listed under SARA. The copper rockfish has not been identified as a species of conservation concern. • Three Rockfish Conservation Areas overlap with the Marine RSA including Indian Arm – Crocker Island RCA, Indian Arm – Twin Islands RCA, and Eastern Burrard Inlet RCA. The Marine Resources LSA overlaps with the Eastern Burrard Inlet RCA. • Dungeness crabs are common in Burrard Inlet and are expected to occur within the Marine Resources LSA and Marine RSA throughout the year. Several areas in eastern Burrard Inlet have been identified as DFO Important Areas for Dungeness crab, one of which overlaps with the Marine Resources LSA.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 7.1 MARINE RESOURCES

SUMMARY December 2013

• Harbour seals use both aquatic and terrestrial environments and do not migrate but instead reside in BC’s coastal waters and inlets year-round. They are likely the most commonly-sighted marine mammal in BC and prefer nearshore habitats including sounds, inlets, straits, marinas and harbours; they have also been known to occur in river estuaries. Terrestrial haul out sites are used for resting, mating and pupping, and include isolated rocks or islets, sandbars, log booms, and recreational floats. • Over the years, there have been occasional but rare sightings in Burrard Inlet and nearby waters of other marine mammal species such as Steller and California sea lions, northern fur seal and harbour porpoise, killer whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin, false killer whale, grey whale, humpback whale and minke whale, though their use of this habitat is limited. • A survey of marine riparian habitat in the Marine Resources LSA was conducted on September 26, 2012. Riparian habitats have been extensively modified by historical development activities, including the original construction of the Westridge Marine Terminal in 1954. Riparian vegetation at the Westridge Marine Terminal is limited to a narrow fringe of small shrubs and low growing vegetation. Second-growth deciduous trees are found to the north and south of the Westridge Marine Terminal, along the shoreline adjacent to the CN rail line. A total of 38 vascular plant species were identified during the survey. • A survey of intertidal habitat in the Marine Resources LSA was conducted from August 18 to 19, 2012. The intertidal zone is dominated by coarse substrate types, particularly boulder and cobble rip rap. Two shore types were identified in the intertidal zone including man-made rock ramps and rock cliffs. A total of 17 marine invertebrate species and 8 marine algae species were identified. The most common sessile invertebrate species were common acorn barnacles and blue mussels, and the most common motile invertebrate species were periwinkles and limpets. The most common algae species were rockweed, Turkish washcloth and green ribbon. • A camera-mounted remotely operated vehicle was used to survey subtidal habitat in the Marine Resources LSA from September 17 to 20, 2012. The substrate observed consisted almost entirely of soft bottom (silt, mud, sand) with traces of broken shells and wood debris. A small section of steeply-sloping rip-rap was identified inshore of the existing berth. A total of 32 species of fish and invertebrates were observed. Brown bladed algae were the dominant algal species in the survey area. Dungeness crabs were very abundant and red rock crabs were moderately abundant. Demersal fish of the family Stichaeidae and various flatfish were very abundant on soft bottom habitat. Shiner perch, pile perch and kelp perch were moderately abundant in the shallow rip-rap and around pilings. • No marine mammal field work was conducted for the Project, as available information suggests that aside from harbour seals, marine mammal diversity and abundance in Burrard Inlet is low. • Key issues for marine resources were identified through engagement with Aboriginal communities and consultation with federal regulatory authorities (e.g., DFO), and stakeholders. • Construction activities associated with the expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal have the potential to directly and indirectly affect marine resources through: alteration or loss of marine fish habitat; change in productive capacity of marine fish habitat; injury or mortality to marine fish and marine mammals; and sensory disturbance to marine mammals. • Potential adverse effects to marine riparian habitat, intertidal habitat and subtidal habitat will be reduced by limiting the spatial extent of construction to what is absolutely necessary for Project construction. Where the loss or permanent alteration of marine fish habitat cannot be avoided, a habitat compensation/offset program will be implemented to ensure there is no net loss of the productive capacity of fish habitat.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 7.2 MARINE RESOURCES

SUMMARY December 2013

• To minimize the potential for injury or mortality to marine fish, dredging and infilling will be scheduled within the DFO least-risk work window for Burrard Inlet, which is from August 16 to February 28. If this becomes impractical, timing will be determined in consultation with DFO. In addition, a crab salvage program will be implemented within the dredge and fill footprint to reduce potential injury or mortality to Dungeness crabs. • To minimize the potential for injury or mortality to marine fish and marine mammals due to underwater noise produced during pile driving, a vibratory method of pile installation, which produces lower sound pressure levels, will be used wherever technically feasible. If an impact hammer is required, bubble curtains will be deployed over the full length of the wetted pile to assist in attenuating sound levels. A hydrophone will be used to monitor pressure levels during pile driving, so as to reduce potential fish injury or mortality. This hydrophone will also be monitored at the onset of pile driving to confirm the assumptions concerning source levels, potential exceedance of marine mammal auditory injury levels, and effectiveness of mitigations. A marine mammal monitoring program will also be implemented to enforce a pre-determined exclusion zone during pile driving operations.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 7.3 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

8.0 REFERENCES

8.1 Literature Cited

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. 2013. Copper rockfish. National Marine Fisheries Service. Website: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Rockfish-Game/description/copper.htm#. Accessed: May 2013.

Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, in Canada. The Canadian Field Naturalist 115:663-675.

BC Cetacean Sightings Network. 2013. Marine Mammal Sightings Data from 1975-2013. Data received: April 2013.

BC Marine Conservation Analysis. 2009. Physical Representation - Benthic Classes. BC Marine Conservation Analysis Atlas. Website: http://bcmca.ca/datafeatures/eco_physical_benthicclasses/. Accessed: May 2013.

BC Marine Conservation Analysis. 2010. Marine Mammals – Harbour Seal Distribution. BC Marine Conservation Analysis Atlas. Website: http://bcmca.ca/datafiles/individualfiles/bcmca_eco_mammals_harboursealdist_atlas.pdf. Accessed: February 2013.

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

BC Ministry of the Environment. 2013. Habitat Wizard Stream Reports. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habwiz/. Accessed: February 2013.

BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2005. Repetitive Shore Type – Line, Shorezone (Theme). Coastal Resource Information System. Website: http://webmaps.gov.bc.ca/imf5/imf.jsp?site=dss_coastal. Accessed: May 2013.

Beacham, T.D., R.E. Withler, C.B. Murray, and L.W. Barner. 1988. Variation in body size, morphology, egg size, and biochemical genetics of pink salmon in British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:109-126.

Bigg, M.A. 1981. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, 1758 and Phoca largha Pallas, 1811. Pp. 1-27 in Handbook of Marine Mammals Volume 2 Seals. Ridgway, SH and Harrison, RJ. (Eds.). Academic Press.

Brennan, J.S. and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program. Seattle, WA. 34 pp.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.1 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Burd, B.J., Barnes, P.A.G., Wright, C.A., and Thomson, R.E. 2008. A review of subtidal benthic habitats and invertebrate biota of the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Marine Environmental Research 66:S3-S38.

Burd, B.J and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1990. Vancouver Harbour and Burrard Inlet Benthic Infaunal Sampling Program, October 1987. Canadian Technical Report of Hydrography and Ocean Sciences No. 122. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Sidney, BC.

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program. 2011. Consolidated Environmental Management Plan for Burrard Inlet. Updated 2011. Website: http://www.bieapfremp.org/pdf/burrard_inlet_2011_cemp_web_use.pdf. Accessed: May 2013.

Clarke, C.L., and G.S. Jamieson. 2006. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area: Phase I – Identification of Important Areas. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2678. vi + 89 pp.

Cohen, B.I. 2012. The Uncertain Future of Fraser River Sockeye Volume 2 – Causes of Decline. Final Report - October 2012, Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Ottawa, ON. Website: http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/FinalReport/. Accessed: May 2013.

