(10) Section 6 - Dec 2004

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT ASSESSMENTSECTION 6

Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Transit Project

6-1 December 2004

6 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Assessment

6.1 Executive Summary

6.1.1 Introduction

The RAV Project will require bridge crossings over the North and Middle arms of the Fraser River. Ditch networks that convey drainage from Sea Island and Lulu Island to the Fraser River will also be crossed. The Vancouver segment of the transit system crosses the historical alignment and relic sections of Winona Creek, one of many Vancouver streams that once conveyed flows to the Fraser River. This section, originally prepared by ECL Envirowest Consultants Limited (Envirowest) in January 2004, and amended by Envirowest in September 2004 to address design modifications to the North Arm Crossing, identifies impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources prospectively associated with the conceptual design, construction and operation of the RAV Project. These impacts are examined in the context of impacts to fish and fish habitat. Impact mitigation and compensation measures to be addressed during detailed planning and design-build phases of the project are described in the assessment. The assessment examines impacts in accordance with the type and location of aquatic environments affected by the RAV Project. As such, the project is divided into five components, specifically:

• North Arm Crossing - bridge crossing of the North Arm, Fraser River; • Middle Arm Crossing - bridge crossing of the Middle Arm, Fraser River; • Airport Branch - Sea Island ditches engaged by the guideway and

stations; • Lulu Island Branch - Lulu Island ditches engaged by the guideway and

stations; and • South Vancouver Branch - alignments of historical watercourses

engaged by the guideway and stations.


December 2004 6-2

6.1.2 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Impact Assessment

6.1.2.1 North Arm Crossing

The conceptual design of the North Arm Crossing traverses intertidal mudflat, intertidal marsh and a fringe of riparian shrub woodland along the southern shoreline of the channel as defined by the Lulu Island dyke. These features have been classified by the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), a multi-agency collaboration to facilitate environmental review within the Fraser River estuary, as highly productive fish habitat. Features associated with past and existing forest products operations define the northern shoreline. The conceptual locations for the pier footings avoid intertidal and riparian fish habitats. Densification works associated with a pier located in proximity to the local low water mark of the southern shoreline may affect a small area of intertidal mudflat. It is anticipated that impacts associated with construction of the crossing will not exceed that of the footprint of temporary wood piles on intertidal marsh and mudflat. The piles would support timber decks that may be used as temporary work pads. The piles and decks would be decommissioned upon completion of construction. Impact mitigation protocols will be implemented as part of normal construction practices. Plans involving stormwater and sediment control, concrete management, and spill prevention and emergency response will be implemented. Prospective impacts to fish habitat associated with the operation of the crossing include shading of intertidal marsh and riparian shrub woodland, and hydraulic scour and deposition of river bottom sediments. The height of the conceptual crossing structure is sufficient to minimize shading such that impacts upon the vigour of the marsh and woodland would be insignificant. The assessment of impacts of piers upon the immediate hydraulic environment requires further investigation. Impacts upon bottom sediments, however, are not anticipated to be significant. Significant impacts upon fish


6-3 December 2004

habitats supported by bottom sediments in proximity to piers of other recently constructed crossings of the Fraser River, most notably the No.2 Road and the Airport Connector bridges, have not been documented. The marginal impacts to intertidal marsh and mudflat that may be associated with the design and construction of the RAV Project can be readily offset through the creation of replacement fish habitats or through the purchase or withdrawal of habitat credits from North Fraser Port Authority’s (NFPA) habitat bank. Accordingly, significant residual impacts to fish habitat are not associated with the conceptual design, construction and operation of the North Arm Crossing. 6.1.2.2 Middle Arm Crossing

The conceptual design of the Middle Arm Crossing traverses intertidal marsh and mudflat along both shorelines of the channel. A small cluster of shrubs and trees occurs within the riparian environment of the western shoreline, at and about the location of a decommissioned stormwater outfall structure. Shrubs and trees are absent from the riparian environment of the eastern shoreline; the gravel road of an aggregate handling facility defines this shoreline. The marsh and mudflat along the eastern shoreline has been classified by FREMP as highly productive fish habitat. The riparian woodland, marsh and mudflat along the western shoreline are considered by FREMP to be of high productivity as fish habitat. A pier footing along the eastern shoreline is located upon intertidal marsh and mudflat. A pier footing along the western shoreline is located upon riparian woodland. Densification works will impact intertidal marsh and mudflat at both pier locations. Armament of the pier footings may further impact marsh and mudflat. It is anticipated that impacts associated with construction of the crossing will be, in part, associated with the footprint of temporary work pads along both shorelines. A work pad would occur on a timber deck along the eastern shoreline. The deck would be supported on wood piles. The footprint of the piles would occur on intertidal marsh and mudflat. The work pad along the western shoreline may be constructed of aggregate fill along the western


