WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty VEGETATION Project · 2019-05-16 · WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project

SE

CT

ION

4.7

: V

EG

ET

AT

ION


Environmental Assessment Certificate Application

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

Section 4.7: Vegetation

1

4.7 VEGETATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

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

cumulative effects on the Vegetation Valued Component (VC) and its subcomponents: plant species of

management concern, terrestrial ecosystems, and wetland and riparian ecosystems (see also Section 1.1.1

Appendix 4.7-1). The rationale for the selection of Vegetation as a VC and assessment boundaries are also

described. Assessment findings, including identification of Project interactions and effects, proposed approaches

to mitigation, characterization of residual Project and cumulative effects, and determination of significance, are

presented. Monitoring and follow-up programs to be conducted with respect to Vegetation are also described.

This effects assessment on Vegetation is linked to:

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC;

Fish and Fish Habitat VC;

Water Quality VC; and

River Processes VC.

Results of the Vegetation assessment are incorporated into the following sections in the Environmental

Assessment Certificate (EAC) Application:

Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes VC; and

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat VC.

4.7.1 Context and Boundaries

This section describes the context for assessment of Project-related effects on Vegetation in terms of Project

setting and defines the spatial, temporal, administrative, and technical assessment boundaries. Rationale for

selecting the assessment boundaries as defined is also provided.

4.7.1.1 Context

Vegetation comprises native plants, plants of management concern, and plant communities that include sensitive,

important, or unique features valued by local communities, Aboriginal groups, and local, provincial, and federal

governments. Vegetation is included as a requirement of the British Columbia (BC) Environmental Assessment

Act (BCEAA) (Government of BC, 2002) as well as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA,

2012) (Government of Canada, 2012). Specifically, CEAA 2012 Sections 5(1)(a)(i) and (ii) are relevant to

Vegetation as changes potentially affecting Vegetation are linked to fish and fish habitat as defined in subsection

2(1) of the Fisheries Act and are linked to aquatic species as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act.

This includes potential project-related changes in vegetation—including loss of plants from construction and

dredging activities—which has the potential to impact how wildlife regulated under federal acts utilize the project

area. In addition, CEAA 2012 subsection 5(1)(c)(iii) of CEAA 2012 requires environmental effects to be taken into





2

consideration when proposed activities have the potential to change aboriginal peoples current use of the land for

traditional purposes (Government of Canada, 2012).

Vegetation communities are defined as units of vegetation with relatively uniform species composition and physical

structure, which typically have characteristic features such as soil type, topographic position, climate requirements,

and nutrient, water, and energy cycles (MOE, 2006). A sensitive ecosystem, such as old forest, riparian areas,

and wetlands, is one that is of conservation concern due to scarcity in the landscape or is otherwise ecologically

fragile (MOE, 2006).

Vegetation communities play an important role in BC’s ecology, economy, and society. Vegetation communities

are the foundation of ecological communities and provide a range of functions including erosion control,

stormwater management, temperature moderation, and wildlife habitat. Within a vegetation community, plants

provide water filtration, facilitate carbon storage, moderate flooding and water temperature, input nutrient and

organic matter to streams, reduce streambank erosion with established root systems, and buffer stream

sedimentation and pollution runoff (Minnesota DNR, 2014; MOE, 2014b; Nilsson & Svedmark, 2002). Vegetation

communities provide the basis for wildlife survival and persistence. Vegetation provides forage, shelter,

thermoregulation, and breeding habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species. Variation in vegetation composition

provides niches required to support wildlife biodiversity.

In BC, vegetation resources are managed by both the federal and provincial governments. Native plants and

ecosystems are protected under various provincial and federal acts and legislation. Vegetation resources are

protected directly under acts such as the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), as well as indirectly under acts such

as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (Government of Canada, 1994). These acts provide provisions for

protection of ecosystems and habitat associated with wildlife and fish populations which results in indirect

protection of vegetation resources.

In addition, provincial legislation provides guidance on the management of invasive plants in BC. Several provincial

guidance and best management practices documents exist that are intended to guide development and reduce

effects to native vegetation systems and include the Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British

Columbia (RIC, 1998), the Standard for Mapping Ecosystems at Risk in British Columbia (RISC, 2006), and the

Canadian Wetland Classification System (NWWG, 1997). Regulatory tools within federal and provincial legislation

that support wetland protection, in conjunction with other statutory objectives, enforce wetland policies (Rubec &

Lynch-Stewart, 1998). Table 4.7-1 lists key federal and provincial policies and legislation related to Vegetation and

its subcomponents in Canada that are applicable to the Project.





3

Table 4.7-1: Federal and Provincial Legislation and Policies related to the Vegetation Valued Component and Subcomponents

Regulations and Policies Purpose

Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Government of Canada, 2002)

The Species at Risk Act (SARA) prevents Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, provides for the recovery of species listed as Endangered or Threatened under Schedule 1 of the Act, and encourages the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk.

Fisheries Act – Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (DFO, 2013)

The Fisheries Act and associated Policy Statement protects fish populations from serious harm, including serious harm that may arise from destruction of fish habitat such as riparian ecosystems or wetlands.

Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (Government of Canada, 1991)

Approved by Cabinet in 1992, the Policy directs all departments to implement its seven strategies. Two key commitments include no net loss of wetland functions on all federal lands and waters, and enhancement and rehabilitation of wetlands in areas where the continuing loss or degradation of wetlands or their functions have reached critical levels. Not only does the Policy apply to the management of federal lands but all federal programs, services, and expenditures.

Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation: Implementation Guide, for Federal Land Managers (Environment Canada, 1996)

Developed to ensure compliance with the Policy, the Implementation Guide outlines the sequence of mitigation alternatives, compensation, and monitoring to meet the policy goal of no net loss of wetland functions.

BC Water Sustainability Act (Government of BC, 2014)

The BC Water Sustainability Act provides protection of riparian

ecosystems and wetlands.

Policy for Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Policy) (MOE, 2014)

Intended to provide a consistent approach and guidance for provincial staff, decision-makers, and proponents in the natural resource sector. The Policy and supporting procedures provide a basis for developing mitigation plans to address impacts of proposed activities on environmental values including species at risk, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems.

BC Weed Control Regulation under the Weed Control Act (Government of BC, 1996)

Requires all land occupants to control noxious weed species listed under the Weed Control Regulation that are located on their land and premises.

Federally, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) identifies species that are

Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern in Canada. Protection for many of these species is

provided by the SARA. The Province of BC identifies species that are at risk in the province. The BC Conservation

Data Centre (BC CDC) maintains a list of provincially ranked species that include Red-listed species and ecological

communities (i.e., extirpated, endangered, or threatened) and Blue-listed species and ecological communities

(i.e., special concern) (BC CDC, 2018).





4

4.7.1.2 Valued Components

The process for identifying and selecting VCs followed the Environmental Assessment Office’s (BCEAO’s)

Guideline for the Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects (BCEAO, 2013), as

outlined in Section 3.1, Issues Scoping and Selection of Valued Components. Valued components were

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

Information Requirements (AIR) (WesPac Midstream-Vancouver LLC, 2015), and experience with other marine

infrastructure projects in BC. Concerns of stakeholders and First Nations regarding potential Project effects on

Vegetation and its subcomponents were identified through Project consultations. Where available, traditional use

information was applied to the selection of VCs and subcomponents.

Vegetation was selected as a VC based on its cultural and conservation importance; its importance to Aboriginal

groups, the public, other stakeholders; and its regulatory importance.

4.7.1.2.1 Subcomponents

The chosen Vegetation subcomponents and the rationale for their selection are presented in Table 4.7-2. The

assessment of Vegetation was designed to focus on specific vegetation species and ecosystems considered most

appropriate for the baseline case within the Project Site Boundary. Subcomponents were selected to accurately

represent the anticipated interactions of Project components and activities on vegetation.

Subcomponents were selected based on 1) known occurrence or potential to occur in or near the Project site,

2) level of ecosystem function, and 3) importance to Aboriginal communities.

Table 4.7-2: Subcomponents for Vegetation

Subcomponent Rationale for Selection

Plant species of management concern – plant species at risk; traditional use plants

Considered to be important resources and potential reduction in abundance due to Project-related clearing and habitat alteration

Plant species of management concern – invasive plant species

Some invasive plant species are controlled under the Weed Control Act (Government of BC, 1996) and their introduction/proliferation to the Project Site Boundary may affect vegetation communities

Terrestrial ecosystems Considered to provide important upland habitat functions and potentially present within the Project Site Boundary

Wetland and riparian ecosystems Considered to provide important wetland and riparian habitat functions and potentially present within the Project Site Boundary

4.7.1.2.2 Indicators

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

indicators and measurable parameters and the rationale for their selection are presented in Table 4.7-3.





5

Three indicators were selected for the plant species of management concern subcomponent: plant species at risk

distribution, traditional use plant distribution, and invasive plant species distribution. Terrestrial ecosystem

presence and distribution was selected as an indicator for the terrestrial ecosystems subcomponent, and wetland

and riparian ecosystem presence and distribution was selected as an indicator for the wetland and riparian

ecosystems subcomponent (Table 4.7-3).

Table 4.7-3: Indicators for Vegetation

Subcomponent Indicator Measurable Parameters Rationale for Selection

Plant species of management concern

Plant species at risk distribution

Traditional use plant distribution

Invasive plant species distribution

Number of known locations of plant species of management concern affected by the Project

Quantifies existing abundance and possible reduction in abundance due to Project-related disturbance to species at risk and traditional use plants

Some invasive plant species are controlled under the Weed Control Act and their introduction/proliferation may affect vegetation communities

Terrestrial ecosystems

Terrestrial ecosystem presence and distribution

Area (ha) of terrestrial ecosystems affected by the Project

Quantifies potential loss of terrestrial ecosystems due to Project-related disturbance

Wetland and riparian ecosystems

Wetland and riparian ecosystem presence and distribution

Area (ha) of wetland and riparian ecosystems affected by the Project

Quantifies potential loss of wetland and riparian ecosystem extent due to Project-related disturbance

4.7.1.3 Assessment Boundaries

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

for the assessment of Vegetation.

4.7.1.3.1 Spatial Boundaries

The spatial boundaries for Vegetation are defined in Table 4.7-4 and shown in Figure 4.7-1 and Figure 4.7-2.

The Project Disturbance Footprint was established to encompass effects of direct disturbance to the Vegetation

subcomponents. The vegetation Technical Study Area (TSA) encompasses the Project Disturbance Footprint and

the terrestrial portions of the Local Assessment Area (LAA) located on Tilbury Island. It also extends southwest in

the Regional Assessment Area (RAA) encompassing vegetated habitat outside of the RAA, on the southern tip of

Tilbury Island. The TSA was designed to incorporate areas with high potential to support species at risk, based on

background review.

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

including direct and indirect effects to the Vegetation subcomponents. In determining LAA boundaries,

consideration was given to the nature and characteristics of the Vegetation subcomponents, potential exposure to

various influences, and the extent of potential adverse effects on the Vegetation subcomponents.





6

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

encompasses the area within which the residual effects of the Project on the Vegetation subcomponents are likely

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

Table 4.7-4: Spatial Boundary Definitions for Vegetation

Spatial Boundary Description of Assessment Area

Vegetation

Project Disturbance Footprint

Includes all terrestrial lands and submerged lands (i.e., riverbed) that are subject to direct disturbance (except the Dredge Area) during the construction and operation/maintenance phases of the Project, as well as a 1 m buffer surrounding the disturbance.

Project Site Boundary

The Project site includes the onshore and offshore portions of the Project. The onshore portion of the Project (the Onshore Facilities) includes land-based components located on the FortisBC property, within the Project Site Boundary. The offshore portion of the Project (the Offshore Facilities) includes foreshore and water-based components within the Project Site Boundary.

Technical Study Area (TSA)

The TSA for vegetation surveys focused on vegetated areas on Tilbury Island south of Hopcott Road and immediately downstream of the LAA. The TSA encompasses terrestrial portions of the Project site and the LAA located on Tilbury Island. It also extends southwest in the RAA along the north side of Tilbury Island, and encompasses vegetated habitat outside of the RAA, along the south side of Tilbury Island. The TSA was designed to incorporate areas with high potential to support plant species at risk, based on background review.

Local Assessment Area (LAA)

The LAA consists of the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the Project Disturbance Footprint plus a 100 m buffer area. The LAA was selected to encompass the potential direct effects of the Project and the majority of indirect effects due to Project construction and operations.

Regional Assessment Area (RAA)

The RAA consists of the LAA, and the South Arm of the Fraser River from the Project Site Boundary downstream to Sand Heads, including a 50 m buffer from the high water mark on either side. The RAA also includes the Alaksen National Wildlife Area, the George C. Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary, and the South Arm Marshes Wildlife Management Area. The RAA was selected to encompass the Project Site Boundary, the LAA, and similar habitat to the Project Site Boundary.

!o

FRASER RIVER (SOUTH ARM)

MUSQUEAM IR 4

STRAIT OFGEORGIA

SAND HEADSLIGHTHOUSE

DELTA

RICHMOND

VANCOUVER

DEAS ISLANDREGIONAL PARK

LADNERHARBOUR

PARK

WELLINGTONPOINT PARK

TSAWWASSENFIRST NATION

LULUISLAND

TILBURYISLAND

WESTHAMISLAND

SHADYISLAND

KIRKLANDISLAND

BARBERISLAND

GUNNISLAND

DEASISLAND

SOUTH ARM MARSHESWILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT AREA

ROBERTS BANKWILDLIFE

MANAGEMENT AREA

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT SITE BOUNDARYVEGETATION LOCAL ASSESSMENT AREAVEGETATION REGIONAL ASSESSMENT AREAMUNICIPAL BOUNDARYINDIAN RESERVETSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDSRESIDENTIAL AREAWILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAALAKSEN NATIONAL WILDLIFE AREAGEORGE C. REIFEL MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARYPARK / FOREST AREAWATERCOURSEROADRAILWAY

!o SAND HEADS LIGHTHOUSE

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049

Path:

\\gold

er.gd

s\gal\

burna

by\C

AD-G

IS\C

lient\

WesP

ac_M

idstre

am_L

LC\Ti

lbury\

99_P

ROJE

CTS\

1314

2200

49_M

arine

Jetty

\02_P

RODU

CTIO

N\17

000\M

XD\R

eport

\Vege

tation

\Env

ironm

ental

_Ass

essm

ent\T

ILBUR

Y_VE

G_17

000_

Figure

_4_7

_1_V

egeta

tion_

LAA_

RAA.

mxd

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

^U.S.A

BRITISH COLUMBIA

PROJECTLOCATION

VICTORIA

VANCOUVER

KAMLOOPS

KELOWNA

NANAIMO

CAMPBELLRIVER

HOPE

WILLIAMS LAKEOVERVIEW

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES

NOT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS

SHOW

N, TH

E SH

EET H

AS B

EEN

MODI

FIED

FROM

: ANS

I B

CONSULTANT

PROJECT NO. CONTROL Rev. FIGURE

YYYY-MM-DDPREPAREDDESIGNREVIEWAPPROVED

25mm

0

1,500 0 1,500 1:70,000 METRESSCALE

40 0 40

1:6,500,000KILOMETRES

SCALE:

IJIJ

HC / SBJP

2019-03-14

4.7-1217000

VEGETATION LOCAL AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENT AREAS

TILBURY MARINE JETTYDELTA, B.C.