Committee on Taxonomy. 2012. List of marine mammal species and subspecies. Website: www.marinemammalscience.org. Accessed: May 2012.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch (Interior Fraser population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 34 pp. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2003a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Sakinaw population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 35 pp. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2003b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka (Cultus population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 57 pp. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Okanagan population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 41 pp. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.2 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 71 pp. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2011. Status of Harbour seal, Pacific subspecies - Last examination and change April 1999. Website: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/. Accessed: May 2013.

Department of Justice Canada. 1993. Marine Mammal Regulations (SOR/93-56) SOR/93-56.

Druehl, L. 2000. Pacific Seaweeds. Harbour Publishing. Madeira Park, BC.

Druehl, L.D. and S.I.C. Hsiao. 1977. Intertidal kelp response to seasonal environmental changes in a British Columbia Inlet. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34(8):1207-1211.

Environment Canada. 1997. A marine ecological classification system for Canada. Environment Canada. Lee E. Harding (Ed.). Marine Environment Quality Advisory Group.

Fader, G.B.J., R.A. Pickrill, B.J. Todd, R.C. Courtney and D. R. Parrott. 1998. The Emerging Role of Marine Geology in Benthic Ecology. In DFO. 1998. Science Review 1996 and 1997. Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Gulf Fisheries Centre, the Halifax Fisheries Research Laboratory, and the St. Andrews Biological Station.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1999. Inner South Coast Chum Salmon. DFO Science Stock Status Report D6-09 (1999). Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2000. Dungeness Crab, Coastal Fisheries, Areas B, E, G, H, I, and J. DFO Science Stock Status Report C6-14 (2000). Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2001a. Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat. Communications Directorate, Fish Habitat Management Branch. Ottawa, ON. 28 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2001b. Fish Stocks of the Pacific Coast. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 152 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2002. Toward an Inshore Rockfish Conservation Plan. A Structure for Continued Consultation. Website: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/fisheries- peche/ground-fond/intdial/consstrat/index-eng.htm. Accessed: May 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2004. DFO Marine Fish Habitat Information Requirements for Finfish Aquaculture Projects. Marine Environment and Habitat Management Division. Ottawa, ON. 52 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2006. Rockfish Conservation Areas - Protecting British Columbia's Rockfish. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region. Website: http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/rca-acs/booklet-livret/index-eng.htm. Accessed: May 2013.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.3 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007. Interim Marine Habitat Information Requirements. Marine Environment and Habitat Management Division. Ottawa, ON.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010a. Practitioners Guide to Risk Management Framework for DFO Habitat Management Staff. Version 1.0. Ottawa, ON. 22 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010b. Population Assessment Pacific Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi). DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2009/011.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010c. 2010 Canadian Marine Ecosystem Status and Trends Report. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2010/030 (Revised).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2011a. Interim Guide to Information Requirements for Environmental Assessment of Marine Finfish Aquaculture Projects. Website: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/ref/AAPceaafin-eng.htm. Accessed: February 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2011b. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, Groundfish, February 21, 2011 to February 20, 2013. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region. Website: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/ifmp-eng.htm. Accessed: May 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012a. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan: Crab by Trap, January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012b. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan: Salmon, Southern BC June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2012. Website: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/Library/346918.pdf. Accessed: February 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012c. Stock Assessment and Recovery Potential Assessment for Quillback Rockfish (Sebastes Maliger) Along the Pacific Coast of Canada. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2011/072.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013a. Fisheries Protection Policy Statement. Available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pol/index-eng.html. Accessed: October 2013

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013b. Science Advice to Support Development of a Fisheries Protection Policy for Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report 2012/063

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013c. Evaluation of proposed ecologically and biologically significant areas in marine waters of British Columbia. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2012/075.

Fong, K.H. and G.E. Gillespie. 2008. Abundance-Based Index Assessment Options for Dungeness Crab, (Cancer magister) and Spot Prawn, (Pandalus platyceros). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2008/049. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Nanaimo, BC.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.4 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Gardner, J. 2009. First Nations and Marine Protected Areas Discussion Paper. Prepared for Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Vancouver, BC.

Grant, S.C.H. and B.L. MacDonald. 2011. Pre-season run size forecasts for Fraser River Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and Pink (O. gorbuscha) Salmon in 2011. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2011/134.

Haggarty, D.R. 2001. An evaluation of fish habitat in Burrard Inlet, British Columbia. M.Sc. Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 161 pp.

Hanrahan, C. 1994. Wildlife inventory of the shoreline park system, Port Moody, BC. Burke Mountain Naturalists.

Harbo, R. 2011. Whelks to Whales: Coastal Marine Life of the Pacific Northwest. Harbour Publishing. Madeira Park, BC.

Hard, J.J., R.G. Kope, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, L.T. Parker and R.S. Waples. 1996. Status Review of Pink Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. US Department of Commerce, Seattle, Washington.

Hart, J.L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Healey, M.C. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaimo River estuary by juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Fishery Bulletin 77(3):653-668.

Heard, W.R. 1991. Life History of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Pp. 120-230 in Pacific Salmon Life Histories. Groot, C. and Margolis L (Eds.). UBC Press, Vancouver.

Henderson, M.A. and Graham, C.C. 1998. History and current status of Pacific salmon in British Columbia. North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin 1:13-22.

Holtby, L.B. and K.A. Ciruna. 2007. Conservation Units for Pacific Salmon under the Wild Salmon Policy. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2007/070. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Sidney, BC. 350 pp.

Howes, D., J. Harper and E. Owens. 1994. Physical Shore-Zone Mapping System for British Columbia. Website: http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/coastal/pysshore/index.htm. Accessed: February 2013.

Howes, D.E., M.A. Zacharias and J.R. Harper. 1997. British Columbia Marine Ecological Classification: Marine Ecosections and Ecounits. Prepared for The Resource Inventory Committee Coastal Task Force. Website: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/cis/coastal/mris/mec.htm. Accessed: February 2013.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.5 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Humphreys, R.D. and A.S. Hourston. 1978. British Columbia Herring Spawn Deposition Survey Manual. Fisheries and Marine Service Miscellaneous Special Publication No. 38. 40 pp.

Illinworth & Rodkin. 2007. Compendium of Pile Driving Sound Data. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. Petaluma, CA. 129 pp

Jacques Whitford Ltd. 2006. Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement Project First Nations Interests. Prepared for the British Columbia Transmission Corporation. Burnaby, BC.

Jamieson, G. and C. Levesque. 2012a. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the Strait of Georgia and off the West Coast of Vancouver Island: Phase I – Identification of Important Areas. CSAP Working Paper 2012/P51.

Jamieson, G. and C. Levesque. 2012b. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas on the West Coast of Vancouver Island and the Strait of Georgia Ecoregions, and in some Nearshore Areas on the North Coast: Phase II – Designation of EBSAs. CSAP Working Paper 2012/P58.

Koschinski, S. 2011. Underwater noise pollution from munitions clearance and disposal, possible effects on marine vertebrates, and its mitigation. Marine Technology Society Journal 45(6):80-88.

Lamb, A. and B.P. Hanby. 2005. Marine Life of the Pacific Northwest: A Photographic Encyclopedia of Invertebrates, Seaweeds and Selected Fishes. Harbour Publishing. Madeira Park, BC.

Lamb, A. and P. Edgell. 2010. Coastal Fishes of the Pacific Northwest. Harbour Publishing Co. Ltd. Madeira, BC.

Lemieux, J.P., Brennan, J.S., Farrell, M., Levings, C.D., and Myers, D. (Eds.). 2004. Proceedings of the DFO/PSAT sponsored Marine Riparian Experts Workshop, Tsawwassen, BC, February 17-18, 2004. Canadian Manuscript Reports of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2680. ix + 84 p.

Levings, C. and G. Jamieson. 2001. Marine and Estuarine Riparian Habitats and Their Role in Coastal Ecosystem, Pacific Region. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2001/109. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 41 pp.