December 2004 6-4

shoreline; the fill would cover intertidal marsh and mudflat. All work pads would be decommissioned in their entirety upon completion of construction. Impact mitigation protocols will be implemented as part of normal construction practices. Plans involving stormwater and sediment control, concrete management, and spill prevention and emergency response will be implemented. Prospective impacts to fish habitat associated with the operation of the crossing include shading of intertidal marsh and hydraulic scour and deposition of river bottom sediments. The orientation of the conceptual crossing structure is such that shading of marsh would not significantly impact the vigour of the marsh. The assessment of impacts of piers upon the immediate hydraulic environment requires further investigation. In contrast to the North Arm Crossing, there is the potential for channelization between the piers of the conceptual crossing and those of the Airport Connector and Moray Channel bridges. However, as the piers of the three bridges are not aligned and are predominantly located in immediate proximity to the navigation channel, a feature that is regularly dredged, significant impacts upon fish habitats associated with bottom sediments are not anticipated. Significant impacts upon fish habitats supported by bottom sediments in proximity to piers of other recently constructed crossings of the Fraser River, most notably the No.2 Road and the Airport Connector bridges, have not been documented. The areal extent of impacts to intertidal mudflat, intertidal marsh and riparian woodland associated with the conceptual design of the Project is not anticipated to exceed several hundred square metres. These impacts can be readily offset through the creation of replacement fish habitats or through the purchase or withdrawal of habitat credits from NFPA’s habitat bank. Accordingly, significant residual impacts to fish habitat are not associated with the conceptual design, construction and operation of the Middle Arm Crossing.


6-5 December 2004

6.1.2.3 Airport Branch

The conceptual alignment of the Airport Branch traverses several ditches on Sea Island. The ditches encompassed by the conceptual design of the RAV Project are not inhabited by fish. Fish habitat values sustained by the ditches are marginal. The conceptual design of the project does not significantly impact fish habitat. Project construction will not significantly impact fish habitat. Impact mitigation protocols will be implemented as part of normal construction practices to avoid impacts to the stormwater receiving environments of the Fraser River. Plans involving stormwater and sediment control, concrete management, and spill prevention and emergency response will be implemented. The operation of the RAV Project will not significantly impact fish habitat associated with the Airport Branch. 6.1.2.4 Lulu Island Branch

The conceptual alignment of the Lulu Island Branch traverses several ditches on Lulu Island. The ditches encompassed by the conceptual design of the project are not inhabited by fish. Fish habitat values sustained by the ditches are marginal. The Project’s conceptual design does not significantly impact fish habitat. Project construction will not significantly impact fish habitat. Impact mitigation protocols will be implemented as part of normal construction practices to avoid impacts to the stormwater receiving environments of the Fraser River. Plans involving stormwater and sediment control, concrete management, and spill prevention and emergency response will be implemented. The operation of the RAV Project will not significantly impact fish habitats associated with the Lulu Island Branch.


December 2004 6-6

6.1.2.5 South Vancouver Branch

The conceptual alignment of the South Vancouver Branch traverses the historical alignments of the main channel and a tributary of Winona Creek. The prospective impact of the design of the RAV Project upon fish habitat is founded upon its potential to pre-empt enhancement opportunities associated with ‘daylighting’ sections of historical channels and/or augmenting flows of such sections with stormwaters from existing catchment areas. The conceptual design of the project does not impact fish habitat. It does not pre-empt ‘daylighting’ of channels nor does it interfere with the prospective conveyance of stormwaters to enhanced channels. Project construction will not significantly impact fish habitat. Impact mitigation protocols will be implemented as part of normal construction practices to avoid impacts to the stormwater receiving environments of the Fraser River. Plans involving stormwater and sediment control, concrete management, and spill prevention and emergency response will be implemented. The operation of the project will not significantly impact fish habitats associated with the South Vancouver Branch. 6.1.3 Conclusion

The analysis of the impacts of the conceptual design, construction and operation of the RAV Project demonstrates that it can be built with minimal impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources. Prospective impacts can be adequately mitigated and/or managed in the context of the design, construction and/or operation of the project.