1. INDIAN RESERVES AND TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION LANDS AND WILDLIFEMANAGEMENT AREA DATA OBTAINED BY B.C. MINISTRY OF FORESTS, LANDS ANDNATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS.2. RAILWAY, WATERCOURSE, FOREST, PARKS, WATERCOURSE AND RESIDENTIAL AREADATA OBTAINED FROM CANVEC © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.3.TOPO BASEMAP © ESRI AND ITS LICENSORS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83

WESPAC MIDSTREAM - VANCOUVER LLC

!(

SIDALCEAHENDERSONII

OnshorePiperack 1

FRASER RIVER(SOUTH ARM)

Ven tureStreet

Hopcott Road

MacDonald Road

Progress Way

Vantage Way

Ports

ideRo

ad

72 Street

River RoadDennett Place

68St

reet

Tilbury Road

Dyke Road

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT SITE BOUNDARYVEGETATION LOCAL ASSESSMENT AREAVEGETATION REGIONAL ASSESSMENT AREAVEGETATION TECHNICAL STUDY AREAPROJECT DISTURBANCE FOOTPRINT

SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM INVENTORY DATAESTUARINE: MARSH (ES:ms; Em05 - BLUE LISTED ECOSYSTEM)

!( PLANT SPECIES AT RISK (FIELD DATA, BLUE LISTED)WATERCOURSEROADRAILWAY

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

Path:

\\gold

er.gd

s\gal\

burna

by\C

AD-G

IS\C

lient\

WesP

ac_M

idstre

am_L

LC\Ti

lbury\

99_P

ROJE

CTS\

1314

2200

49_M

arine

Jetty

\02_P

RODU

CTIO

N\17

000\M

XD\R

eport

\Vege

tation

\Env

ironm

ental

_Ass

essm

ent\T

ILBUR

Y_VE

G_17

000_

Figure

_4_7

_2_V

egeta

tion_

LAA.

mxd

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES

NOT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS

SHOW

N, TH

E SH

EET H

AS B

EEN

MODI

FIED

FROM

: ANS

I B

CONSULTANT



25mm

0

0 210 420

1:8,000 METRESSCALE

IJIJ

HC / SBJP

2019-03-14

4.7-221700013-1422-0049

VEGETATION LOCAL ASSESSMENT AREA


1. INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT PROGRAM (IAPP) DATA (2015), WETLAND, PARKS, FORESTAREA, RAILWAY, ROAD, WATERBODY AND WATERCOURSE OBTAINED BY B.C. MINISTRYOF FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS.2. IMAGERY © 20170903 ESRI AND ITS LICENSORS. SOURCE: DIGITALGLOBE, VIVIDWV02. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83


M A P SYM B OL LA T IN N A M E C OM M ON N A M E

BU Arctium spp. Burdock sp

CT Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

TC Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy

DK Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed

EI Hedera helix English ivyHC Rumex crispus Curled dock

HR Hypochaeris radicata Hairy cat's-ear

HI Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry

JK Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed

NI Solanum spp Nightshade

PL Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife

SB Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom

SS Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel

SJ Hypericum perforatum St. John's wort / Saint John's wort / Goatweed

TR Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort

YI Iris pseudacorus Yellow iris

NOTES1. THE ONSHORE PIPERACK WILL HAVE A 30 METRE WIDE DENSIFICATION CORRIDOR.





9

4.7.1.3.2 Temporal Boundaries

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

Section 1.0, Project Description. In summary, the temporal boundaries established for the assessment of Project

effects on Vegetation encompass these Project phases:

Construction — 2019 to 2023 (just over 3 years);

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

Decommissioning — 2053 or later (1 year).

Temporal characteristics specific to Vegetation (e.g., growing seasons) are considered in Section 4.7.2.

4.7.1.3.3 Administrative Boundaries

No administrative boundaries were applied to Vegetation as no jurisdictional, economic, or social constraints that

could impose limitations on the assessment of potential Project-related effects to Vegetation were identified.

4.7.1.3.4 Technical Boundaries

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

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

confidence include:

Adequacy of baseline data for understanding current conditions and future changes unrelated to the project

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

Model inputs (e.g., modelling of potential downstream impacts);

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

scales of time and space; and

Knowledge of the effectiveness of environmental design features and mitigation for reducing or removing

impacts (e.g., removal of invasive species, construction of wetlands) based on scientific documentation.

The baseline data collected were limited to the vegetation TSA to provide information on current species

composition and ecosystems; however, the data do not provide sufficient information on a timescale required to

predict species response to factors such as other regional developments and climate change.





10

4.7.2 Existing Conditions

4.7.2.1 Information Sources

Characterization of existing conditions in the LAA and RAA is integral to developing a baseline case to which

potential Project-related change can be compared. Desktop and field surveys were conducted to characterize the

condition of vegetation in the TSA and LAA. Field studies were designed to fill knowledge gaps in background

data.

Traditional, cultural, ecological, or community knowledge was collected through ethnographic and other

background research. In addition, Aboriginal groups provided comments during engagement and consultation that

provided insights into traditional, cultural, ecological, or community knowledge (Part C: Aboriginal Consultation).

Consideration of traditional, cultural, ecological, or community knowledge increases understanding and integration

of local-level information into the Application, and proposed Project design.

A review of existing information was conducted to support the characterization of existing conditions for Vegetation,

which included the following sources:

Fraser River Estuary Management Program and Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program Habitat Atlas;

BC CDC Species and Ecosystems Explorer and Internet Mapping Service;

Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) mapping for Metro Vancouver;

Government of BC iMapBC web-based mapping service;

Invasive plant occurrence data from the Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP); and

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) from documents provided by the Tsleil-Waututh, Kwantlen,

Musqueam, and Métis Nations.

In 2014, WesPac initiated desktop and primary data collection studies to support the assessment of effects on

Vegetation that were designed to address known data gaps. The Project is located along the South Arm of the

Fraser River on Tilbury Island, and vegetation within the Project Site Boundary is generally indicative of intense

management associated with urban and industrial development. There are, however, portions of the Project site

that support native vegetation, which may include plant species of management concern or ecosystems that are

considered to be at risk by provincial or federal regulators or are of interest to Aboriginal groups. Primary data

collection studies to address these knowledge gaps included site and floristic surveys to establish plant community

associations, surveys of invasive plants, and surveys and meanders for plant species at risk (Section 1.2.2,

Appendix 4.7-1).

4.7.2.1.1 Traditional Use and Traditional Ecological Knowledge Incorporation

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

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





11

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

sources of this information included:

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

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

2016),

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

Consultation Report (Gall, 2016),

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

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

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

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

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

al., 2018)

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

Replacement Project by Jordan Tam, Rachel Olson and Firelight Research Inc. (Tam, J. et al., 2016)

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

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

replacement project (Marshall, 2017).

TU/TEK sources available at the time of writing provided limited specific TU/TEK information on vegetation,

including information on harvest locations, abundances, and quality of plant species of interest in the Project study

area. A general summary of information from available resources is presented below. A full summary of Aboriginal

use and occupancy of the Project study area may be found in Section 6.3 Current Use of Lands and Resources

for Traditional Purposes in this application.

Kwantlen First Nation reports Tilbury Island falls within their traditional territory, and that Project-related activities

may affect traditional activities (Jones & McLaren, 2016). Further south of the Project site, Kwantlen First Nation

reports cultural areas within their traditional territory that were once used for plant and berry gathering.

Tsleil-Waututh Nation records ten sites within the Project study area that were traditionally used for plant gathering

(Morin, 2016). A petition from Tsleil-Waututh Nation to the Governor dated 1870 asserts traditional cranberry

harvest rights on the lower Fraser River. Burns Bog, within the study area, is the only place within Tsleil-Waututh

territory where they note cranberries can be harvested (Morin, 2016).

Métis Nation British Columbia identifies 56 sites of contemporary use within 5 km of the Project site and 84 within

1 km of the proposed shipping routes (Gall, 2016). This includes harvest areas for berries, fish, birds and other

animals, as well as sites of cultural significance. Mixed Aboriginal families at Fort Langley were not provided for

by HBC and relied on food harvested from the area, as well as timber for personal accommodation.





12

Cowichan Nation describes Lulu Island as a renowned location for berry and fruit abundance (Kennedy, 2015).

Established trails led away from Cowichan Village to areas of regular harvest (Brealey, 2010). Resources that

were traditionally available to the Cowichan due to their use of the lower Fraser River included horsetail, wapato,

cattail, bog cranberry, bog blueberry, wild clover, silverweed, crabapple, Indian hemp, Labrador tea and thule.

Cowichan Nation also traditionally used many other species common to the area for food and material resources

(Kennedy, 2015). There is evidence of burn areas on Lulu island where open land was maintained for berry

production and to encourage vegetation growth (Kennedy, 2015). Privatization of lands and habitat loss has limited

some access to traditional resources (Charlie, 2015; Kennedy, 2015).

The Musqueam KUS describes the importance of the cultural tradition of plant harvesting to the Musqueam culture;

this includes traditional use plants for sustenance, ceremonial use, medicinal use, and artistic use (Tam et al.,

2018). However, urbanisation and industrialization along the lower Fraser River have reduced the opportunity for

plant harvesting (Tam et al., 2018). The Musqueam note several plant harvesting locations within the south and

north arm of the Fraser River, including within 2km of the TSA in the RAA (Tam et al., 2018). The quality and

quantity of available plants for harvesting at these sites has deteriorated concurrent with urbanisation and there is

concern regarding the ‘cleanliness’ of harvesting from such sites (Tam et al., 2018). In addition, the Musqueam

note that the alteration of riparian and foreshore environments reduce opportunities for spawning and rearing fish,

which are critical to Musqueam culture and food security (Tam et al., 2018). The limitations on plant harvesting

also reduces the opportunity for the passing on of knowledge and for social bonding among the Musqueam (Tame

et al., 2018).

4.7.2.1.2 Plant Species of Management Concern

For the plant species of management concern subcomponent, desktop studies were conducted followed by field

surveys completed in spring and summer of 2015. Field surveys for plant species of management concern focused

on plant species at risk, traditional use plants, and invasive plants. Field surveys for plant species at risk and

traditional use plants used systematically searched plots combined with random meander searches, based on

methods described by Penny & Klinkenberg (2017), the California Natural Resources Agency (2018), and the

updated Alberta Native Plant Council (2012) guidelines for conducting at-risk plant surveys.

Field data were compared with information from the literature review to identify potential traditionally important

plant species. Field surveys did not specifically target traditional use plant species in the LAA or TSA; however,

these species are often commonly occurring species, and their presence and distribution is captured in the species

inventories collected as part of ecosystem field surveys (Appendix 4.7-1 Vegetation Baseline). Species lists

compiled as part of the baseline effort can be used by traditional knowledge holders to identify culturally important

plants in the LAA.

Prior to the field survey, a query of the BC IAPP online mapping program was completed to determine if there are

previously documented occurrences of invasive or noxious plant species in the TSA (Government of BC, 2018).

Invasive plant field surveys were conducted in the spring and summer of 2015, and followed the IAPP Reference

Guide Part 1 – Module 1.5 (MOFR, 2010) for cursory field inventories. Field surveys captured occurrence and

distribution data of invasive and exotic plants in the areas visited during collection of vegetation plot data (Appendix

4.7-1 Vegetation Baseline). The invasive plant surveys focused on areas in the TSA that typically support invasive

plant species, such as roadsides and areas of disturbance.





13

4.7.2.1.3 Terrestrial Ecosystems

For the terrestrial ecosystems subcomponent, a review of the BC CDC Species and Ecosystems Explorer website

(BC CDC, 2015) and the SEI mapping for Metro Vancouver and Abbotsford (Meidinger, Clark, & Adamoski, 2014)

was completed to identify terrestrial ecosystems at risk and ecologically sensitive ecosystems that could potentially

occur in the LAA and RAA. Surveys for terrestrial ecosystems followed field methods described in the Field Manual

for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems (MOFR and MOE, 2010) and provincial SEI methods (MOE, 2006).

Ecosystems were then classified according to A Field Guide for Site Identification and Interpretation for the

Vancouver Forest Region (Green & Klinka, 1994).

4.7.2.1.4 Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems

Methods to document occurrence and distribution of the wetland and riparian ecosystems subcomponent were

similar to those implemented for terrestrial ecosystems; however, an overall wetland functional assessment was

also undertaken following the western Washington state wetland rating system (Hruby, 2014). The wetland

functional assessment was undertaken to describe the function of wetlands occurring in the TSA based on

sensitivity to disturbance, significance, rarity, ability to be replaced, and the main functions they provide.

The objectives of the relevant baseline studies are summarized in Table 4.7-5.

Table 4.7-5: Studies to Support the Vegetation Assessment

Study Name Study Purpose Study Available At

Assessment of plant species of management concern

Desktop study and floristic surveys to verify presence of plant species at risk, traditional use plants, and invasive plants within the LAA and portions of the RAA overlapping Tilbury Island.