Levings, C.D., R.E. Foreman and V.J. Tunnicliffe. 1983. Review of the benthos of the Strait of Georgia and contiguous fjords. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1120-1141.

Levings, C.D. and Thom, R.M. 1994. Habitat Changes in Georgia Basin: Implications for Resource Management and Restoration in Review of the Marine Environment and Biota of Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca Strait: Proceedings of the BC/Washington Symposium on the Marine Environment, January 13 and 14, 1994. R.C.H. Wilson, R.J. Beamish, F. Aitkens and J. Bell (Eds.). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1948.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.6 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Levy, D.A. 1996. Juvenile salmon utilization of Burrard Inlet foreshore habitats. Prepared for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. New Westminster, BC.

Lindenmayer, D.B., C.R. Margules and D.B. Botkin. 2010. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14(4):941-950.

Love, M.S., M. Yaklovich and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 414 pp.

Macdonald, J.S. and B.D. Chang. 1993. Seasonal use by fish of nearshore areas in an urbanized inlet in Southwestern British Columbia. Northwest Science 67:63-77.

MacKay, D.C.G. 1942. The Pacific edible crab, Cancer magister. No. 62. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 32 pp.

Marine Mammal Research Unit. 2012. Open Water Research Station – Sea Lion Research. Question from Jennifer: Have you ever had wild sea lions or other wild animals come visit the lab? Website: http://www.sealionresearch.org/2012/03/question-from-jennifer-have-you-ever-had-wild-sea- lions-or-other-wild-animals-come-visit-the-lab/. Accessed: May, 2013.

McCauley, R. and C. Salgado Kent. 2008. Pile Driving Underwater Noise Assessment, Proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Development. Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtain University, Perth.

McLaren, I.A. 1993. Growth in pinnipeds. Biological Review 68:1-79.

Naito, B.G. and J. Hwang. 2000. Distribution of Juvenile Salmonids in Burrard Inlet: February to August 1992. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1069.

National Energy Board. 2013. NEB Filing Manual. Inclusive of Release 2013-03 (August 2013). Calgary, AB.

Nelson, T. and J.R. Waaland 1997. Seasonality of eelgrass, epiphyte and grazer biomass and productivity in subtidal eelgrass meadows subjected to moderate tidal amplitude. Aquatic Botany 56:51-74.

Nijman, R.A. 1990. Coquitlam-Pitt River area, Burrard Inlet water quality assessment and objectives. Ministry of Environment, Canada. Water Management Division. Website: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/objectives/burrard/burrard.html#figure1. Accessed: February 2013.

Northcote, T.G., and Larkin, P.A. 1989. The Fraser River: A major salmonine production system. Pp. 172- 204 in Proceedings of the Large River Symposium. D.P. Dodge. (Ed). Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatics Science 106: 172-204.

Olesiuk, P.F. 1993. Annual prey consumption by harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Fishery Bulletin 91:491-515.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.7 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Parks Canada. 2009. Proposed Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve Atlas.

Penttila, D.E. 1997. Investigation of intertidal spawning habitats of surf smelt and Pacific sand lance in Puget Sound, Washington. Pp. 395-407 in Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems, American Fisheries Society. Lowell Lakefield Fisheries Symposium No. 14.

Penttila, D. 2002. Effects of shading upland vegetation on egg survival for summer-spawning surf smelt on upper intertidal beaches in Puget Sound. P. 9 in Puget Sound Research 2001 Conference Proceedings, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Olympia, Washington.

Phillips, C.D., Bickham, J.W., Patton, J.C. and Gelatt, T.S. 2009. Systematics of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus): subspecies recognition based on concordance of genetics and morphometrics. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 283: 1-15.

Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of Coastal British Columbia, including Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, BC.

Renyard, T.S. 1988. The fishes of Burrard Inlet. Discovery 17:126-129.

Richoux, N.B., C.D. Levings, L. Lu and G.E. Piercey. 2006. Preliminary Survey of Indigenous, non- indigenous and Cryptogenic Benthic Invertebrates in Burrard Inlet, Vancouver, British Columbia. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1183. 20 pp.

Robards, M.D., J.F. Piatt and G.A. Rose. 1999. Maturation, fecundity, and intertidal spawning of Pacific sand lance in the northern Gulf of Alaska. Journal of Fish Biology 54:1050-1068.

Searing, G.F. and H.R. Frith. 1997. British Columbia Biological Shore-Zone Mapping System. Resource Information Standards Committee, Province of British Columbia. Website: http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/coastal/bioshore/index.htm. Accessed: May 2013.

Simenstad, C.A., Miller, B.S., Cross, J.N., Fresh, K.L., Steinfort, S.N., and Fegley, J.C. 1977. Nearshore Fish and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages Along the Strait of Juan de Fuca Including Food Habits of Nearshore Fish. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

Simenstad, C.A., Garono, R.J., Labbe, T., Mortimer, A.C., Robinson, R., Weller, C., Todd, S., Toft, J., Burke, J., Finlayson, D., Coyle, J., Logsdon, M., and Russell, C. 2008. Assessment of Intertidal Eelgrass Habitat Landscapes for Threatened Salmon in the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait Juan de Fuca, Washington State. Point No Point Treaty Council Technical Report 08-1.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2009. Burrard Inlet Shoreline Change – Baseline Assessment. Report prepared for Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.8 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2010a. Long Term Monitoring Program – 2008 Report. Foreshore Environment. Westridge Hydrocarbon Accidental Release. Prepared for Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2010b. Long Term Monitoring Program – 2009 Report. Foreshore Environment. Westridge Hydrocarbon Accidental Release. Prepared for Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2011. Long Term Monitoring Program – 2010 Report. Foreshore Environment. Westridge Hydrocarbon Accidental Release. Prepared for Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2012a. Long Term Monitoring Program – 2012 Report. Foreshore Environment. Westridge Hydrocarbon Accidental Release. Prepared for Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2012b. Long Term Monitoring Program – 2011 Report. Foreshore Environment. Westridge Hydrocarbon Accidental Release. Prepared for Kinder Morgan Canada Inc.

Todd, B.J. and V.E. Kostylev. 2010. Surficial geology and benthic habitat of the German Bank seabed, Scotian Shelf, Canada. Continental Shelf Research 31(2) Suppl. 1:S54-S68.

Williams, G.L. 1993. Coastal/estuarine Fish Habitat Description and Assessment Manual, Part II, Habitat Description Procedures H. M. D. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Region. Nanaimo, BC.

Wilson, U.W. and J.B. Atkinson. 1995. Black brant winter and spring-stages use at two Washington coastal areas in relation to eelgrass abundance. The Condor 97:91-98.

Wright, D.G. and G.E. Hopky. 1998. Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2107. iv + 34 pp.

Yamanaka, K.L. and L.C. Lacko. 2001. Inshore Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus, S. maliger, S. caurinus, S. melanops, S. nigrocinctus, and S. nebulosus) Stock Assessment for the West Coast of Canada and Recommendations for Management. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2001/139.

Zacharias, M.A., Howes, D.E., Harper, J.R., Wainwright, P. 1998. The British Columbia marine ecosystem classification: rationale, development, and verification. Coastal Management 26, 105-124.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.9 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

8.2 Figure and Mapping References

BC Marine Conservation Analysis. 2009. Physical Representation - Benthic Classes (digital file). BC Marine Conservation Analysis Atlas. Available: http://bcmca.ca/datafeatures/eco_physical_benthicclasses/. Acquired: May 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

BC Marine Conservation Analysis. 2010. Marine Mammals – Harbour Seal Distribution (digital file). BC Marine Conservation Analysis Atlas. Available: http://bcmca.ca/datafiles/individualfiles/bcmca_eco_mammals_harboursealdist_atlas.pdf. Acquired: February 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

BC Ministry of the Environment. 2013. Habitat Wizard Stream Reports. Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habwiz/. Acquired: February 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2005. Repetitive Shore Type – Line, Shorezone (Theme) (digital file). Coastal Resource Information System. Available: http://webmaps.gov.bc.ca/imf5/imf.jsp?site=dss_coastal. Acquired: May 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. BC Parks, Ecological Reserves, and Protected Areas (digital file). Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54259&recordSet=ISO 19115. Acquired: August 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.