Appendix 4.7-1 Vegetation Baseline

Terrestrial ecosystem ground truthing

Field surveys to sample and field verify sensitive ecosystem mapping with a focus on areas potentially supporting terrestrial ecosystems at risk. Field data were combined with results of a desktop study and used to classify terrestrial ecosystems in the TSA and LAA.


Wetland and riparian ecosystem ground truthing

Desktop study to obtain information on wetland and riparian ecosystems, followed by field surveys to evaluate site and plant community patterns. Data were used to classify wetland and riparian ecosystems in the TSA and LAA.


Wetland functional assessments survey

Wetland field assessment to describe hydrological, biochemical, and ecological/habitat functions associated with wetlands in the LAA. The assessment was undertaken to facilitate the evaluation of potential effects of the Project on wetlands in the LAA and RAA.


LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area; TSA = Technical Study Area.





14

4.7.2.2 Description of Existing Conditions

The LAA is located within the moist maritime subzone of the Coastal Douglas Fir (CDFmm) biogeoclimatic zone

(Pojar, Klinka, & Meidinger, 1987). The CDFmm biogeoclimatic zone experiences warm, dry summers and mild,

wet winters, which lends to a long growing season (Meidinger & Pojar, 1991). Common tree species in zonal sites

of the CDFmm include coast Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), and

western redcedar (Thuja plicata) (Green & Klinka, 1994).

Historically, the floodplains of the Fraser River consisted of a variety of habitat types such as brackish and

freshwater marshes, alder scrub, bog, open forest, and deciduous woodlands (North & Teversham, 1984). These

ecosystems have been displaced by forestry and agriculture since the 1850s (North & Teversham, 1984). Farmers

have diked and modified the land since settlement to protect against floods and lower water levels for agriculture

(North & Teversham, 1984). Currently, the Fraser River delta and estuary have little natural habitat remaining

(North & Teversham, 1984). Tilbury Island and the LAA is dominated by industrial activities such as the upstream

Seaspan Ferries Tilbury Terminal and downstream Varsteel / Dominion Pipe yard. Historical activities on the

downstream side of the Project Site Boundary include the Tilbury Island (Interfor) barge dump and Fletcher

Challenge wood processing site (FREMP, 1991). These activities have greatly altered the shoreline and upland

environment of Tilbury Island and the LAA.

4.7.2.2.1 Plant Species of Management Concern

Plant Species at Risk

No species at risk were identified within the LAA during the 2015 plant species at risk field surveys; however, the

provincially blue listed Henderson's checker-mallow (Sidalcea hendersonii), was encountered in the TSA (Figure

4.7-2). Henderson's checker-mallow was identified in the TSA approximately 600 m downstream of the LAA at the

southwestern tip of Tilbury Island. Approximately 100 individuals were observed in a clumped distribution along a

50 m long section of the upper bank along the slough. No SARA-listed plant species were encountered in the TSA

or LAA during the 2015 surveys (Appendix 4.7-1 Vegetation Baseline).

Traditional Use Plants

A review of available TEK and Traditional Land Use Study (TLUS) information from the Tsleil-Waututh, Kwantlen,

Musqueam, and Métis Nations was conducted (Gall, 2016; Jones & McLaren, 2016; Morin, 2016; Tam et al. 2018)

and produced limited information on traditional use of plant species and ecosystems within the LAA or RAA. The

Tsleil-Waututh Nation harvested plant foods, primarily berries, in Richmond and Delta (Morin, 2016). The only

berry that was named was wild cranberries (Morin, 2016). Wild onions were also harvested along the Fraser River,

but no specific location was provided (Morin, 2016). The Kwantlen Nation also has records of harvesting sites for

cranberries from the northeast portion of Lulu Island and from Burns Bog in Delta (Jones & McLaren, 2016), and

the Métis Nation has a recorded berry harvesting site approximately 2.5 km west of the Project Site Boundary

(Gall, 2016). Cranberry and onion species were not encountered during 2015 vegetation surveys. The Musqueam

harvested plants along the south and north arm of the Fraser River, including within 2km of the TSA in the RAA

(Tam et al., 2018). Harvested species in the RAA include cedar, yew, maple, hemlock, camas, salal, liquorice root,

and various berries, however, harvesting areas are not indicated to overlap with the LAA (Tam et al., 2018).

Musqueam reports that the importance of traditional plants is not limited to the collection of plants but also includes





15

preparing and processing plant material and intangible activities including social bonding, teaching, knowledge

creation, and spirituality (Tam, J. et al., 2016)

The Tsleil-Waututh, Kwantlen, and Métis documents do not mention traditional plant harvesting sites overlapping

with the Project site or LAA (Gall, 2016; Jones & McLaren, 2016; Morin, 2016). One Tsleil-Waututh “Plant and

Wood Collecting Site” located around Steveston overlaps slightly with the RAA (Morin, 2016). Additional

information on TEK and TLUS is provided in Section 6.3, Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional

Purposes and Part C: Aboriginal Consultation.

Based on a review of Turner and Bell (1971) and Port Metro Vancouver (2015), a total of 34 plant species or

species groups used by Tsawwassen and Coast Salish1 First Nations were identified as potentially occurring in

the LAA (Table 4 of Appendix 4.7-1). Of the 50 plant taxa encountered during vegetation surveys in the LAA,

20 were identified as potential traditional use plants (Table 5 of Appendix 4.7-1). These plants had a patchy and

discontinuous distribution and were more common in the less disturbed portions of the LAA. The majority of these

plants are deciduous shrubs or forbs (herbs), but traditional use trees, ferns, and graminoids (grasses) were also

identified.

Traditional use plant collecting areas were not identified on Tilbury Island; however, potential traditional use plants

are found on Tilbury Island, as well as regionally and provincially. Ecosystems in the Project Disturbance Footprint

are highly disturbed and the occurrence of other important traditional use plant species in the LAA is considered

unlikely. Similarly, Musqueam reports that there is lack of opportunity to collect plants in the Project area (Tam,

J. et al., 2016).

Invasive Plants

Provincial IAPP data indicate no mapped invasive plant occurrences overlap the Project Site Boundary (Figure 4

of Appendix 4.7-1). One occurrence of tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

overlaps the east end of Tilbury Island, and occurrences of several other species exist south of Tilbury Island

(Figure 4 of Appendix 4.7-1).

During 2015 field surveys, 12 invasive and 6 exotic plants were observed in the TSA (Figure 4, Table 1.3.2-4 of

Appendix 4.7-1). With the exception of one species, all of the invasive and exotic plant species observed were

recorded in the LAA (Figure 4, Table 1.3.2-4 of Appendix 4.7-1). Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and

Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) were the only invasive plants observed within the Project Site Boundary

(Figure 4, Table 1.3.2-4; of Appendix 4.7-1). Himalayan blackberry is prevalent within the LAA east of the Project

Site Boundary along the Fraser River, and Japanese knotweed is infrequent, but its control will be important as it

has been known to cause damage to building structures. Habitats in the LAA are highly disturbed and the

occurrence of other invasive plant species in the LAA is likely.

1 This term is used to encompass a number of Aboriginal groups such as Klahoose, Homalco, Sliammon, Sechelth, Squamish, Halq'emeylem, Ostlq'emeylem, Hul'qumi'num, Pentlatch, and Straits Nations.

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/reports.do?elcode=PDAST8H1U0

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/reports.do?elcode=PDLYT090B0





16

4.7.2.2.2 Terrestrial Ecosystems

Natural terrestrial (or upland) ecosystems within the CDFmm subzone are Red- or Blue-listed by the BC CDC

(BC CDC, 2018) and remnant ecosystems on a successional pathway to return to a natural mature state are of

conservation value. However, since the development of the AIR document, treed habitat in early stages of

succession within the LAA has been cleared. Remaining terrestrial ecosystems in the LAA consist of

anthropogenic land cover types such as barren field and horticultural plantings. The terrestrial portions of the LAA

are maintained as lawn or covered with asphalt, compacted gravel, and infrastructure and no longer maintain

natural site characteristics.

Provincial iMap BC data indicated there are no known occurrences of terrestrial ecosystems at risk overlapping

the Project Site Boundary, LAA, or RAA. The Meidinger et al. (2014) SEI mapping did not identify sensitive

terrestrial ecosystems within the Project Site Boundary or the LAA (Figure 5 of Appendix 4.7-1). Two sensitive

upland terrestrial ecosystems were identified in the RAA (See Table 1.3.4-1 of Appendix 4.7-1).

Terrestrial ecosystems in the LAA are highly disturbed and regularly maintained. Since the publication of the AIR

document, remnant forested ecosystems in early succession have been removed during unrelated construction,

and the occurrence of other high value upland ecosystems in the LAA is considered unlikely. Given the absence

of these upland vegetation communities in the LAA, the terrestrial ecosystem subcomponent of Vegetation is not

considered further in this assessment.

4.7.2.2.3 Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems

Provincial iMapBC data indicate there are no known occurrences of wetland or riparian ecological communities at

risk within the Project Site Boundary.

The Meidinger et al. (2014) SEI mapping and field surveys indicate six wetland types (i.e., wetland classes in the

SEI mapping) in the LAA: estuarine marsh, intertidal and subtidal mudflat, riparian mudflat, riparian fringe, swamp,

and shallow water. All of these wetlands are associated with the Fraser River estuarine system found near the

mouth of the river and consist of intertidal habitats where freshwater is mixed with salt water from the ocean

(Meidinger et al., 2014). Intertidal and subtidal mudflats (IT: mf) are the most common type of wetland in the LAA,

while estuarine marsh (ES: ms) is the most common type of wetland within the Project Site Boundary (Table 4.7-

6).

Table 4.7-6: Wetland Type and Extent within the Project Site Boundary and Local Assessment Area

Class: Subclass

Code Class: Subclass Name

Project Site Boundary LAA

Area (ha) Proportion of Project Site

Boundary (%) Area (ha)

Proportion of LAA (%)

ES: ms Estuarine: marsh 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.9

IT: mf Intertidal & shallow sub-tidal: mudflats

- - 1.5 1.9

RI: ff Riparian: fringe 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5

RI: mf Riparian: mudflat 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5





17

Class: Subclass

Code Class: Subclass Name

Project Site Boundary LAA

Area (ha) Proportion of Project Site

Boundary (%) Area (ha)

Proportion of LAA (%)

WN: sp Wetland: swamp - - 1.0 1.3

WN: sw Wetland: shallow water - - 0.3 0.4

Total 0.8 2.0 4.3 5.4

LAA = Local Assessment Area

A small portion of the vegetation in the Project Disturbance Footprint is classified as wetland or riparian (0.23 ha,

5.4%) (Table 4.7-7; Figure 4.7-3). The Project Disturbance Footprint also overlaps with river habitat; however, this

has been omitted from Table 4.7-7 as it is not considered a functioning wetland because it is non-vegetated,

aquatic in nature, and has a high level of anthropogenic disturbance.

Table 4.7-7: Wetland and Riparian Ecosystem Type and Extent in the Project Disturbance Footprint

Class: Subclass Code(a,b)

Class: Subclass

Name Description(c)

Area (ha) in Project

Disturbance Footprint(d)

Proportion of Project

Disturbance Footprint

(%)(d)

ES: ms Estuarine: marsh

Vegetation of salt-tolerant emergent graminoids and succulents, flooded and exposed during most tidal cycles

0.08 1.9

RI: mf Riparian: mudflat

Freshwater tidal mudflat associated with and influenced by freshwater

0.10 2.4

RI: ff Riparian: fringe

Fringe ecosystems associated with streams, pond or lake shorelines, or sites with significant seepage but no floodplain

0.05 1.1

Total 0.23 5.4

(a) Source: Meidinger et al., 2014. (b) Project components (i.e., the LNG transfer pipeline, temporary bunker berth, and marine jetty) also overlap riparian river habitat; however, this is not displayed as it is not considered a functioning wetland due to historical disturbance. (c) Source: MOE, 2012; Meidinger et al., 2014. (d) The total area of the Project Disturbance Footprint is 4.13 ha. LNG = liquefied natural gas.

4.7.2.2.4 Wetland Functional Assessment

A wetland functional assessment was completed for the estuarine wetland types identified by SEI mapping in the

LAA. The ecological, hydrological, biochemical, and habitat function was assessed for each of the six wetland

types (See Appendix 4.7-1). Of these six wetland types, three overlap the Project Disturbance Footprint: riparian

fringe (RI:ff), estuarine marsh (ES:ms), and riparian mudflat (RI:mf) (Table 4.7-8). The basic features and functions

of these wetland types are described below.





18

Riparian fringe ecosystems provide a variety of ecological functions integral to the estuarine ecosystem. These

functions and benefits include soil and slope stability, sediment control, wildlife habitat, microclimate habitats,

water quality improvement, and habitat structure (Brennan & Culverwell, 2004). Estuarine marshes provide

numerous functions including nutrient inputs in the form of plant matter and detritus to the rest of the estuarine

ecosystem, hydraulic buffers from flood and storm surges because of their extensive area, and habitat to migratory

waterfowl and juvenile fishes, especially salmonids, who use tidal channels (Gonor, Sedell, & Benner, 1988). Less

is known about the functions that mudflats provide, but current research suggests these ecosystems can harbour

a very high biological productivity and abundance of invertebrate species even where species diversity is low

(Elliott et al., 1998). Further, under appropriate conditions, mudflats can support the production of biofilms that

provide an important source of food for migratory shorebirds (Valentine, Mariotti, & Fagherazzi, 2014).

Although many of the wetlands in the LAA provide high levels of some functions which are difficult to replace; the

wetlands mapped within the Project Disturbance Footprint (polygons 10785, 10917, 25812; Figure 4.7-3, Table

4.7-8) provide lower levels of function due to historical anthropogenic disturbances/modifications including

fragmentation, introduced contaminates, soil disturbance, modified vegetation, and adjacent structures (see

Appendix 4.7-1 Vegetation Baseline for more details).





19

Table 4.7-8: Summary of Functional Information for Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory Mapped Wetlands in the Local Assessment Area with Potential to be affected by the Project Disturbance Footprint

SEI Polygon

No.