CH2M Hill. 2013. Drawing SKT-GA-WT00-CS01 – TMEP Terminal Feed General Layout Civil/Earthworks Westridge Terminal. Received via FTP. Acquired: May 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2008. Rockfish Conservation Areas – Pacific Region (digital file). Available: www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/rca-acs/areas-secteurs/sg-dg-eng.html. Acquired: August 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012a. Dungeness Crab Important Areas (digital file). MAPSTER v3 layer. Available: http://pacgis01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Mapster30/#/SilverMapster. Acquired: September 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012b. Pacific Salmon Important Areas (digital file). MAPSTER v3 layer. Available: http://pacgis01.dfo-po.gc.ca/Mapster30/#/SilverMapster. Acquired: May 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013. Evaluation of proposed ecologically and biologically significant areas in marine waters of British Columbia. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2012/075.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.10 MARINE RESOURCES

REFERENCES December 2013

Geographic Data Discovery Service. 2005. Indian Reserves – National Framework Canada Lands (digital file). Natural Resources Canada. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/printable.do?from=search&edit=true&showall=showal l&recordSet=ISO19115&recordUID=33890. Acquired: June 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

Government of Canada (Canadian Hydrographic Service). 2011. Nautical Chart #3494 (digital file). Vancouver, BC. Acquired: October 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.

I-cubed: Information Integration & Imaging LLC. 2010. Sumas to Burnaby satellite imagery. Provided by Kinder Morgan Canada. Received via FTP. Acquired: October 2012.

Kinder Morgan Canada. 2012. Baseline Routing (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: May 2012.

Moffatt & Nichol. 2012. Existing and Proposed Westridge Water Lease Expansion (shapefiles). Received via FTP. Acquired: September 2012. Last Update Received: October 2013.

Moffatt & Nichol. 2013. Drawing 7773-03-420. TMEP – Westridge Terminal Option D11 General Arrangement. Received via FTP. Acquired: August 2013.

National Hydro Network. 2007. Watercourse layers (digital file). Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nhn/description.html. Acquired: August 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

National Road Network. 2007. British Columbia, Edition 10.0 (digital file). GeoBase, Natural Resources Canada. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/search.do;jsessionid=8AB56BBB06891B0B6840E6FFB5E0 8210.geobase1?produit=nrn&language=en. Acquired: February 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

National Topographic Data Base. 2007. GeoGratis, Natural Resources Canada. Available: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/-/(urn:iso:series)national-topographic-database-ntdb. Acquired: September 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.

Universal Pegasus International. 2013. Rev 6 Routing (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: August 2013.

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx 8.11 MARINE RESOURCES

Appendix AFigures December 2013

Appendix A Figures

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx A.1 502400 502800 503200 503600 504000 ¯

Cates Park

-25 -5 -10 5460800 5460800

-15 -20 -25

-35

-40

5460400 -30 5460400

-25

-20 5460000 5460000

-10 -5 -15 -10

-5

Shell -20 Jetty Existing -15 -10 -5 Loading Berth -5 5459600 5459600

Westridge Kask Bros. Marine Cement Facility Terminal 5459200 5459200

502400 502800 503200 503600 504000

Bathymetry Marine Resources LSA

Proposed Westridge Water Lease Expansion

Existing Westridge SCALE: 1:11,000 Water Lease m FIGURE:3.1 0 100 200 300 400 Footprint (Marine) ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Containment Boom the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying Fill Slope of Land Reclamation purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Land Reclamation MAP NUMBER PAGE FOOTPRINT AND 10494_TDR_MAR_03_01 SHEET 1 OF 1 MARINE RESOURCES LSA DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Existing and Dec 2013 7894 0 Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:11,000 TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 5485000 ¯ 5485000 5480000 5480000 II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK PARKPARK 5475000 5475000

MOUNT SEYMOURSEYMOUR Indian Arm PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK C Y P R E S S PARKPARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK 5470000 5470000

West Vancouver 5465000 5465000 C A P I L A N O 5 North Vancouver M I S S I O N 1 First Narrows ¬«1 BURRARD I N L E T 3 Belcarra SEYMOUR¬«1 C R E E K 2 Port Moody Second Narrows Burrard Inlet rt Mood Po y A 7A rm 5460000 ^_ ¬« 5460000 ¬«7A Westridge MarineTerminal Vancouver Burnaby Coquitlam

490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

^_ Westridge Marine Terminal Indian Reserve Land of British Columbia ¬«1 Highway Marine RSA (Terminal) Paved Road Bathymetry SCALE: 1:150,000 Watercourse m FIGURE: 3.2 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Trans Mountain Expansion This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Proposed Pipeline Corridor the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Existing Facility consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, Waterbody all of which require KMC's prior written approval. MAP NUMBER PAGE Provincial Park 10494_TDR_MAR_03_02 SHEET 1 OF 1 MARINE RSA DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Highway and Paved Road: National Road Network (BC), 2007; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Dec 2013 7894 0 Service, 2011; Watercourse: National Hydro Network, 2007; Existing Pipeline: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Trans Mountain Expansion Proposed Pipeline Corridor: Universal Pegasus International, 2013; Existing Facility: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Provincial Park: BC SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE MFLNRO, 2008; Indian Reserve: Geographic Data Discovery Service, 2005; Land of British Columbia: National Topographic Data Base, 1:150,000 2007. TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. ¯¯-10 -15 -10

-10 -15

-10

-5

-5 Transect 4 Transect 3

Transect 5

-5 Transect 2

Transect 1

Bathymetry Intertidal Transects Footprint (Marine) Containment Boom Fill Slope of Land Reclamation SCALE: 1:2,500 Land Reclamation Metres FIGURE: 3.3 0 20 40 60 80 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE MAP NUMBER PAGE 10494_TDR_MAR_03_03 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE TERA REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land INTERTIDAL SURVEY Dec 2013 7894 0 Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE TRANSECT LOCATIONS 1:2,500 8.5 x 11 SD This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. TRANS MOUNTAIN SS SD SD Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. EXPANSION PROJECT 503000 503200 503400 503600 503800 -35

-30 ¯

-25 5460200 5460200

-20 5460000 5460000

-10

-15 -10 5459800 -10 5459800 -10

-5

-5 Existing Loading Berth -15 -10

-5 -5 -5 5459600 5459600

Westridge Marine Terminal 5459400 5459400

503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

Bathymetry Subtidal ROV Transects Proposed Westridge Transect 1 Water Lease Expansion Transect 2 Existing Westridge Transect 3 Water Lease SCALE: 1:5,000 Transect 4 Footprint (Marine) m Transect 5 FIGURE:3.4 0 50 100 150 200 Containment Boom Transect 6 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Fill Slope of Land Reclamation Transect 7 This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Land Reclamation the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Transect 8 consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, Transect 9 all of which require KMC's prior written approval. SUBTIDAL Transect 10 MAP NUMBER PAGE ROV SURVEY 10494_TDR_MAR_03_04 SHEET 1 OF 1 Transect 11 TRANSECT LOCATIONS DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Existing and Dec 2013 7894 0 Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:5,000 TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

-5 -15 5485000 5485000 -30 -10 -20 -25 -25 -35 ¯ -40

-20 -25 5480000 5480000 II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK PARKPARK -10 -5

-20 -10 -5

-10 -15 -5 5475000 5475000

INSET MAP 1:20,000 MOUNT SEYMOURSEYMOUR Indian Arm PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK C Y P R E S S PARKPARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK 5470000 5470000

West Vancouver 5465000 5465000 C A P I L A N O 5 North Vancouver M I S S I O N 1 First Narrows ¬«1 BURRARD I N L E T 3 Belcarra SEYMOUR¬«1 C R E E K 2 See Inset Port Moody Second Narrows Burrard Inlet rt Mood Po y A 7A rm 5460000 ^_ ¬« 5460000 ¬«7A Westridge MarineTerminal Vancouver Burnaby Coquitlam

490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

^_ Westridge Marine Terminal Indian Reserve Shore Type Land of British Columbia Estuary, Marsh or Lagoon ¬«1 Highway Marine Resources LSA Gravel Beach Paved Road Marine RSA (Terminal) Gravel Flat Bathymetry SCALE: 1:150,000 Proposed Westridge Man-made Watercourse m Water Lease Expansion Mud Flat FIGURE: 4.1 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline Existing Westridge Rock Cliff ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Trans Mountain Expansion Water Lease This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Proposed Pipeline Corridor Rock with Gravel Beach the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary Footprint (Marine) to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Existing Facility Rock, Sand and Gravel Beach DISTRIBUTION OF consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying Containment Boom purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, Waterbody Sand Flat SHORE TYPES IN THE all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Fill Slope of Land Reclamation Provincial Park Sand and Gravel Beach MARINE RESOURCES LSA MAP NUMBER PAGE Land Reclamation 10494_TDR_MAR_04_05 SHEET 1 OF 1 Sand and Gravel Flat AND MARINE RSA DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Highway and Paved Road: National Road Network (BC), 2007; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Dec 2013 7894 0 Service, 2011; Watercourse: National Hydro Network, 2007; Existing Pipeline: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Trans Mountain Expansion Proposed Pipeline Corridor: Universal Pegasus International, 2013; Existing Facility: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Provincial Park: BC SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE MFLNRO, 2008; Indian Reserve: Geographic Data Discovery Service, 2005; Land of British Columbia: National Topographic Data Base, 1:150,000 8.5 x11 SD 2007; Existing and Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of TRANS MOUNTAIN Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Shore Types: BC MFLNRO, 2005. EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 5485000 ¯ 5485000 5480000 5480000 II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK PARKPARK 5475000 5475000

MOUNT SEYMOURSEYMOUR Indian Arm PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK C Y P R E S S PARKPARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK 5470000 5470000

490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

^_ Westridge Marine Terminal Indian Reserve Benthic Classes Land of British Columbia Muddy Flat ¬«1 Highway Marine Resources LSA Muddy Ridge Paved Road Marine RSA (Terminal) Muddy Slope Bathymetry SCALE: 1:150,000 Muddy Depression Watercourse m FIGURE: 4.2 Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline Note: 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 The accuracy of the benthic classes ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Trans Mountain Expansion shown in this figure have not been This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Proposed Pipeline Corridor verified or field-tested. the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Existing Facility consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, Waterbody DISTRIBUTION OF all of which require KMC's prior written approval. BENTHIC CLASSES IN THE MAP NUMBER PAGE Provincial Park 10494_TDR_MAR_04_05 SHEET 1 OF 1 MARINE RSA DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Highway and Paved Road: National Road Network (BC), 2007; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Dec 2013 7894 0 Service, 2011; Watercourse: National Hydro Network, 2007; Existing Pipeline: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Trans Mountain Expansion Proposed Pipeline Corridor: Universal Pegasus International, 2013; Existing Facility: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Provincial Park: BC SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE MFLNRO, 2008; Indian Reserve: Geographic Data Discovery Service, 2005; Land of British Columbia: National Topographic Data Base, 1:150,000 2007; Benthic Classes: BC MCA, 2009. TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 5485000 ¯ 5485000 5480000 5480000 II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK PARKPARK 5475000 5475000

MOUNT SEYMOURSEYMOUR Indian Arm PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK C Y P R E S S PARKPARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK 5470000 5470000

490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

^_ Westridge Marine Terminal Indian Reserve Land of British Columbia ¬«1 Highway Marine Resources (LSA) Paved Road Marine RSA (Terminal) Bathymetry SCALE: 1:150,000 DFO Important Areas for Watercourse m Dungeness Crab FIGURE: 4.3 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Trans Mountain Expansion This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Proposed Pipeline Corridor the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Existing Facility consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, DFO IMPORTANT AREAS FOR all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Waterbody DUNGENESS CRAB MAP NUMBER PAGE Provincial Park 10494_TDR_MAR_04_01 SHEET 1 OF 1 IN THE MARINE RSA DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Highway and Paved Road: National Road Network (BC), 2007; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Dec 2013 7894 0 Service, 2011; Watercourse: National Hydro Network, 2007; Existing Pipeline: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Trans Mountain Expansion Proposed Pipeline Corridor: Universal Pegasus International, 2013; Existing Facility: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Provincial Park: BC SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE MFLNRO, 2008; Indian Reserve: Geographic Data Discovery Service, 2005; Land of British Columbia: National Topographic Data Base, 1:150,000 2007; DFO Important Areas for Dungeness Crab: DFO, 2012. TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

5485000 5485000

v ¯

a i

n I 5480000 5480000 II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK PARKPARK 5475000 5475000

MOUNT SEYMOURSEYMOUR Indian Arm eek

PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL r y C PARKPARK ntzen Ba u C Y P R E S S B PARKPARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL U nnam PARKPARK ed 5470000 S 5470000 tre am

e r

k y a e e r K r

c e West C v

M i o Vancouver it R u r

5465000 q u k 5465000 s North o e C A P I L A N O 5 o m e y r

M Vancouver e C Wind S y er M I S S I O N 1 e m First Narrows n e ek 1 t Cree ¬« r k re re

k a C e C BURRARD

e c m r I N L E T 3 o M Belcarra s C os n SEYMOUR¬«1 M n

y C R E E K 2 k L Port e e Moody r Second Narrows Burrard Inlet rt Mood C Po y A ns r o 7A m o 5460000 ^_ ¬« 5460000 ¬«7A N Westridge e MarineTerminal s u Vancouver Burnaby o H k l o o o Coquitlam o r h B c S

490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

^_ Westridge Marine Terminal Indian Reserve Salmon Species Land of British Columbia Coho ¬«1 Highway Marine Resources LSA Chinook, Coho Paved Road Marine RSA (Terminal) Chinook, Sockeye Watercourse SCALE: 1:150,000 DFO Important Areas for Chum, Coho Bathymetry m Pacific Salmon Chum, Coho, Pink FIGURE: 4.4 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline Chum, Chinook, Coho, Pink ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Trans Mountain Expansion This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Proposed Pipeline Corridor Chum, Chinook, Coho, Pink, Sockeye SALMON-BEARING the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Existing Facility RIVERS AND STREAMS consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, Waterbody ENTERING THE MARINE RSA AND all of which require KMC's prior written approval. DFO IMPORTANT AREAS MAP NUMBER PAGE Provincial Park 10494_TDR_MAR_04_01 SHEET 1 OF 1 FOR PACIFIC SALMON DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Highway and Paved Road: National Road Network (BC), 2007; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Dec 2013 7894 0 Service, 2011; Watercourse: National Hydro Network, 2007; Existing Pipeline: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Trans Mountain Expansion Proposed Pipeline Corridor: Universal Pegasus International, 2013; Existing Facility: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Provincial Park: BC SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE MFLNRO, 2008; Indian Reserve: Geographic Data Discovery Service, 2005; Land of British Columbia: National Topographic Data Base, 1:150,000 2007; DFO Important Areas for Pacific Salmon: DFO 2012; Salmon-bearing Streams: BC MOE, 2013. TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 5485000 ¯ 5485000 5480000 5480000 II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M II N N D D I I A A N N A A R R M M PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK PARKPARK 5475000 5475000