SEI Code

SEI Ecosystem Type(a) SEI Condition(b) SEI

Context(b) SEI

Quality(b) SEI Disturbance

Code(c)

Overall Wetland Rating(d)

Extent in LAA (ha)

10785 10 RI:mf River (Riparian subclass) mudflat

B C C Hbad/Hmv III 0.246

10917 10 ES:ms

Estuarine marsh D C D Hbad/Hmv III 0.321

25812* 10 RI:ff Riparian fringe D D D Hbad/Hmv III 0.171

(a) Based on Meidinger et al. (2014) and updated with field data. (b) A = Excellent, B = Good, C = Moderate, D = Poor, E = Very Poor (c) Hbad = Buildings or structures (adjacent); Hmv = Modified vegetation, e.g., agriculture, recreation fields (adjacent) (d) Based on Hruby (2014). I = Wetlands that perform a high level of functions; II = Wetlands that are difficult to replace, and perform functions well; III = Wetlands with a moderate level of functions. SEI = Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory; LAA = Local Assessment Area.





20

4.7.3 Methodology for Assessment of Potential Project Effects

The assessment methodology used to assess the potential adverse effects of the Project is described in Section

3.0, Assessment Methodology. A summary of this assessment methodology as it relates to Vegetation is

provided below.

4.7.3.1 Potential Project Interactions

Construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project may lead to changes to Vegetation. Potential

interactions between Project components and activities during these phases and Vegetation have been identified

and are rated in Section 4.7.4.1. To focus the assessment on those interactions of greatest importance,

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

forward for assessment.

The following interaction ratings have been applied:

Potential interaction—may result in a potential effect on Vegetation; these interactions have been carried

forward in the assessment.

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

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

assessment.

No interaction—these interactions have been identified but are not expected to interact with the VC and are

not carried forward in the assessment.

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

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

4.7.3.2 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures that are expected to reduce or eliminate an adverse effect on Vegetation, or enhance a

beneficial effect, will be described. Mitigation measures may include monitoring to verify results and standard

mitigation measures such as Best Management Practices (BMPs), including changes to the means in which the

Project will be designed, constructed, operated, or decommissioned. Mitigation will also consider the views of

Aboriginal groups and key stakeholders.

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

following criteria:

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

eliminate the effect or improve the condition of the VC.

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

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





21

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

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

VC.

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

residual effects.

4.7.3.3 Characterization of Potential Residual Project Effects

Residual effects are characterized using specific criteria for each VC as defined in the BCEAO’s VC selection

guideline (BCEAO, 2013). Definitions for residual effects criteria, developed with specific reference to Vegetation,

are presented in Table 4.7-9. Effects that are negligible prior to mitigation measures are not carried forward to the

assessment of residual Project effects or cumulative effects.

Table 4.7-9: Criteria Used to Characterize Residual Effects on Vegetation

Criteria Description Definition

Magnitude

The amount of change to the existing condition of a VC or subcomponent

Numeric quantification—incremental contribution to the change in the measurement indicator is described by effect size (e.g., ha)

Narrative qualification—incremental contribution to the change in the measurement indicator is described as a measurable change (e.g., proliferation of invasive species)

Negligible—effects which are so small that they are neither detectable nor measurable and are not anticipated to influence the short- or long-term viability of the VC subcomponent

Low—measurable change to the VC subcomponent, reproductive capacity, survival, or extent of suitable habitat; regional population or extent sufficient to sustain the subcomponent without active management

Moderate—measurable change to reproductive capacity, survival or extent of suitable habitat for the VC subcomponent over the short or medium term; regional recovery to pre-project conditions expected with management

High—measurable change to reproductive capacity, survival, or extent of suitable habitat for the VC subcomponent resulting in a net loss of wetland functions or a greater than 10% loss of ecosystems or plant species of management concern in the RAA

Geographic Extent

Spatial scale over which Project-related changes may be expected to occur

Site-specific—effects limited to the Project site

LAA—effects limited to the LAA

RAA—effects extend to the RAA

Beyond the RAA—effects extend to areas beyond the RAA





22

Criteria Description Definition

Duration

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

Short-term—effects present for less than one year

Medium-term—effects present for one year to the life of the Project (i.e., one year to thirty years)

Long-term—effects present for greater than the life of the Project (i.e., 30 years to 100 years)

Permanent—effects present indefinitely

Frequency How often the residual effect is expected to occur

Infrequent—effect occurs once or rarely (i.e., less than once per year) over the specified duration of the Project (construction, operation, decommissioning)

Frequent—effect occurs repeatedly (i.e., monthly to yearly) over the specified duration of the Project (construction, operation, decommissioning)

Continuous—effect occurs continuously (i.e., weekly or more frequently) over the specified duration of the Project (construction, operation, decommissioning)

Reversibility

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

Reversible—effect can be reversed

Partially reversible—effect can be reversed partially

Irreversible—effect is permanent

Timing

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

Spring, early summer, and fall—vegetation is most sensitive to disturbance when soils are wettest during this time

Context

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

High resilience—VC subcomponent has high resilience or ability to adapt to changes in the measurement indicator and is able to re-establish to a stable condition following disturbance

Moderate resilience—VC subcomponent has a moderate resilience or ability to adapt to changes in the measurement indicator

Low resilience—VC subcomponent has low resilience or ability to adapt to changes in the measurement indicator and is sensitive to disturbance

VC = Valued Component; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area.

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

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

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

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

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

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





23

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

residual effect could occur.

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

4.7.3.4 Determination of Significance

The determination of significance of potential residual effects for Vegetation was based on the residual effects

rating assigned using the criteria defined in Table 4.7-9, a review of background information, consultation with

government agencies and other experts, and professional judgement. Each residual Project effect and

cumulative effect has been rated as not significant or significant:

Not significant—Project residual effects are measurable against changes associated with natural

physical, chemical and biological characteristics and processes and are point-specific or local in scope,

short term, and low frequency (once or intermittent).

Significant—Project residual effects are local to regional in scope, long term, occur with regularity, and

are consequential in structural and functional changes in populations, communities and ecosystems.

4.7.3.5 Confidence and Risk

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

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

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

criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

different scales of time and space; and,

Knowledge of the effectiveness of the environmental design features and mitigation for reducing or removing

impacts.





24

Ecosystems are complex and are characterized by interactions across multiple scales, nonlinearity, self-

organization, and emergent properties (Boyce, 1992; Holling, 1992; Levin, 1998; Wu & Marceau, 2002). These

characteristics can confound our understanding of ecosystem processes and limit the accuracy of predictions on

the effects of development on vegetation populations. To be scientifically defensible, residual effects predictions

must be tempered with uncertainty associated with the available data and knowledge of the ecosystem. To reduce

uncertainty associated with changes in habitat quantity, conservative estimates of the Project Disturbance

Footprint were applied to calculate the area of habitat directly affected by the Project footprint.

It is understood that development activities may directly and indirectly affect Vegetation. However, long-term,

comprehensive monitoring studies documenting the resilience of these ecosystems to development, the

effectiveness of mitigation, and the time required to reverse these impacts are lacking. Uncertainty remains

surrounding the degree to which some effects may occur and in the effectiveness of restoration and revegetation

techniques for terrestrial and wetland ecosystems.

4.7.4 Assessment of Potential Project Effects

This section considers potential interactions between Project activities and Vegetation during the construction,

operation, and decommissioning phases of the Project (Table 4.7-10) and potential Project effects on Vegetation

and its subcomponents in relation to the indicators and measurable parameters (listed in Table 4.7-3).

Information is also presented on mitigation of potential effects, including Project design measures to avoid

adverse effects (Section 4.7.3.2). Potential residual effects (i.e., effects remaining following the implementation

of mitigation measures) are described in Section 4.7.4.4.

4.7.4.1 Project Interactions

Potential interactions between Project components and activities and Vegetation during the construction,

operation, and decommissioning phases of the Project are identified in Table 4.7-10. The Project is expected to

interact with the wetland and riparian ecosystem subcomponent and the plants species of management concern

subcomponent. The Project is not expected to interact with terrestrial ecosystems; as such, this subcomponent is

not considered further in this assessment.

Table 4.7-10: Potential Project Interactions with Vegetation

Project Phase and Activities

Interaction Nature of Interaction and Rationale for

Interaction Rating

Vegetation

CONSTRUCTION

Site preparation and removal of existing marine infrastructure

Potential interaction—wetland and

riparian ecosystems, plant species

of management concern

Site preparation will result in a direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems (potential to affect affect ecological, biochemical, hydrological, habitat, traditional use wetland functions) and a direct loss of plant species of management concern (traditional use plants). Site preparation may also result in indirect effects from the deposition of fugitive dust





25



Interaction Rating

and introduction/proliferation of invasive plant species.

Dredging of Dredge Area

No interaction—wetland and

riparian ecosystems, plant species

of management concern

Dredging activities are not expected to affect intertidal or terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, no interaction with Vegetation is expected.

In-river ground stabilization and pile works

Potential interaction—wetland and riparian ecosystems, plant species of management concern

In-river ground stabilization and piling works conducted between the high-water and low-water marks will result in the direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems (potential to affect ecological, biochemical, hydrological, habitat, traditional use wetland functions). Ground stabilization could also result in the direct loss of plant species of management concern (plant species at risk and traditional use plants).

Land-based ground stabilization and pile works


Land-based ground stabilization and pile works may result in the direct loss of riparian ecosystems above the high-water mark, as well as direct loss of and plant species of management concern (traditional use plants). In addition, this activity could result in indirect effects from the introduction/proliferation of invasive plant species potential to affect wetland ecological, habitat, and traditional use functions.

Construction of associated Offshore Facilities


Construction of Offshore Facilities may require temporary disturbance of wetland ecosystems and plant species of management concern while materials are maneuvered for installation.

Construction of associated Onshore Facilities


Construction of Onshore Facilities could result in indirect effects to riparian fringe habitat (wetland and riparian ecosystems subcomponent) due to incidental damage of plants or effects from fugitive dust, as well as indirect effects from the introduction/proliferation of invasive plant species, which have the potential to affect wetland ecological, habitat, and traditional use functions.





26



Interaction Rating

Marine transportation of construction materials and equipment

Negligible interaction—wetland and riparian ecosystems, plant species of management concern

Unloading of barged material will occur at an existing concrete stub dock away from wetland and riparian ecosystems and habitat that may support plant species of management concern.

Road transportation of construction materials and equipment


Road transport is expected to have a negligible interaction with vegetation as road transportation will occur on the existing road network.

Enhancement of the previously disturbed foreshore


Shoreline enhancement activities may temporarily result in indirect loss to wetland and riparian ecosystems (potential to temporarily affect ecological, biochemical, hydrological, habitat, and traditional use wetland functions) and habitat for plant species at risk and traditional use plants (plant species of management concern). However, ultimately this activity is expected to result in net gains of ecological, biochemical, hydrological, habitat, and traditional use wetland and riparian ecosystem functions and habitat for at risk plant species.

OPERATION

LNG carrier/barge loading No interaction—wetland and riparian ecosystems, plant species of management concern

LNG carrier / barge loading activities are not expected to affect intertidal or terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, no interaction with Vegetation is expected.

Berthing/departure of vessels

No interaction—wetland and riparian ecosystems, plant species of management concern

Berthing and departure of vessels are not expected to affect intertidal or terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, no interaction with Vegetation is expected.

Marine shipping from the Project site to Sand Heads


Marine shipping activities are not expected to affect intertidal or terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, no interaction with Vegetation is expected.

Maintenance dredging No interaction—wetland and riparian ecosystems, plant species of management concern

Dredging activities are not expected to affect intertidal or terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, no interaction with vegetation is expected.

Maintaining marine security zone


Activity on the jetty and vessel movements are not expected to affect vegetation.





27



Interaction Rating

Accidents and malfunctions during operation


Land- and aquatic-based accidents and malfunctions could result in direct and indirect loss to wetland and riparian ecosystems and plant species of management concern. Wetland functions that have potential to be affected include ecological, biochemical, hydrological, habitat, and traditional use functions.

DECOMMISSIONING

Removal of associated Offshore Facilities

Potential interaction—wetland and riparian ecosystems

Removal of Offshore Facilities may result in the direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems (potential to affect ecological, biochemical, hydrological, habitat, and traditional use wetland functions).

Removal of associated Onshore Facilities

Potential interaction—wetland and riparian ecosystems

Removal of Onshore Facilities may result in the direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems (potential to affect ecological, biochemical, hydrological, habitat, and traditional use wetland functions), as well as indirect effects from the introduction/proliferation of invasive plant species (potential to affect wetland ecological, habitat, and traditional use functions).

Marine transportation of decommissioning materials and equipment


Loading of barged material will occur at an existing concrete stub dock away from wetland and riparian ecosystems and habitat that may support plant species of management concern.

LNG = liquefied natural gas





28

The Project is not expected to interact with Vegetation during the operation phase except for in the event of an

accident or malfunction. Accidents and malfunctions may involve disturbance to Vegetation and its subcomponents

due to spills or fire. Potential effects from accidents and malfunctions are addressed in Section 9.0, Accidents

and Malfunctions. As operational activities associated with Project are not expected to interact with Vegetation,

the operation phase is not considered further in this assessment.

4.7.4.2 Potential Project Effects

4.7.4.2.1 Direct Loss of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems

Construction

Site clearing, ground disturbance, other site preparation activities, and onshore and offshore construction in the

Project site will result in a direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems. Direct loss of wetland and riparian

ecosystems is expected to be limited to within 1 m of the footprint of the Project infrastructure and ground

stabilization (the Project disturbance area). The area of direct loss was calculated by overlapping the Project

Disturbance Footprint with SEI polygons in a geographic information system (GIS).

The Project is predicted to result in direct loss of 0.23 ha of wetland and riparian ecosystems including riparian

fringe (<0.1 ha), estuarine marsh (0.1 ha), and mudflat (<0.1 ha) (Table 4.7-11). Overall, there is 1.5 ha of similarly

classified ecosystems in the LAA. These ecosystems have been disturbed by historical and ongoing industrial

activities and by the presence of invasive plant species. Although these ecosystems have been highly modified,

direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems has been considered for mitigation.

Table 4.7-11: Direct Loss of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems in the Project Disturbance Footprint

SEI Wetland Class:

Subclass Code

SEI Wetland Class: Subclass Name

Area of Ecosystem

Loss in Project Disturbance

Footprint (ha)

Proportion of Total Area of Ecosystem in

LAA (%)(a)

Proportion of Total Area of Ecosystem in

RAA (%)(b)

ES: ms Estuarine marsh 0.08 11.6 0.01

RI: mf Riparian mudflat 0.1 24.5 0.76

RI: ff Riparian fringe 0.05 14.8 0.08

Total Potential Loss 0.23 15.3 0.03

(a) This represents the percentage of the same habitat type in the LAA for the specified wetland class. The total represents the percentage of the total wetland extent in the LAA. The total area of estuarine marsh, riparian mudflat, or riparian fringe in the LAA is 0.7 ha, 0.4 ha, and 0.4 ha respectively, 1.5 ha altogether.

(b) Represents the proportion of the same ecosystem type in the RAA. The total area of estuarine marsh, riparian mudflat, and riparian fringe in the RAA is 773.3 ha, 13 ha, and 59.4 ha respectively, totalling 845.7 ha. SEI = Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area.

Decommissioning

Machinery access and maneuvering for removal of Onshore and Offshore facilities during decommissioning could

result in the direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems. This effect is expected to be minor, as it is expected

that decommissioning activities will predominately take place within the Project Disturbance Footprint. However,

direct loss during decommissioning has been considered for further mitigation.





29

4.7.4.2.2 Indirect Loss of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems

Construction

Construction activities, such as site preparation, land-based ground stabilization, pile works, and construction of

facilities, may have indirect effects on wetland and riparian ecosystems. Surface runoff from disturbed areas

(i.e., exposed soil) can contain suspended solids that may affect soil quality and vegetation. Substantial

mobilization of sediments can bury plants effecting plant survivorship. This can result in changes to ecosystem

functions such as a wetland’s ability to retain water or impede erosion. Given the potential for indirect loss of

wetland and riparian ecosystems, this effect has been considered for mitigation.

Estuarine wetland systems in the LAA are dependent on daily and seasonal variation in tidal surface water flow.

Ground stabilization for Offshore and Onshore facilities may indirectly affect these ecosystems by altering localized

hydrology and river processes. Stabilization activities will take place at or below the sediment surface; therefore,

surface flows will be maintained and minor impediments to hydrological input from groundwater sources are not

expected to affect wetland and riparian ecosystems outside of the Project Disturbance Footprint. In addition, it is

not expected that Project-related in-river structures will alter river processes (such as sedimentation and scour)

beyond the natural range of variation for existing river characteristics (see River Processes, Section 4.1.4.2.1).

Given that loss of ecosystems within the Project Disturbance Footprint has been accounted for as direct loss

(Section 4.7.4.2.1), no additional effects from hydrological changes are expected. Therefore, this interaction has

not been considered for mitigation.

Deposition of fugitive dust may result from site preparation and clearing activities, as well as from construction of

associated onshore facilities. Dust can coat vegetation, reducing photosynthesis, and block leaf stomata, which

can lead to reduced growth and vigour and change the competitive balance of a vegetation community (Farmer,

1993). There is potential for intermittent, localized dust generation. Given some dust production may occur, this

effect has been considered for mitigation and will be managed with BMPs (as outlined in Section 4.4, Air Quality).

4.7.4.2.3 Loss of Species of Management Concern

Construction

Direct loss of plant species of management concern (plant species at risk and traditional use plants) could occur

during site preparation and ground stabilization. Although plant species at risk and traditional use plants were not

observed within the Project Disturbance Area, baseline field surveys cannot determine their complete absence.

To be conservative, it has been assumed that these plant species of management concern could occur within the

Project Disturbance Footprint and could be lost during the construction phase. Loss of plant species of

management concern has been considered for further mitigation.

Operation and Decommissioning

No additional loss of plant species of management concern is expected to occur during the operation and

decommissioning phases.





30

4.7.4.2.4 Introduction and Extent Expansion of Invasive Species

Construction

Transportation of equipment and materials to the Project site from off site may result in the introduction of new

invasive plant species to the Project site and LAA. Vehicles, equipment, and clothing can carry invasive plant parts

(propagules) and mud/soils containing invasive plant seeds from off site (MFLNRO & ISCBC, 2013). Invasive

plants may be introduced to an area via contaminated gravels and soils used during construction and habitat

restoration and enhancement activities. Introduced invasive plant species that establish within the Project Site

Boundary or LAA can proliferate and outcompete native vegetation, thereby reducing the extent and diversity of

native plant communities.

Activities that disturb soil and vegetation, such as clearing, grubbing, and ground stabilization, can also contribute

to proliferation of invasive plants that already exist in the Project Site Boundary and LAA (MFLNRO & ISCBC,

2013). Machinery moving around the Project Site Boundary can carry propagules and seeds from areas of the

Project Site Boundary that are already infested, particularly when conditions are muddy, depositing them in new

locations. Newly disturbed soils are especially susceptible to establishment of invasive species (MFLNRO &

ISCBC, 2013) because of available space and lack of competition (Theoharides & Dukes, 2007). Proliferation of

invasive plant species that currently exist within the Project Site Boundary would decrease the extent and diversity

of native plant communities.

Given the existing extent of invasive plants within the Project Site Boundary, introduction/proliferation of invasive

plant species during the construction phase has been considered for further mitigation.

Decommissioning

Machinery access and maneuvering for removal of onshore facilities during decommissioning could result in in the

introduction of new invasive plant species to the Project site and LAA or result in the proliferation of existing

populations of these species.

Given the existing extent of invasive plants within the Project Site Boundary, introduction/proliferation of invasive

plant species during the decommissioning phase is considered an interaction with the Project and has been

considered for further mitigation.

4.7.4.3 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures that are expected to reduce or eliminate an adverse effect, or enhance a positive effect, are

described below and summarized in Table 4.7-13. Mitigation measures include mitigation integrated into Project

design and specific mitigation identified for Vegetation.

Selection of mitigation measures for Vegetation was informed by:

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

Regulator, public, and Aboriginal group input;





31

Internal evaluation of technical and economic feasibility;

SEI mapping;

Wetland Ways: Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and Conservation in British Columbia (Cox &

Cullington, 2009);

General BMPs for intertidal marine works (Research Inc., 2014); and

Existing local ecosystem restoration projects.

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

following order:

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

pre-construction planning phases

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

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

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

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

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

4.7.4.3.1 Project Design Mitigation

The Project has been designed to reduce effects on Vegetation. The Project site is located in an area that has

been historically disturbed and is predominately devoid of natural vegetation, thus limiting the direct loss of natural

ecosystems and native plant species. Further, the Project underwent a design optimization process that reduced

the width of the trestle and the number of piles required for support, further reducing the Project footprint.

Other design features that minimize effects to Vegetation are the use of a high clearance trestle to avoid shading

and situating construction laydown areas in previously disturbed areas. The trestle has been designed to be

between approximately 5.8 m at the dike and 10 m at the permanent marine jetty above the Higher High Water

Large Tide (HHWLT) elevation which is well above heights recommended to avoid potential effect of shading on

biological resources including shoreline vegetation (Rondorf, Rutz, & Charrier, 2010). In addition, the trestle

(approximately 7 m wide) will be constructed of 25 mm (1-inch) metal grating and avoid use of any skirting to allow

light to transmit through the structure.

Temporary facilities, such as construction laydown areas, the barge landing location, and site access roads, have

been located on paved and previously disturbed areas to reduce disturbance of wetland and riparian ecosystems

present within and adjacent to the Project Disturbance Footprint.





32

4.7.4.3.2 Specific Mitigation for Vegetation

Mitigation measures are proposed to avoid, minimize, control, restore, or offset potential negative environmental

effects to Vegetation. Mitigation measures include the incorporation of applicable standards, guidelines, and BMPs

supported by documents such as Develop with Care 2014: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land

Development in BC (MOE, 2014b), Best Practices for Managing Invasive Plants on Roadsides (MOTI & IPCBC,

2010), Best Management Practices for Himalayan Blackberry in the Metro Vancouver Region (MV and ISCMV

2018a), and Best Management Practices for Knotweed Species in the Metro Vancouver Region (MV and ISCMV

2018b).

4.7.4.3.2.1 Avoidance

Mitigation measures proposed to avoid potential adverse effects to Vegetation include measures designed to

restrict project activities such that they do not interact with a VC. Avoidance measures are implemented during

the Project design and optimization, as discussed in Section 4.7.4.3.1. Project redesign avoided effects to

Vegetation by reducing the overall permanent loss of habitat and minimizing the effects of shading to Vegetation.

Other mitigation measures to avoid effects to Vegetation are discussed below. Avoidance measures are expected

to be highly effective in eliminating or reducing the interactions with the Project and VCs by creating physical or

temporal barriers and boundaries between the construction and Vegetation. Avoidance mitigation measures will

be effective immediately as they will be implemented prior to construction commencing.

Mitigation Measure M4.7-1 Limit Disturbance Footprint

The Project has been designed to reduce the extent of the Project Disturbance Footprint in the LAA (Section

4.7.4.3.1), and the extent of clearing and ground stabilization is limited to the Project Disturbance Footprint thereby

avoiding disturbance to Vegetation in the TSA. Perimeters of SEI mapped ecosystems will be annotated on

construction drawings and flagged in the field to reduce the potential for accidental encroachment. In addition,

unnecessary contact with wetland vegetation or soils on foot or by vehicle will be avoided during construction and

operation. Where possible, work will be avoided in areas or during times where tidal water levels are such that

barges or vessels will ground or strike the bottom, particularly where sensitive benthic habitats such as mudflats

or estuarine marshes may be present. These measures are expected to avoid the potential for adverse effects on

the wetland and riparian ecosystems in the LAA outside of the Project Disturbance Footprint. Reducing the overall

disturbance footprint is a highly effective strategy and is a suggested BMP (MOE, 2014b).

4.7.4.3.2.2 Minimize

Mitigation measures designed to minimize potential adverse effects to Vegetation include preserving and salvaging

plant species, implementing best management practices, and developing management plans to predict, monitor,

and adapt to interactions between the Project and Vegetation. Mitigation measures to minimize potential adverse

effects to Vegetation will be included in the Vegetation Management Plan and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

(Section 14). These measures are expected to be effective in reducing the interaction between the Project and

Vegetation by identifying sensitive features and by planning for and managing potential interactions prior to





33

construction and operation. Unless otherwise stated, these mitigation measures will be effective immediately as

they will be implemented prior to construction commencing.

Mitigation Measure M4.7-2 Preserve Native Trees and Vegetation

Where appropriate and safe, native trees and vegetation will be preserved. Construction activities will be located

away from trees and their root systems. Where possible, trees and vegetation will be pruned instead of removed

as assessed by a certified arborist. Pruning, removal, or control of vegetation in and around facilities (e.g., trestle

ramp) may be required. Standard best practices and mitigation measures for this activity will be established and

employed by the certified arborist to avoid and reduce adverse effects to vegetation and wetland resources.

Preserving and protecting native trees and vegetation is a highly effective mitigation strategy as it minimizes

disturbance and it is a suggested BMP (MOE, 2014b; MOTI and IPCBC, 2010).

Mitigation Measure M4.7-3 Soil Management

Soil compaction will be minimized by limiting ground stabilization activities to within 1 m of the Project Disturbance

Footprint. Boardwalks, walking boards, or mats composed of plywood, fibreglass grating, or other specifically

approved materials to prevent damage to the wetland surface may be used for foot access to some wetland areas

depending on wetland type, season, and wetland soil condition. Where appropriate, soils will be decompacted to

reduce surface ponding, or in areas where compact soils limit seeding activities and obstruct plant root penetration

and growth. Soil management to protect important soil properties, such as minimizing compaction, is expected to

be moderately effective mitigation and is a BMP (MOE, 2014b).

Mitigation Measure M4.7-4 Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Plant Species at Risk

Plant species at risk were not identified in the LAA during the baseline surveys; however, these surveys could not

confirm absence of these species. Further, the presence of plant species at risk could change between the time

of the baseline surveys and the initiation of the construction phase. As such, surveys for plant species at risk will

be conducted within the Project Disturbance Area before initiation of construction. If rare plants are identified,

effects will be mitigated through salvaging or other feasible mitigation measures, where possible, as determined

by an appropriate qualified environmental professional. Conducting pre-construction surveys for plant species at

risk is expected to be moderately effective to enable protecting or transplanting plant species at risk because it is

considered a BMP but plant species at risk can be sensitive to transplanting (MOE, 2014b).

Mitigation Measure M4.7-5 Salvaging Soils and Other Material

Where feasible, clean soil and native vegetation removed to facilitate Project construction will be salvaged and

replaced upon completion of the construction phase within areas requiring temporary disturbance or planned

habitat enhancement areas. Vegetation and soils to be retained will be identified with required methods in the

Project Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Salvaging soils and other material can preserve

native plant seedbanks and soil properties for use in restoration activities and is expected to be highly effective,

where salvage is possible. Soil salvage and retention for use during restoration is a BMP (MOE, 2014b).





34

Mitigation Measure M4.7-6 Implementation Monitoring during Construction

Implementation monitoring will be conducted during the construction phase of the Project to manage and assess

the implementation of mitigation strategies. The CEMP will identify sensitive areas on drawings, require that these

be flagged in the field, and provide a schedule when monitoring by a qualified professional will occur.

Implementation monitoring enables efficient identification of mitigation requiring maintenance and for compliance.

Implementation monitoring is expected to be highly effective mitigation and is a BMP (MOE, 2014b).

Mitigation Measure M4.7-7 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) will be developed and implemented for the Project. The ESCP will

identify where erosion and sediment control measures should be implemented. Measures may include physical

works such as sediment fencing, settling ponds, and covers, as well as operational constraints (e.g., stop sensitive

works during heavy rains). The ESCP will also include effectiveness monitoring. Restoration activities and related

clearing and grubbing will be scheduled to a timeline that reduces potential for erosion.

If seeding of disturbed soils is delayed, the exposure period will be minimized through the use of artificial covers

(e.g., erosion control blankets and weed free straw/mulch). As well, horizontal grading and contouring of sloping

ground will be applied to prevent additional erosion.