Indian Arm - Croker Island RCA MOUNT SEYMOURSEYMOUR Indian Arm PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK C Y P R E S S PARKPARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK 5470000 5470000

Indian Arm - Twin Islands RCA West Vancouver 5465000 5465000 C A P I L A N O 5 North Vancouver M I S S I O N 1 First Narrows ¬«1 BURRARD I N L E T 3 Belcarra SEYMOUR¬«1 C R E E K 2 Port Moody Second Narrows Burrard Inlet rt Mood Po y A 7A rm 5460000 ^_ ¬« 5460000 Eastern Burrard ¬«7A Inlet RCA Westridge MarineTerminal Vancouver Burnaby Coquitlam

490000 495000 500000 505000 510000

^_ Westridge Marine Terminal Indian Reserve Land of British Columbia ¬«1 Highway Marine Resources LSA Paved Road Marine RSA (Terminal) Bathymetry SCALE: 1:150,000 Rockfish Watercourse m Conservation Areas (RCA) FIGURE: 4.5 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Trans Mountain Expansion This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Proposed Pipeline Corridor the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Existing Facility consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, ROCKFISH all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Waterbody CONSERVATION AREAS MAP NUMBER PAGE Provincial Park 10494_TDR_MAR_04_05 SHEET 1 OF 1 IN THE MARINE RSA DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Highway and Paved Road: National Road Network (BC), 2007; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Dec 2013 7894 0 Service, 2011; Watercourse: National Hydro Network, 2007; Existing Pipeline: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Trans Mountain Expansion Proposed Pipeline Corridor: Universal Pegasus International, 2013; Existing Facility: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Provincial Park: BC SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE MFLNRO, 2008; Indian Reserve: Geographic Data Discovery Service, 2005; Land of British Columbia: National Topographic Data Base, 1:150,000 2007; Rockfish Conservation Areas: DFO, 2008. TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 470000 475000 480000 485000 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000

PP I I N N E E C C O O N N E E BURKE 5490000 PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL ¯ 5490000 PARKPARK

¬«99 §[ 5485000 5485000

§[ I N D I A N A R M HALKETT I N D I A N A R M PROVINCIAL B A Y P A R K PROVINCIAL PARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL §[ PARK PARKPARK

5480000 §[ 5480000 §[ §[ C Y P R E S S §[ PARKPARK PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL 5475000 5475000 PARKPARK §[ MOUNT SEYMOURSEYMOUR Indian Arm §[ PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL PARKPARK

§[ 5470000 5470000 §[ §[ §[ APODACA §[ ¬«1 §[ PARKPARK §[ PROVINCIALPROVINCIAL §[ §[§[ PARKPARK §[ West §[

5465000 Vancouver 5465000 North First Narrows Vancouver Port Moody Port Mo Burrard Inlet od Second Narrows y A rm ^_ ¬«7A 7A §[ 5460000 Westridge¬« 5460000 MarineTerminal Burnaby Coquitlam

Vancouver 5455000 5455000 ¬«1 ¬«7 ¬«7B 5450000 5450000 §[ §[ §[ ¬«91 ¬«91 91A¬« §[ §[ §[ Richmond Surrey §[ 5445000 5445000

¬«99 470000 475000 480000§[ 485000§[ 490000 495000 500000 505000 510000 515000 §[ ^_§[Westridge§[ Marine Terminal Indian Reserve Haulout Sites §[ Land of British Columbia ¬«1 Highway §[ §[ DFO Important Areas for Marine Resources LSA Harbour Seals Paved Road Marine RSA (Terminal) Watercourse SCALE: 1:250,000 Bathymetry m FIGURE: 4.6 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Existing Trans Mountain Pipeline ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Trans Mountain Expansion This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Proposed Pipeline Corridor the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written Existing Facility consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, DFO IMPORTANT AREAS FOR all of which require KMC's prior written approval. Provincial Park HARBOUR SEALS AND MAP NUMBER PAGE 10494_TDR_MAR_04_04 SHEET 1 OF 1 HAULOUT SITES DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Highway and Paved Road: National Road Network (BC), 2007; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Dec 2013 7894 0 Service, 2011; Watercourse: National Hydro Network, 2007; Existing Pipeline: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Trans Mountain Expansion Proposed Pipeline Corridor: Universal Pegasus International, 2013; Existing Facility: Kinder Morgan Canada, 2012; Provincial Park: BC SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE MFLNRO, 2008; Indian Reserve: Geographic Data Discovery Service, 2005; Land of British Columbia: National Topographic Data Base, 1:250,000 2007; Haulout Sites: BCMCA, 2010; DFO Important Areas for Harbour Seal: Olesiuk, P. [pers. comm.] in DFO, 2013. TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. -15 ¯ -10 ¯ -15 -10

-10

-5

Bathymetry Marine Riparian Habitat Type Footprint (Marine) Type 1 Containment Boom Type 2 Fill Slope of Land Reclamation Type 3 SCALE: 1:2,500 Land Reclamation Type 4 Metres FIGURE: 5.1 0 20 40 60 80 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE MAP NUMBER PAGE 10494_TDR_MAR_03_03 SHEET 1 OF 1 MARINE RIPARIAN HABITAT DATE TERA REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land AT THE Dec 2013 7894 0 Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL 1:2,500 8.5 x 11 SD This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. TRANS MOUNTAIN SS SD SD Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. EXPANSION PROJECT 503000 503200 503400 503600 503800 -35

-30 ¯

-25 5460200 5460200

-20 !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( 5460000 !( !( !( !( 5460000 !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( -10 !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( -15 !(!(!( -10 !( 5459800 !( !(!( !( !( !( 5459800 !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( -10 !(!( !( !( !(!( -10 !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( -5 !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(-5!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( Existing -15 !(!( !(!( !( !( Loading -10 !( !(!(!( Berth !( !(!( !( -5 -5 !( -5 !( !( !(!( 5459600 5459600

Westridge Marine Terminal 5459400 5459400

503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

Bathymetry Substrate Types Proposed Westridge !( Rip Rap Water Lease Expansion !( Anthropogenic Debris Existing Westridge !( Soft Bottom Water Lease SCALE: 1:5,000 !( Soft Bottom With Cobble / Boulder Footprint (Marine) m FIGURE:5.2 0 50 100 150 200 Containment Boom ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Fill Slope of Land Reclamation This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Land Reclamation the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. SUBSTRATE TYPES OBSERVED MAP NUMBER PAGE DURING THE 10494_TDR_MAR_05_01 SHEET 1 OF 1 SUBTIDAL ROV SURVEY DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Existing and Dec 2013 7894 0 Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:5,000 TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 503000 503200 503400 503600 503800 -35

-30 ¯

-25 5460200 5460200

-20 5460000 5460000

!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( -10 !(

-15 -10 <

5459800 5459800

-10 < <

<( < < <

-10 !( < (<

< <((!<

< < < < !(

< <(

< <( <

< < < < <

< < < <

< (<

< <(<( <(<( <( =M+L M < =+M(< (< !( < (<<( (

!( <(<( < -5 (<

< !(<

< < (<

(<-5!(!(

< <(!(

< <

< <( !(

< < <

< <

!( < <(

< !( <(! <

-15 < (<

< <( < <( < < <

< <( Existing -10 !(< !(<((< (< (!<<( Loading

(

< Berth

-5 !( < < -5 < (< !( <(<( 5459600 5459600

Westridge Marine Terminal 5459400 5459400

503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

Bathymetry Algae Observations

Proposed Westridge !( Brown

Water Lease Expansion

!(< Green

Existing Westridge Water Lease <(< Green and Brown SCALE: 1:5,000 Footprint (Marine) <( Brown and Red m FIGURE:5.3 0 50 100 150 200 Containment Boom =+ML M Brown, Green and Red ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Fill Slope of Land Reclamation This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Land Reclamation the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. MAP NUMBER PAGE ALGAE OBSERVED DURING 10494_TDR_MAR_05_05 SHEET 1 OF 1 THE SUBTIDAL ROV SURVEY DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Existing and Dec 2013 7894 0 Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:5,000 TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 503000 503200 503400 503600 503800 -35