Sediment runoff that enters a watercourse is considered a deleterious substance and can result in charges under

the Fisheries Act (DFO, 2013). An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is a recommended BMP (MOE, 2014b) and

is expected to be highly effective.

Mitigation Measure M4.7-8 Vegetation Management Plan

The Vegetation Management Plan will provide guidance for the protection and salvage of vegetation including

terrestrial ecosystems, wetland ecosystems, and plant species of management concern (species at risk and

traditional use plants). It will also provide site-specific information on mitigation measures, monitoring activities,

and adaptive management for managing Vegetation VCs. The Vegetation Management Plan and salvage efforts

will incorporate TEK and TU and salvage of plants for traditional use will provide opportunities for collaboration

with Aboriginal Groups. Vegetation Management Plans are effective mitigation for providing Project-specific

mitigation for potential Project-related effects.

The Vegetation Management Plan is expected to be moderately effective at managing Vegetation VC’s on site by

avoiding disturbance of sensitive ecosystems, minimizing disturbance through mitigation measures, and relocating

or salvaging Plants of Management Concern (plants species at risk and traditional use plants), where possible.

The BC Weed Control Act (WCA) (Government of BC, 1996) requires control of invasive plant species during

construction. As part of the Vegetation Management Plan, an Invasive Plant Species Management Plan will be

developed to reduce the potential for introduction/proliferation of invasive plant species in the LAA and meet

requirements of WCA (see Section 14.0, Management Plans). The Invasive Plant Species Management Plan

will incorporate measures to prevent, mitigate, control, dispose, and report on invasive plants as outlined in the

2018 Best Management Practices for Himalayan blackberry (MV and ISCMV 2018a), Japanese knotweed (MV

and ISCMV 2018b), and other invasive plant species (MV 2018). Invasive species management strategies,





35

including site-appropriate monitoring and control methods for different species and conditions, will be prepared

and implemented as part of the Vegetation Management Plan.

Equipment and materials will be cleaned of mud/soils, invasive plant parts, and propagules prior to arriving at the

Project Site Boundary. Vehicles and equipment will be washed when working in sensitive ecosystems and after

working with invasive plant species. If equipment is used in areas where invasive plants occur, machines are to

be inspected and cleaned of visible soil and plant material before leaving the Project site. Staging areas that are

free of invasive plants are to be located and used to avoid spreading seeds and other viable plant parts. Parking

or turning around in invasive plant infested areas are to be avoided. The contractor’s qualified environmental

monitor shall record when vehicles have been inspected for invasive plant debris and make these data available

for inspection. Acceptable methods of cleaning may include:

Portable wash station that contains runoff from washing equipment (containment must be in compliance with

wastewater discharge regulations);

High pressure air; and

Brush, broom, or other hand tools (used without water).

If straw bales are considered for erosion control, it is recommended that weed-free hay bales be used, as weed

seed content of straw bales is difficult to determine. All straw or hay used for crimping, amendments, erosion

control, or other construction uses should be examined.

Source and waste materials are to be managed effectively during the construction phase. Riprap, aggregate, and

any imported material are to be free of invasive plant material. Soil containing invasive plants are to be disposed

of in an appropriate designated disposal facility. Gravel or other imported material are to be regularly inspected

prior to, during, and following placement for potential invasive plant material and follow BMPs for management

and disposal if potential invasive plants are present.

Staff and contractors are to be informed of invasive plant issues at the Project Site Boundary and invasive plant

control measures are to be incorporated in site management plans. For example, information on invasive plant

species are to be posted around the work site and discussed at tailgate meetings. As well, annual training

sessions/workshops with staff and contractors could be undertaken in cooperation with regional invasive plant

committees.

The measures outlined above are expected to be moderately effective at controlling the proliferation of invasive

plants on the Site. Invasive plants are prominent in the LSA, which can provide opportunity for re-establishment of

invasive plants on site. However, given the size of the TSA, continued maintenance and monitoring of invasive

plants is feasible and enables efficient early detection, and as such the Invasive Plant Species Management Plan,

as part of the Vegetation Management Plan, is expected to be highly effective at controlling invasive plants on the

Site.

Mitigation Measure M4.7-9 Revegetate Disturbed Soils

Disturbed soils and temporary workspaces will be revegetated with native plants compatible with surrounding

vegetation communities, where possible. Revegetating disturbed soils will reduce the potential for propagation of





36

invasive plant species and enhance native ecosystems in the LAA. Revegetating disturbed soils is effective at

minimizing opportunity for invasive plant proliferation, for erosion and sediment control, and is a BMP (MOE,

2014b); therefore, revegetating disturbed soil is expected to be a highly effective mitigation measure.

4.7.4.3.2.3 Restore and Offset

Measures designed to restore and/or offset potential adverse effects to Vegetation include wetland restoration and

final rehabilitation plan to offset the interactions between the Project and Vegetation. Mitigation measures to

restore and offset potential adverse effects to Vegetation will be included in the Wetland Mitigation Plan and the

Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation Plan. These measures are expected to compensate for potential

adverse effects from the Project on Vegetation by determining areas for wetland enhancement and creation,

creating a Wetland Mitigation Plan, and implementing wetland restoration. Wetland restoration will be conducted

during the construction phase and is expected to be effective within three years of implementation based on

previous local march restoration projects (Williams and Tramner 2017).

Mitigation Measure M4.7-10 Wetland Restoration – Enhancement and Creation

On-site wetland and riparian ecosystem enhancement and creation conducted during the construction phase is

expected to offset the potential Project-related loss of wetland and riparian extent (0.23 ha) and function. The

following wetland ecosystem restoration actions are proposed:

Approximately 0.23 ha of riparian fringe habitat will be enhanced on the LAA foreshore during the construction

phase (Year 2).

Approximately 0.32 ha of estuarine marsh habitat will be enhanced on the LAA foreshore during the

construction phase (Year 2).

Approximately 0.31 ha of riparian mudflat habitat will be enhanced on the LAA foreshore during the

construction phase (Year 2).

Approximately 0.32 ha of estuarine marsh habitat will be created on the LAA foreshore during the construction

phase (Year 2).

As discussed in Section 4.7.2.3.4, the wetland and riparian ecosystems in the Project Disturbance Footprint are

currently in a highly disturbed state due to historical industrial activities. The proposed 1.2 ha of estuarine marsh

and riparian mudflat wetland restoration is proposed to be concurrent with construction (Year 2) and the wetland

restoration is expected to offset the calculated loss of wetland extent and functions resulting from construction of

the Project infrastructure (Table 4.7-12). Plants will be salvaged from wetlands affected by construction and

translocated to wetland restoration sites; therefore, wetland restoration sites will be partially functional immediately.

The 1.2 ha of estuarine marsh and riparian mudflat to be created during construction is expected to provide

increased hydrological, biochemical, ecological, and habitat functions to wetlands currently in the LAA (Figure 4.7-

3) and increased ecological function of restored wetlands is expected within 3 years of wetland restoration based

on similar wetland restoration within the south Fraser Arm (Williams and Tramner 2017). Wetland restoration is





37

proposed at a ratio of 5:1 restored wetland to effected wetland, which compensates for the temporal lag for restored

wetland to reach increased ecological function compared to wetlands currently found in the LAA. The creation of

0.3 ha of estuarine marsh, where none previously existed, is expected to directly offset potential loss of wetlands

due to Project construction.

Table 4.7-12: Total Wetland Extent Following Wetland Enhancement and Creation on Site

Year

Lost

Wetland

Extent

(ha)

Proposed Wetland

Creation and

Enhancement on Site

(ha)

Wetland Class

Plan

Total Functioning

Wetland

Extent Per Year in LAA

(ha)

Polygon Number

2 -0.23 - Marsh, mudflat and riparian fringe

Project Site Boundary

-0.23 10785, 10917, 25812R

2 - 0.23 Riparian fringe (RI:ff)

Enhancement -0.03 25812R

2 - 0.32 Estuarine marsh (ES:ms)

Enhancement +0.29 10917

2 - 0.31 Riparian mudflat (RI:mf)

Enhancement +0.60 R1

2 - 0.32 Estuarine marsh (ES:ms)

Creation +0.92 R2

Total -0.23 1.18 +0.92

LAA = Local Assessment Area.

10 RI:ff(10781)

7 ES:ms / 3 RI:ff(291)

10 IT:mf(4737)

10 RI:mf(10785)

10 ES:ms(10917)

10 RI:mf(4016)

10 ES:ms (Em05)(4016E)

10 RI:ff(10825)

10 RI:ff(25812R)

10 RI:mf (R1)

10 ES:ms (R2)

CLIENT

LEGENDPROJECT SITE BOUNDARYVEGETATION LOCAL ASSESSMENT AREAVEGETATION REGIONAL ASSESSMENT AREAVEGETATION TECHNICAL STUDY AREAPROJECT DISTURBANCE FOOTPRINTSEI ENHANCEMENT AREASPOTENTIAL RESTORATION AREAS

SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM INVENTORY DATAESTUARINE: MARSH (ES:ms)INTERTIDAL: MUDFLAT (IT:mf)RIPARIAN:FRINGE (RI:ff)RIPARIAN:MUDFLAT (RI:mf)

REFERENCE

PROJECT

TITLE

13-1422-0049

Path:

\\gold

er.gd

s\gal\

burna

by\C

AD-G

IS\C

lient\

WesP

ac_M

idstre

am_L

LC\Ti

lbury\

99_P

ROJE

CTS\

1314

2200

49_M

arine

Jetty

\02_P

RODU

CTIO

N\17

000\M

XD\R

eport

\Vege

tation

\Env

ironm

ental

_Ass

essm

ent\T

ILBUR

Y_VE

G_17

000_

Figure

_4_7

_3_P

otenti

al_Mi

tigati

ons_

Area

s.mxd

IF TH

IS M

EASU

REME

NT D

OES

NOT M

ATCH

WHA

T IS

SHOW

N, TH

E SH

EET H

AS B

EEN

MODI

FIED

FROM

: ANS

I B

CONSULTANT



25mm

0

NOTES1. ECOSYSTEM SUBCLASS FEATURES CORRESPOND TO THE DECILE 1 OF THE SEI DATA.2. FIELD VERIFIED EM05: LYNGBYE'S SEDGE (CAREX LYNGBYEI) ECOLOGICALCOMMUNITY AND 7ES:MS / 3 RI:FF SOFT-STEMMED BULRUSH COMMON SPIKE RUSHFRINGE. DATED 2015-09-22.3. EM05 = BC RED LISTED LYNGBYE'S SEDGE HERBACEOUS VEGETATION.4. VEGETATION DISTURBANCE FOOTPRINT INCLUDES A 1 METER BUFFER AROUND ALLPROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE.5. SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM INVENTORY DATA (MIEDINGER 2014).

30 0 30

1:1,500 METRESSCALE

IJIJ

HC / SBJP

2019-03-14

4.7-3217000

POTENTIAL MITIGATIONS AREAS MAP


1. RAILWAY AND WATERCOURSE DATA OBTAINED FROM CANVEC © DEPARTMENT OFNATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.2. SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS INVENTORY DATA OBTAINED FROM GREATER VANCOUVERREGIONAL DISTRICT (OCTOBER 2013).3. IMAGERY © 20170903 ESRI AND ITS LICENSORS. SOURCE: DIGITALGLOBE, VIVIDWV02. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 10; DATUM: NAD 83


FRASER RIVER(SOUTH ARM)

SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM LABEL30% OF POLYGON

(AS DECILE)

5 RI:FF3 MF:CO

1ST COMPONENT

3RD COMPONENT2ND COMPONENT

SE SUBCLASSSE CLASS





39

Further conceptual enhancement measures are proposed to improve the wetland and riparian ecosystem functions

by an additional 0.92 ha:

Removal of invasive species and garbage (e.g., creosote pilings and debris, plastic) from the marsh and

revegetation using native species as appropriate to improve habitat quality in the area surrounding the Project

Disturbance Footprint and mitigation area;

Beach nourishment to restore shoreline elevation and growing medium for mudflats and marshes;

Green shoreline erosion protection methods; and

Planting of suitable native plant species including incorporation of traditional use plants.

A Wetland Mitigation Plan will be produced for the Project outlining restoration and monitoring specifications and

details, including a description of management needs, cost estimates, and the funding mechanism that will be

used to meet those needs. The primary goal of compensatory wetland mitigation is to replace or enhance wetland

functions and services to maintain no net loss due to the Project. To determine the success of mitigation, a

monitoring program will be initiated after construction of wetlands to assess biological, hydrological, and structural

characteristics of newly established, restored, and/or enhanced wetland areas. Habitat enhancement features are

generally anticipated to become productive and viable within three years following restoration based on previous

local march restoration projects (Williams and Tramner 2017). After performance standards have been achieved

for wetland mitigation sites, long-term monitoring and adaptive management will be implemented to maximize the

success of wetland enhancement/creation. There are two examples of estuarine restoration within 8 km of the

Site; one site occurs adjacent to the Project site near the Seaspan Ferries Tilbury Terminal, and another occurs

upstream near the Alex Fraser Bridge at the Glenrose Tidal Marsh Project. Wetland restoration through

enhancement and creation is expected to be highly effective.

Mitigation Measure M4.7-11 Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation Plan

There are currently no LNG-specific regulations in place related to the decommissioning of an LNG export facility.

The estimated facility life is a minimum of 30 years. A Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation Plan will be

developed in consultation with applicable regulatory authorities and local Aboriginal groups prior to the Project no

longer being operational. The objective of the plan will be to provide details on methods to be used during

decommissioning to reduce potential effects on the environment. The Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation

Plan should follow the Best Management Practices for Removal of Debris from Wetland and other Intertidal

Wetlands (Research Inc., 2014) or the most current BMPs, regulations, and standards at the time of

decommissioning. The Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation Plan should also contain information on invasive

plant species management. The Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation Plan is expected to be moderately

effective,





40

4.7.4.3.2.4 Summary of Mitigation Measures

A summary of mitigation to address adverse Project effects on Vegetation is provided in Table 4.7-13.

Table 4.7-13: Summary of Mitigation Measures to Address Adverse Project Effects on Vegetation

Potential Effect Mitigation Measure Mitigation

ID # Effectiveness

Construction

Direct loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems

Limit disturbance footprint M4.7-1 High

Preserve native trees and vegetation M4.7-2 High

Soil management M4.7-3 Moderate

Salvaging soils and other material M4.7-5 High

Implementation monitoring during construction

M4.7-6 High

Wetland restoration – enhancement and creation

M4.7-10 High

Direct loss of plant species of management concern (plant species at risk and traditional use plants)

Limit disturbance footprint M4.7-1

High

Preserve native trees and vegetation M4.7-2

High

Conduct pre-construction surveys for plant species at risk

M4.7-4 Moderate

Salvaging soils and other material M4.7-5 High


M4.7-6 High

Vegetation Management Plan M4.7-8 Moderate

Indirect loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems


M4.7-6 High

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan M4.7-7 High

Introduction/proliferation of invasive plant species


M4.7-6 High

Vegetation Management Plan - Invasive Plant Species Management Plan

M4.7-8 High

Revegetate disturbed soils M4.7-9 High

Decommissioning


Limit disturbance footprint M4.7-1 High

Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation Plan

M4.7-11 Moderate

Introduction/proliferation of invasive plant species

Vegetation Management Plan - Invasive Plant Species Management Plan

M4.7-8 High

Decommissioning and Final Rehabilitation Plan

M4.7-11 Moderate





41

4.7.4.4 Residual Project Effects

This section provides a characterization of residual effects carried forward in the assessment following the

application of mitigation measures. After the application of mitigation measures, potential residual effects to

Vegetation are predicted to be none or negligible. Rationale for these residual effects predictions for each potential

project interaction with VCs is provided below.

4.7.4.4.1 Direct Loss of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems

The Project is expected to result in the direct loss of 0.08 ha of estuarine marsh, 0.1 ha of riparian mudflat, and

0.05 ha of riparian fringe. This loss represents a reduction of 0.01% of the estuarine marsh, 0.76% of the riparian

mudflat, and 0.08% of the riparian fringe present in the RAA. The Project design has integrated features that will

minimize loss of these ecosystem types, and offsetting through wetland enhancement and creation is expected to

result in an overall gain of 0.92 ha of wetland ecosystems in the LAA. The direct loss of wetland and riparian

ecosystems are expected to be site specific (geographic extent), medium term, and continuous during construction

and early operation (duration and frequency). As the effect is a loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems, timing of

the effect is not applicable. Wetland enhancement and creation will be conducted during the construction phase;

therefore, the effect is considered reversible. Given the existing extent and condition of the wetland and riparian

ecosystems relating to historical and anthropogenic changes in the LAA and the proposed creation and

enhancement of similar habitat, wetland and riparian ecosystems in the LAA are expected to be moderately

resilient (context) to imposed changes in their current state.

The proposed wetland enhancement and creation is expected to be successful as there are at least two examples

of estuarine marsh creation in similar habitats within 8 km of the Project Site Boundary. One site occurs adjacent

to the Project site near the Seaspan Ferries Tilbury Terminal, and another occurs upstream near the Alex Fraser

Bridge at the Glenrose Tidal Marsh Project (Williams and Tramner 2017). Both projects have successfully created

native estuarine marshes under conditions similar to those proposed in Section 4.7.4.3. The likelihood that the

effect will occur is considered high; however, the success of restoration and enhancement efforts and development

of comparable ecosystem functions to offset the partial loss of the ecosystems effected by Project infrastructure

is also high. Therefore, residual effects related to loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems remaining after the

application of mitigation are considered negligible and are not carried forward to determination of significance or

cumulative effects assessment.

4.7.4.4.2 Indirect Loss of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems

Construction and decommissioning activities, such as site preparation, land-based ground stabilization, and piling

works, and construction and decommissioning of Onshore Facilities, may have indirect effects on wetland and

riparian ecosystems through surface runoff and ambient dust. Standard mitigation practices outlined in the CEMP

and Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), along with an ESCP and a Decommissioning and

Final Rehabilitation Plan, will be applied during Project construction and decommissioning to prevent or minimize

indirect loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems. Given the implementation of mitigation measures, the magnitude

of indirect loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems is predicted to be negligible. Indirect loss of wetland and riparian





42

ecosystems is expected to be limited to the LAA (geographic extent), medium term and frequent (duration and

frequency), and is considered reversible. Indirect effects to wetland and riparian ecosystems may occur during the

sensitive period for this subcomponent. Given the existing extent and condition of the wetland and riparian

ecosystems relating to historical and anthropogenic changes in the LAA and the proposed creation and

enhancement of similar habitat, wetland and riparian ecosystems in the LAA are expected to be moderately

resilient (context) to imposed changes in their current state. Given the implementation of mitigation measures and

the predicted magnitude of the effect, residual effects relating to indirect loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems

remaining after the application of mitigation are considered negligible and are therefore not carried forward to

determination of significance or cumulative effects assessment.

4.7.4.4.3 Loss of Plant Species at Risk and Traditional Use Species

Project activities during construction could result in the loss of plant species at risk and traditional use species. A

pre-construction survey of the Project Disturbance Footprint will be conducted to identify and salvage or otherwise

protect these species where possible prior to initiation of construction. Methods to protect plant species at risk and

traditional use species will be outlined in the Vegetation Management Plan. Salvaging of these plants will be

described in the Wetland Mitigation Plan. Transplanting techniques are expected to be moderately effective for

plant species at risk and traditional use species. The implementation will be described in detail in the Wetland

Mitigation Plan. Further, wetland and riparian enhancement and restoration are expected to expand the available

habitat for these species. Given the implementation of mitigation measures, the magnitude of the potential loss of

at-risk plants and traditional use species is considered negligible. Loss is expected to be site specific (geographic

extent) and short term and infrequent (duration and frequency). As species will be salvaged from the Project

Disturbance Footprint, the effect is considered reversible. Effects to at-risk plants and traditional use species will

be timed to occur outside of the sensitive period of these taxa to promote survivorship during transplantation where

possible. The likelihood that the effect will occur is considered moderate given these species have not been

documented within the Project Disturbance Footprint during baseline surveys. Plant species at risk or traditional

use species were not detected in the Project Disturbance Footprint during baseline studies and the amount of

available suitable habitat for these species is expected to increase with the proposed wetland and riparian creation

and enhancement. Plant species at risk and traditional use species within the LAA are expected to be moderately

resilient to imposed Project-related loss. Plant species adapted to persisting in industrial areas such as the LAA

are assessed to be moderately resilient to imposed stress from human activities. Plant species at Risk with

potential to occur on Tilbury Island are assessed as vulnerable to human activities by the BC CDC (2018). With

the implementation of mitigation measures and the predicted magnitude of the effect, Project-related residual

effects remaining after the application of mitigation are considered negligible and are therefore not carried forward

to determination of significance or cumulative effects assessment.

4.7.4.4.4 Introduction/Proliferation of Invasive Plant Species

Project activities during construction and decommissioning, such as transportation of equipment and material to

the Project site from off site, and activities that disturb soil and vegetation may result in introduction and

proliferation of invasive plant species. Mitigation measures proposed for the Project to control introduction and





43

proliferation of invasive species are expected to be successful. As invasive species distribution is extensive in the

baseline case, it is unlikely that Project activities will substantially contribute to propagation during construction.

As such, the magnitude of the potential effect is predicted to be negligible. With the application of standard

construction mitigation practices, applicable BMPs, and an invasive plant species management plan, the

introduction and extent expansion of invasive species is likely limited to the LAA (geographic extent), medium-

term and infrequent (duration and frequency), and reversible. The potential to introduce and propagate invasive

species could occur through the duration of construction and decommissioning including the sensitive period for

other VC subcomponents. Natural ecosystems in the LAA currently exist with the imposed stress of invasive plant

species. As the Project is expected to reduce the distribution of invasive plants through invasive plant species

management planning and habitat restoration, the resiliency of natural systems to the imposed stress of

introduction and proliferation of invasive plant species due to the Project in the LAA is expected to be moderate

(context). Given the implementation of mitigation measures and the predicted magnitude of the effect, Project-

related residual effects remaining after the application of mitigation are considered negligible and are therefore not

carried forward to determination of significance or cumulative effects assessment.

4.7.4.4.5 Summary of Residual Effects

A summary of residual effects on Vegetation is provided in Table 4.7-14. Confidence that the effect will not be

greater than predicted is high given the conservative assumptions used to estimate loss and the implementation

of mitigation measures.





44

Table 4.7-14: Summary of Effects Characteristics for Vegetation

Subcomponent

Potential

Adverse

Residual

Effect

Contributing Project Activity or

Physical Works

Mit

iga

tio

n #

Dir

ecti

on

of

Eff

ect Residual Effects Characterization

Po

ten

tia

l A

dv

ers

e

Re

sid

ua

l E

ffe

ct

(Y/N

)

Ma

gn

itu

de

Ge

og

rap

hic

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

/

Fre

qu

en

cy

Tim

ing

Re

ve

rsib

ilit

y

Co

nte

xt

Construction







M4.7-1, M4.7-2, M4.7-5, M4.7-6, M4.7-10,

N 0.23 ha

SS MT /CT

A RV MR

N

Indirect loss of wetland and riparian ecosystems




Marine transportation of construction materials and equipment


M4.7-6, M4.7-7

N N LAA MT/F SP RV





45

Subcomponent

Potential

Adverse

Residual

Effect


Physical Works

Mit

iga

tio

n #

Dir

ecti

on

of

Eff


Po

ten

tia

l A

dv

ers

e

Re

sid

ua

l E

ffe

ct

(Y/N

)

Ma

gn

itu

de

Ge

og

rap

hic

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

/

Fre

qu

en

cy

Tim

ing

Re

ve

rsib

ilit

y

Co

nte

xt

Plant species at risk and traditional use species

Loss of plant species at risk and traditional use species




Construction of associated Offshore Facilities

Enhancement of previously disturbed foreshore

M4.7-1, M4.7-2, M4.7-4, M4.7-5, M4.7-6, M4.7-8

N N SS ST/I A RV MR N

Invasive species Introduction and extent expansion of invasive species


Land-based ground stabilization and pile driving


M4.7-6, M4.7-8, M4.7-9

N N LAA MT/I SP RV MR N

Operations



Accidents and malfunctions M4.7—3, M4.7-7

N N SS MT/CT

A RV MR N

Indirect loss of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems

Accidents and malfunctions N N LAA MT/F SP RV





46

Subcomponent

Potential

Adverse

Residual

Effect


Physical Works

Mit

iga

tio

n #

Dir

ecti

on

of

Eff


Po

ten

tia

l A

dv

ers

e

Re

sid

ua

l E

ffe

ct

(Y/N

)

Ma

gn

itu

de

Ge

og

rap

hic

Ex

ten

t

Du

rati

on

/

Fre

qu

en

cy

Tim

ing

Re

ve

rsib

ilit

y

Co

nte

xt

Plant species at risk and traditional use species

Direct and indirect loss of plant species of management concern

Accidents and malfunctions M4.7—3, M4.7-7, M4.7-8

N N SS ST/I A RV MR N

Decommissioning





M4.7-1, M4.7-11

N L SS MT /CT A RV MR N

Invasive species Introduction and extent expansion of invasive species


M4.7-8, M4.7-11

N N LAA MT/I A RV MR N

Notes: Direction: P = positive; N = negative

Magnitude: N = negligible; L = low; M = moderate; H = high

Geographic Extent: SS = site specific; LAA = Local Assessment Area; RAA = Regional Assessment Area; B = beyond the RAA

Duration: ST = short-term; MT = medium-term; LT = long-term; P = permanent

Frequency: I = infrequent; F = frequent; CT = continuous

Timing: A = avoid disturbance when soils are saturated; SP = disturbance may occur during the sensitive period for VCs

Reversibility: RV = reversible; PRV = partially reversible; I = irreversible

Context: LR = low resilience; MR = moderate resilience; HR = high resilience

VC = Valued Component.





47

4.7.4.5 Determination of Significance of Residual Adverse Effects

After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project is not predicted to result in residual effects to

Vegetation and has therefore not been carried forward to the determination of significance. As per the methodology

for this Application (Section 3.0 Methodology) an assessment of cumulative effects is conducted on residual effects

remaining after the application of mitigation measures. As residual effects are not predicted for the Vegetation

VC, a cumulative effects assessment was not conducted.





48

Table 4.7-15: Summary of Predictions of Potential Residual Effects on Vegetation Valued Components

Valued Component Potential Adverse Effect

Project phase

Contributing Project Activity or Physical Work

Mitigation Number

Effectiveness Level of Confidence

Potential Residual Effect (Y/N)

Plant species of management concern - Plant species at risk

Loss of plant species at risk

Construction

Operation

Site preparation

Ground stabilization and pile works

Construction of Offshore and Onshore Facilities


M4.7-1

M4.7-2

M4.7-3

M4.7-4

M4.7-6

M4.7-8

High High N

Plant species of management concern - Traditional use plants

Loss of traditional use plants

Construction

Operation

Site preparation




M4.7-1

M4.7-2

M4.7-3

M4.7-4

M4.7-6

M4.7-8

High High N

Plant species of management concern - Invasive plants

Introduction or proliferation of invasive plants

Construction

Operation

Decommissioning

Site preparation





M4.7-1

M4.7-2

M4.7-3

M4.7-6

M4.7-8

M4.7-9

M4.7-11

High High N





49

Valued Component Potential Adverse Effect

Project phase

Contributing Project Activity or Physical Work

Mitigation Number

Effectiveness Level of Confidence

Potential Residual Effect (Y/N)

Terrestrial ecosystems Direct or indirect loss of terrestrial ecosystems

Operation Accidents and malfunctions M4.7-1

M4.7-2

M4.7-3

M4.7-6

M4.7-8

High High N


Direct or indirect loss wetland ecosystems

Construction

Operation

Decommissioning

Site preparation




M4.7-1

M4.7-3

M4.7-3

M4.7-6

M4.7-7

M4.7-8

M4.7-10

M4.7-11

High High N





50

4.7.5 Monitoring and Follow-Up Programs

Monitoring and follow-up programs will be described in the CEMP and OEMP.