-30 ¯

-25 5460200 5460200

-20 !( !(

!( !( !( !(

5460000 !( 5460000 !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( XW !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( -10 !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( XW !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(XW !( !( !(!(!( !(XW -15 !(!(!( -10 XW!( 5459800 !( !( 5459800 !( !( !(!( -10 !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( XW -10 !( !( !(!( XW XW!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(XW!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( XW !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(XW!(XW!( XW!( !(!( !(!(XW!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( -5 !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(-5 !( !( -15 !( !( -10 !( Existing Loading -5 -5 Berth -5 !( !( 5459600 5459600

Westridge Marine Terminal 5459400 5459400

503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

Bathymetry Crab and Shrimp Observations Proposed Westridge !( Dungeness Crab Water Lease Expansion !( Red Rock Crab Existing Westridge !( Decorator crab Water Lease SCALE: 1:5,000 !( Hermit crab Footprint (Marine) m !( Shore crab FIGURE:5.4 0 50 100 150 200 Containment Boom ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Fill Slope of Land Reclamation XW Shrimp This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Land Reclamation the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. CRAB AND SHRIMP OBSERVED MAP NUMBER PAGE DURING THE 10494_TDR_MAR_05_03 SHEET 1 OF 1 SUBTIDAL ROV SURVEY DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Existing and Dec 2013 7894 0 Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:5,000 TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 503000 503200 503400 503600 503800 -35

-30 ¯

-25 5460200 5460200

-20

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

5460000 !( 5460000 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( -10 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( -15 -10 !( 5459800 !( !( !( 5459800 -10 !( -10 !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( -5 !( !( !( !(!( !( !(-5 !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( -15 !( !( !( !( Existing -10 !(!( !( !( Loading Berth -5 -5 -5 !( 5459600 5459600

Westridge Marine Terminal 5459400 5459400

503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

Bathymetry Invertebrate Observations Proposed Westridge !( Echinoderm (Sea Star, Sea Cucumber) Water Lease Expansion !( Mollusc (Bivalve, Nudibranch) Existing Westridge !( Tunicate Water Lease SCALE: 1:5,000 Footprint (Marine) m FIGURE:5.5 0 50 100 150 200 Containment Boom ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Fill Slope of Land Reclamation This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Land Reclamation the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying INVERTEBRATES OBSERVED purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. DURING THE MAP NUMBER PAGE SUBTIDAL ROV SURVEY 10494_TDR_MAR_05_04 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Existing and Dec 2013 7894 0 Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:5,000 TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. 503000 503200 503400 503600 503800 -35

-30 ¯

-25 5460200 5460200

-20

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( 5460000 !( !(!( !( 5460000 !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( -10 !( !( Existing !( !( !(!( Loading !( !( -15 !(!( Berth 5459800 !( !( -10 5459800 -10 !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( -5 !(

!(-5!( !(

-15 -10 !( !(

-5 -5 -5 5459600 5459600

Westridge Marine Terminal 5459400 5459400

503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

Bathymetry Fish Observations Proposed Westridge !( Fish (unidentified) Water Lease Expansion !( Lingcod Existing Westridge !( Perch Water Lease SCALE: 1:5,000 !( Flatfish Footprint (Marine) m !( Sculpin FIGURE:5.6 0 50 100 150 200 Containment Boom ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE Fill Slope of Land Reclamation This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by Land Reclamation the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. MAP NUMBER PAGE FISH OBSERVED DURING THE 10494_TDR_MAR_05_02 SHEET 1 OF 1 SUBTIDAL ROV SURVEY DATE REF. REVISION Projection: NAD 83 UTM Zone 10N; Satellite Imagery: I-cubed, 2010; Bathymetry: Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2011; Existing and Dec 2013 7894 0 Proposed Westridge Water Lease: Moffatt & Nichol, 2012; Footprint (Marine): Moffatt & Nichol, 2013; Fill Slope of Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013; Land Reclamation: CH2M Hill, 2013. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:5,000 TRANS MOUNTAIN 8.5 x11 SD EXPANSION PROJECT DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product SS SD SD or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. MARINE RESOURCES

Appendix BSubtidal Remotely Operated Vehicle Survey Data Sheets December 2013

Appendix B Subtidal Remotely Operated Vehicle Survey Data Sheets

dc v:\1231\active\em\123110494\report\tr_terminal\marine_resources\marine_resources_westridge_marine_terminal_technical_report.docx B.1 Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions

Surface: sunny, calm 1 09/19/2012 Underwater: slack tide, visibility < 1.5m

Start Time 9:44:49 End Time 10:16:19

Start Coordinate 49 17.5273; 122 57.3070 End Coordinate 49 17.3429; 122 57.3642

Start Depth (m) 22 End Depth (m) 0

Transect Length (m) 350

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Soft bottom habitat with sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi), plumose anemones Soft bottom with cobble/boulder (Metridium farcimen) and pricklebacks (Stichaeidae) observed throughout the transect. Cancer crabs, sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus and Dermasteria imbricata) and flatfish (Pleuronectidae) were also observed in less frequent numbers. Algae were observed in shallower sections of the transect. Photos

A sea pen (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) on soft bottom A prickleback fish on soft bottom

Abandoned crab trap with plumose anemones growing on it Thick brown bladed algae (Laminaria spp.) in shallow sections of the transect

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions Surface: sunny, calm 2 09/19/2012 Underwater: little current, visibility < 1.5m Start Time 8:39:40 End Time 9:14:27

Start Coordinate 49 17.5582; 122 57.1754 End Coordinate 49 17.3886; 122 57.2199

Start Depth (m) 23 End Depth (m) 1 Transect Length (m) 317

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Soft bottom habitat with sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi), plumose anemones Soft bottom with cobble/boulder (Metridium farcimen) and pricklebacks (Stichaeidae) observed throughout the Cancer Boulder/rip rap transect. crabs were also common and several flatfish (Pleuronectidae) were observed. Sea stars (Pisaster sp., Pycnopodia helianthoides and possible Solaster sp.) were less frequently observed. Two sea cucumbers (Parastichopus californicus), one sculpin (Cottidae) and one bivalve were observed. Algae were observed in shallower sections of the transect. Photos

A prickleback on soft bottom A dungeness crab (Cancer magister) and a prickleback on soft bottom

A dock piling with sea stars (Pisaster) and barnacles Thick brown bladed algae (Laminaria spp.) in shallow sections of the transect

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions Surface: sunny, calm 3 09/17/2012 Underwater: strong current, visibility < 1.5m 8:51:30 9:15:00 Start Time End Time 16:02:17 16:28:16

Start Coordinate 49 17.6121; 122 56.939 End Coordinate 49 17.5108; 122 56.9656 Start Depth (m) 26 End Depth (m) 2 Transect Length (m) 373

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Pricklebacks (Stichaeidae), Cancer crabs and sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus, Soft bottom with cobble/boulder Pycnopodia helianthoides and Dermasteria imbricata) were observed throughout this transect. Anemones (Metridium farcimen), sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) and flatfish (Pleuronectidae) were less frequently observed. Two shrimp and one bivalve were observed. Sparse patches of algae throughout shallower depths with some sections of thick brown bladed algae. Photos

Abandoned crab trap on soft bottom Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) on soft bottom

Sunflower star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) on concrete Two sunflower stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides) and a debris Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) on soft bottom

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions Surface: sunny, calm 4 09/17/2012 Underwater: strong current, visibility < 1.0m 10:10:00 11:19:21 Start Time End Time 12:07:40 12:31:48

Start Coordinate 49 17.4903; 122 56.8688 End Coordinate 49 17.3699; 122 57.4142

Start Depth (m) 20 End Depth (m) 15

Transect Length (m) 695

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Pricklebacks (Stichaeidae) were common throughout the soft bottom areas. Cancer Soft bottom with cobble/boulder crabs were observed throughout the transect on soft bottom and on boulders. Sea Ptilosarcus gurneyi Pisaster ochraceus, Pycnopodia Boulder/rip rap pens ( ) and sea stars ( helianthoides and Dermasteria imbricata and possible Solaster sp.) were moderately frequent. One sea cucumber (Parastichopus californicus), one sculpin (Cottidae) and one bivalve were observed. Photos

Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) on soft bottom Sea star (likely Pisaster)on boulder/rip rap

Red rock crab (Cancer productus) on boulders/rip rap Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) in boulders/rip rap

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions Surface: sunny, calm 5 09/17/2012 and 09/19/1012 Underwater: poor visibility < 1.0m 13:23:55 13:56:49 Start Time 14:43:05 End Time 14:50:57 14:04:26 14:53:14 Start Coordinate 49 17.3908; 122 57.4247 End Coordinate 49 17.5094; 122 56.8483 Start Depth (m) 16 End Depth (m) 22 Transect Length (m) 736

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Soft bottom habitat with sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi), plumose anemones (Metridium Soft bottom with cobble/boulder farcimen), Cancer crabs and pricklebacks (Stichaeidae) observed throughout the transect. Sea stars (Pisaster sp., Pycnopodia helianthoides and Dermasteria imbricata) and shrimp were observed at moderate levels as well as several flatfish (Pleuronectidae). Some woody debris on the sea bed. Two sea cucumbers (Parastichopus californicus) were observed. Small patches of brown bladed kelp. Photos

Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) on soft bottom A group of Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister) on soft bottom

Sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) on soft bottom A flatfish (likely Platichthys stellatus) on soft bottom

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions

Surface: sunny, calm 6 09/18/2012 Underwater: slack tide, visibility < 1.5m

Start Time 8:35:56 End Time 10:14:23

Start Coordinate 49 17.5614; 122 56.8469 End Coordinate 49 17.4199; 122 57.4411

Start Depth (m) 16 End Depth (m) 22

Transect Length (m) 767

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Pricklebacks (Stichaeidae), flatfish (Pleuronectidae), anemones (Metridium farcimen), and sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) were observed throughout this transect. Cancer crabs and sea stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides) were less frequently observed.

Photos

Plumose anemones growing on a tire on the bottom An unidentified flatfish and smaller fish on flat bottom

Two Dungeness crabs on soft bottom A sea pen (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) on soft bottom

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions

Surface: sunny, calm 7 09/18/2012 Underwater: moderate current, visibility < 1.0m

Start Time 12:18:52 End Time 14:54:50

Start Coordinate 49 17.5949; 122 56.8489 End Coordinate 49 17.4499; 122 57.4586

Start Depth (m) 24 End Depth (m) 19

Transect Length (m) 789

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Pricklebacks (Stichaeidae), sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) and anemones (Metridium farcimen) were observed throughout the transect. Flatfish (Pleuronectidae), sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus, Pycnopodia helianthoides and Dermasteria imbricata) and Cancer crabs were less frequently observed. One sea cucumber (Parastichopus californicus), two nudibranchs (likely Armina californica) and two bivalves were observed.

Photos

Three pricklebacks on soft bottom A bivalve (likely Clinocardium nuttallii) on soft bottom

A prickleback on soft bottom A nudibranch (likely Armina californica) and sea star (likely Dermasterias imbricate) on soft bottom

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions

Surface: sunny, calm 8 09/19/2012 Underwater: visibility < 1.0m 10:51:22 11:47:26 Start Time End Time 12:59:40 13:21:37

Start Coordinate 49 17.6376; 122 56.8484 End Coordinate 49 17.4870; 122 57.4777

Start Depth (m) 27 End Depth (m) 19

Transect Length (m) 826

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Pricklebacks (Stichaeidae), sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) and anemones (Metridium farcimen) were observed throughout the transect. Flatfish (Pleuronectidae), sea stars (Pisaster sp., Pycnopodia helianthoides and Dermasteria imbricata) and Cancer crabs were less frequently observed.

Photos

A sunflower star (Pycnopodia helianthoides) on soft bottom A prickleback on soft bottom

A plumose anemone (Metridium farcimen) and prickleback A giant pink star (Pisaster brevispinus) on soft bottom on soft bottom

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions

Surface: sunny, calm 9 09/18/2012 Underwater: strong current, visibility < 1.0m

Start Time 15:43:10 End Time 16:23:48

Start Coordinate 49 17.5961; 122 57.0611 End Coordinate 49 17.4173; 122 57.1068

Start Depth (m) 22 End Depth (m) 1

Transect Length (m) 320

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Pricklebacks (Stichaeidae), sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus, Pycnopodia helianthoides and Boulder/rip rap Dermasteria imbricata), anemones (Metridium farcimen), Cancer crabs, and sea pens (Ptilosarcus gurneyi) were observed throughout the transect. Flatfish (Pleuronectidae) and perch (Brachyistius frenatus and likely Embiotoca lateralis) were observed less frequently. One lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) was observed as well as algae on the boulders/rip rap in shallow portions of the transect. Photos

Abandoned crab trap on soft bottom Sea star (Pisaster sp.) and several algal species on boulders

Kelp perch (Brachyistius frenatus) and algae in shallow A variety of algal species growing in the shallow boulder/rip boulder area rap section of the transect

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions

Surface: sunny, calm 10 09/20/2012 Underwater: visibility < 1.5m

Start Time 13:01:09 End Time 13:13:17

Start Coordinate 49 17.4387; 122 56.8741 End Coordinate 49 17.4130; 122 57.0900

Start Depth (m) 1 End Depth (m) 1

Transect Length (m) 264

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Perch (Brachyistius frenatus and likely Embiotoca lateralis) and sea stars (Pisaster sp., Soft bottom with cobble/boulder Pycnopodia helianthoides and Dermasteria imbricata) were observed throughout the Cancer productus Metridium farcimen Boulder/rip rap transect. One crab ( ) and one anemone ( ) were observed. Algae was present throughout the transect and consisted primarily of green (Ulva) and bladed browns (Laminaria). Photos

Dense brown bladed algae along transect Brown bladed algae (likely Laminaria) and a giant pink star (Pisaster brevispinus)

Ochre stars (Pisaster ochraceus) and a kelp perch Green algae (Ulva) and brown bladed algae (Laminaria) in (Brachyistius frenatus) around a wooden piling boulder section of the transect

Transect No: Date Weather/Water Conditions Surface: sunny, calm 11 09/19/2012 Underwater: visibility < 1.0m 9:11:15 9:29:27 Start Time 10:49:47 End Time 10:58:49 12:35:42 12:41:24 Start Coordinate 49 17.4306; 122 57.0996 End Coordinate 49 17.3754; 122 57.3057

Start Depth (m) 7 End Depth (m) 3 Transect Length (m) 415

Depth Range Characteristics Substrate Type (s) Soft bottom Perch (Cymatogaster aggregata, Brachyistius frenatus and possibly Rhacochilus Soft bottom with cobble/boulder vacca), sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus, Pycnopodia helianthoides and Dermasteria imbricata Cancer, Hemigrapsus . Pagurus Boulder/rip rap ), and crabs ( sp , sp.) were observed throughout the transect. One lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) was observed in the boulders/rip rap. Algae was present throughout the transect and consisted primarily of green (Ulva), bladed browns (Laminaria) and red filamentous species. Photos

An anemone (Metridium farcimen) growing on a boulder Thick areas of brown bladed algae (Laminaria)

Green algae (Ulva) growing on boulders/rip rap Sunflower stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides) on a wooden structure.