Vegetation Management Plan

A Vegetation Management Plan will be developed and implemented prior to construction, with input from TEK and

TU provided by Aboriginal Groups. The Vegetation Management Plan will include, but will not be limited to:

Salvage and protection methods for terrestrial ecosystems, wetland and riparian ecosystems, plant species

at risk, and traditional use plants;

The Invasive plant species management plan;

Vegetation monitoring plan;

Evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;

Input from Aboriginal Groups; and

Adaptive management.

As part of the Vegetation Management Plan, an Invasive Plant Species Management Plan will be developed and

implemented prior to construction of the Project. The Invasive Plant Species Management Plan will provide

information on pre-construction surveys, outline a plan for invasive species monitoring, and identify mitigation

measures to be implemented in controlling the introduction and proliferation of invasive plants during the Project’s

construction, operation, and decommissioning phases.

The Invasive Plant Species Management Plan will provide information on procedures for identifying and recording

invasive plants including potentially new invasive plant species in the LAA. The Invasive Plant Species

Management Plan will provide guidance on methods to clear, control, and dispose of invasive plant species

currently present in the LAA. In addition, the plan will provide details on how invasive plants presence and

distribution will be monitored throughout the life of the Project. The Invasive Plant Species Management Plan will

be a “living” document that will be regularly reviewed and updated as needed through the duration of the Project.

Updates may include new legislation, BMPs, or species data that is published through the life of the Project.

Wetland Mitigation Plan

A Wetland Mitigation Plan will be developed prior to the construction phase to provide detail on the location and

method of wetland and riparian ecosystem mitigation (including wetland enhancement and creation). The plan will

provide details on:

The location of wetland restoration;

Methods for wetland restoration;

Timing of wetland restoration;





51

Methods for plant salvaging and sod transplanting; and

Species to be planted/seeded.

The plan will also include a monitoring program to be implemented once wetland enhancement and creation has

been completed. The monitoring program will provide information on monitoring frequency and timing, and how

success will be measured. Musqueam KUS will be incorporated into the Wetland Mitigation Plan where possible.

Following wetland enhancement and creation, a monitoring and adaptive management program will be

implemented to assess biological, hydrological, and structural characteristics and functions of newly established

and/or enhanced wetland areas, and to prescribe remedial action if required. Habitat restoration features are

generally anticipated to be partially functional after one year and to become productive and viable within three

years following enhancement/creation based on previous local march restoration projects (Williams and Tramner

2017).

o:\final\2013\1422\13-1422-0049\1314220049-143-r-rev3\1314220049-143-r-rev3-tilbury ea 4.7 vegetation 15mar_19.docx





52

4.7.6 References for Vegetation Effects Assessment

Alberta Native Plant Council. (2012). ANPC Guidelines for Rare Vascular Plant Surveys in Alberta - 2012 Update.

Alberta Native Plant Council, Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from https://anpc.ab.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2015/01/Guidelines-For-Rare-Plant-Surveys-in-AB-2012-Update.pdf. Accessed January

2018.

BC CDC. (2015). BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Retrieved from

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ Accessed: November 4, 2015.

BC CDC. (2018). BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Retrieved from

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ Accessed: April 2018.

BC MOE. (2012). Terrestrial Ecosystem Information Digital Data Submission Standard – Draft for Field Testing,

Version 2.1. Database and GIS Standards.

BC MOE. (2014). Policy For Mitigating Impacts on Environmental Values (Environmental Mitigation Policy) –

Working Draft, May 13, 2014. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-

resource-policy-legislation/environmental-mitigation-policy/em_policy_may13_2014.pdf

BC MOFR. (2010). Invasive Alien Plant Program Reference Guide – Part 1 – Module 1.5. Retrieved from

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/plants/IAPP_Reference_Guide/Module%201.5.pdf. Accessed: September

14, 2015.

BC MOFR and BC MOE. (2010). Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems (2nd ed. Land Management

Handbook No. 25). Victoria, BC: Forest Science Program.

BCEAO. (2013). Guideline for the Selection of Valued Components and Assessment of Potential Effects. Retrieved

from http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pdf/EAO_Valued_Components_Guideline_2013_09_09.pdf

BCEAO. (2015). WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project Application Information Requirements. As approved by the

Environmental Assessment Office on [placeholder], 2015.

Boyce, M. S. (1992). Population viability analysis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 481–506.

Brealey, K. G. (2010). Historical Geography of Cowichan Land Use and Occupancy Lower Fraser River – Map

Series and Report. Prepared for Woodward and Company and the Cowichan Tribes. 106 p.

Brennan, J. S., & Culverwell, H. (2004). Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine

Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program. Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents

Seattle, WA. 34p.

California Natural Resources Agency. (2018). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status

Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. California Natural Resources Agency, Department of

Fish and Game. Retrieved from https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959. Accessed

January 2018.

Charlie, C. (2015). Cowichan Nation Traditional, Current, and Planned Future Use of the George Massey Tunnel

Replacement Bridge Project Area. Prepared for Cowichan Tribes, on behalf of the Cowichan Nation

Alliance. 10 p. + appendices.





53

Cox, R., & Cullington, J. (2009). Wetland Ways: Interim Guidelines for Wetland Protection and Conservation in

British Columbia. Wetland Stewardship Partnership. Retrieved from

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/standards-

guidelines/best-management-practices/wetland_ways_ch_7_oil_and_gas.pdf. Accessed January 2018.

DFO. (2013). Fisheries Protection Policy Statement. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pol/index-

eng.html

Elliott, M., Nedwell, S., Jones, N. V., Read, S. J., Cutts, N. D., & Hemingway, K. L. (1998). Intertidal Sand and

Mudflats & Subtidal Mobile Sandbanks (volume II). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics

for conservation management of marine SACs. 151 pp.

Environment Canada. (1996). Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation: Implementation Guide, for Federal Land

Managers. Retrieved from

http://nawcc.wetlandnetwork.ca/Fed%20Policy%20Wetland%20Conserv_Implement%20Guide%20for%

20Fed%20Land%20Mgrs.pdf

Farmer, A. M. (1993). The effects of dust on vegetation—a review. Environmental Pollution, 79(1), 63–75.

FREMP. (1991). Log Management in the Fraser River Estuary. Retrieved from http://www.dfo-

mpo.gc.ca/Library/142182.pdf. Accessed March 2018.

Gall, C. (2016). Métis Nation British Columbia’s comment on the Draft Aboriginal Consultation Report 1 – WesPac

Tilbury Marine Jetty Project. Comments prepared by Métis Nation British Columbia. 14p.

Gonor, J. J., Sedell, J. R., & Benner, P. A. (1988). What we know about large trees in estuaries, in the sea, and

on coastal beaches. In C. Maser, R. F. Tarrant, J. M. Trappe, & J. F. Franklin (Eds.), From the Forest to

the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees. Pacific Northwest Res. Sta., USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept.

PNW-GTR-229.

Government of BC. (1996). Weed Control Act. RSBC 1996 Chapter 487. Current to August 8, 2018. Retrieved

from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/96487_01

Government of BC. (2002). Environmental Assessment Act [SBC 2002] Chapter 43. Retrieved from

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/00_02043_01

Government of BC. (2014). Water Sustainability Act. SBC 2014. Chapter 15. Retrieved from

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/14015

Government of BC. (2018). Invasive Alien Plant Program Map Display. Retrieved from

http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/iapp/. Accessed November 4, 2015.

Government of Canada. (1991). The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Retrieved from

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CW66-116-1991E.pdf

Government of Canada. (1994). Migratory Birds Convention Act. 1994. S.C. 1994, c. 22. Current to July 5, 2018.

Last amended December 12, 2017.





54

Government of Canada. (2002). Species at Risk Act (SARA). Retrieved from http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-15.3/. Accessed September 2014.

Government of Canada. (2012). Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Retrieved from http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-15.21/index.html. Accessed 17 April 2018.

Green, R. N., & Klinka, K. (1994). A Field Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the Vancouver Forest

Region (No. 28). Ministry of Forests, Research Program, 1994. Retrieved from

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh28.htm

Holling, C. S. (1992). Cross-scale morphology, geometry, and dynamics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs,

62, 447–502.

Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. SEA Program Washington

State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.

Jones, B., & McLaren, D. (2016). Kwantlen Land Use and Occupation in the Vicinity of Tilbury Island. Report

prepared for Kwantlen First Nation and Seyem’ Qwantlen. 11 p.

Kennedy, D. (2015). George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project: Cowichan Occupation and Use of the Project

Lands. Report prepared by Bouchard and Kennedy Research Consultants for David Robbins of Woodward

and Co., on behalf of the Cowichan Tribes. 111 p.

Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1, 431–436.

Marshall, D. (2017). Patullo Bridge Replacement Project – Cowichan Nation Alliance Strength of Claim Report.

Report prepared by Pacific Reach Consulting Ltd. 30 p. + appendices.

Meidinger, D., Clark, J., & Adamoski, D. (2014). Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory for Metro Vancouver and

Abbotsford, 2010-1012. Prepared for Metro Vancouver. Retrieved from

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-

planning/PlanningPublications/SEITechnicalReport.pdf.

Meidinger, D., & Pojar, J. (1991). Ecosystems of British Columbia (Special Report Series 6). Victoria, BC: BC

Ministry of Forests. Retrieved from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/srs/Srs06.pdf. Accessed:

September 14, 2015.

MFLNRO, & ISCBC. (2013). Best Practices for Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants during Forest

Management Activities. 2013 edition. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from

http://bcinvasives.ca/resources/publications/best-practices-for-preventing-the-spread-of-invasive-plants-

during-forest-m/

Minnesota DNR. (2014). Why are native plant communities important? Retrieved from

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/whyimportant.html. Accessed September 2014.

MOE. (2014). Develop with Care 2014: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in British

Columbia. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/devwithcare/index.html#Main.

Accessed February 2016.





55

MOE (Ministry of Environment). (2006). Standard for Mapping Ecosystems at Risk in British Columbia: an

approach to mapping ecosystems at risk and other sensitive ecosystems Version 1.0. Ecosystems Branch

for the Resources Information Standards Committee.

Morin, J. (2016). Tsleil-Waututh Nation Traditional Use Study Review in Relation to the WesPac Tilbury Marine

Jetty Project (14-211). Confidential Report prepared for Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Treaty, Lands and

Resources Department, November 7, 2016.

MOTI (Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure), & IPCBC (Invasive Plant Council of BC). (2010). Best

Practices for Managing Invasive Plants on Roadsides. Retrieved from

https://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publications/environment/ManagingInvasivePlants.pdf

MV (Metro Vancouver). 2018. Invasive Species. Retrieved from http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-

planning/conserving-connecting/invasive-species/Pages/default.aspx

MV and ISCMV (Invasive Species Council of Metro Vancouver). 2018a. Best Management Practices for Himalayan

Blackberry in the Metro Vancouver Region. Retrieved from

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/RPAC/invasive-

species/RPACRegionalInvasiveSpeciesPublications/HimalayanBlackberryBMP.pdf

MV and ISCMV. 2018b. Best Management Practices for Knotweed Species in the Metro Vancouver Region.

Retrieved from http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/RPAC/invasive-

species/RPACRegionalInvasiveSpeciesPublications/KnotweedBMP.pdf

Nilsson, C., & Svedmark, M. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of changing water regimes:

riparian plant communities. Environmental Management, 30(4), 468–480.

North, M. E. A., & Teversham, J. M. (1984). The vegetation and floodplains of the lower Fraser, Serpentine and

Nicomekl Rivers, 1859 to 1890. Syesis, 17, 47–66.

NWWG (National Wetlands Working Group). 1997. Canadian Wetland Classification System. Second Edition.

Retrieved from http://www.gret-

perg.ulaval.ca/fileadmin/fichiers/fichiersGRET/pdf/Doc_generale/Wetlands.pdf

Penny, J., & Klinkenberg, R. (2017). Protocols for rare plant surveys. E-Flora British Columbia: Electronic Atlas of

Plants of British Columbia. Laboratory for Advanced Spatial Analysis, Department of Geography,

University of British Columbia. Retrieved from

http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/eflora/ProtocolsforRarePlantSurveys.html. Accessed December 2017.

Pojar, J., Klinka, K., & Meidinger, D. V. (1987). Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification in British Columbia. Forest

Ecology and Management, 22, 119–154.

Research Inc. (2014). Best Management Practices for Removal of Debris from Wetlands and Other Intertidal

Areas. Prepared for: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Service. NOAA Marine Debris

Program. Retrieved from https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/publications-

files/MDP_Debris_Removal_Intertidal_Areas.pdf. Accessed March 2018.

RIC (Resource Inventory Committee). 1998. Standard for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia.

Retrieved from http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/teecolo/tem/indextem.htm.





56

RISC (Resource Inventory Standards Committee). 2006. Standard for Mapping Ecosystems at Risk in British

Columbia. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-

stewardship/standardsguidelines/risc/standards_for_mapping_ear_version1.pdf

Rondorf, D. W., Rutz, G. L., & Charrier, J. C. (2010). Minimizing effects of over-water docks on federally listed fish

stocks in McNary Reservoir: A Literature Review for Criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers.

Rubec, C., & Lynch-Stewart, P. (1998). Regulatory and non–regulatory approaches for the wetland conservation

in Canada. Technical consultation on designing methodologies to review laws and institutions relevant to

wetlands. Gland, Switzerland.

Tam, J., Olson, R., and Firelight Research Inc. (2018). Musqueam Indian Band Knowledge and Use Study WesPac

Midstream's Proposed LNG Marine Jetty Project. Final Report October 9, 2018. 174 pp.

Theoharides, K. A., & Dukes, J. S. (2007). Plant invasion across space and time: factors affecting nonindigenous

species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytologist, 176, 256–273.

Valentine, K., Mariotti, G., & Fagherazzi, S. (2014). The importance of extracellular carbohydrate production by

marine epipelic diatoms. Advances in Geoscience, 39, 9–14.

Williams, G. and M. Tramner. 2017. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Habitat Enhancement Program Glenrose

Tidal March Project Third Year Monitoring Final Report. Prepared for: Port of Vancouver Enhancement

Program, Port of Vancouver. 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6C 3T4.

Wu, J., & Marceau, D. (2002). Modeling complex ecological systems: An introduction, 153, 1–6.

Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty VEGETATION Project · 2019-05-16 · WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty...

Documents