6.2 Introduction

6.2.1 Scope of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Impact Assessment

This section assesses elements of the RAV Project with the potential to affect fish and fish habitat. It identifies both general and site-specific impacts that may result from project activities and actions, and prescribes impact


6-7 December 2004

mitigation and compensation measures for incorporation in the project’s detailed planning and design-build phases that will render residual impacts insignificant. Impacts are examined in accordance to the type and location of aquatic environments engaged by the project. As such, the project is divided into five components, specifically: • North Arm Crossing - bridge crossing of the North Arm, Fraser River; • Middle Arm Crossing - bridge crossing of the Middle Arm, Fraser River; • Airport Branch - Sea Island ditches engaged by the guideway and

stations; • Lulu Island Branch - Lulu Island ditches engaged by the guideway and

stations; and • South Vancouver Branch - alignments of historical watercourses

engaged by the guideway and stations. The information and assessments presented in this section refer to baseline alignment and station locations for the RAV Project as of September 15, 2004. Any changes or refinements made during the detailed planning and design-build phase will not result in impacts that exceed the type and magnitude of those described in these assessments. In fact, it is likely that the detailed design and associated construction and operation components of the project will result in impacts to fish and fish habitat that are less than those identified by the fisheries and aquatic resources impact assessment. This assessment approach was discussed with the Major Projects Unit of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) during the Pre-Application phase of the RAV Project. The information presented in this section is intended to facilitate Section 35(2) authorizations under the Fisheries Act by advancing sound design concepts for consideration by the Concession and DFO. This assessment does not focus on any single fish species or the habitat of any single fish species. Consideration of the impact that project design, construction and/or operation may have on fish and fish habitat is all-inclusive. Any impact on the biophysical environment is considered in the context of an impact upon fish and fish habitat. Accordingly, the life history requirements of all fish species documented to inhabit the Fraser River estuary and watercourses of adjacent uplands (see APPENDIX 6-A:TABLE 6-


December 2004 6-8

A1) are duly addressed, including those supporting significant fisheries (e.g. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp.) and those considered to be of special management concern1,2. None of the fish species documented to occur within the Fraser River estuary and watercourses of adjacent uplands, including those areas affected by the project, are listed in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act.

6.3 Impact Assessment

6.3.1 North Arm Crossing

6.3.1.1 Location and Project Description

Horizontal and Vertical Alignment The proposed location of the North Arm Crossing commences at the intersection of Cambie Street and SW Marine Drive on the north side of the North Arm of the Fraser River, and terminates at a point 400 m south of the river (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003, RAV Project Management Ltd. 2004) (Figure 6.1). The SW Marine Station is located to the north of the intersection of Cambie Street and SW Marine Drive, aligned just to the east of the centreline of Cambie Street. Further south along Cambie Street, the proposed alignment deviates slightly eastward to place the columns in the east side boulevard, which minimizes impacts to the street and avoids conflicts with overhead and underground utilities. The alignment commences to bend westward approximately 150 m south of SW Marine Drive, crossing Kent Avenue North immediately west of its intersection with Cambie Street, at which point it bends back in a southerly

1 BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (2003). Threatened or endangered (red-listed) species: pygmy longfin smelt (Spirinchus sp.1); green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris); and white sturgeon (A. transmontanus pop.4). Vulnerable or sensitive (blue-listed) species: brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni); eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), Dolly Varden trout (Salvelinus malma); bull trout (S. confluentus) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki subsp. clarki). 2 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2003). Species of Special Concern include green sturgeon and white sturgeon.


6-9 December 2004

direction. The alignment continues south through Mitchell Island Forest Products (west), near its property boundary with BC Hydro’s Kidd No.1 Substation. Upon crossing the North Arm of the Fraser River, the crossing alignment heads due south until its terminus approximately 800 m south of the river. The vertical elevation of the line at SW Marine Station is approximately 6 m (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002). This elevation maintains the required minimum clearance of 5.5 m above SW Marine Drive. Along Cambie Street, south of SW Marine Drive, the guideway slopes downward to the south at a grade of approximately 0.8 %, closely following the slope of the street and crossing Kent Avenue North with the required minimum 5.5 m clearance (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003). The start of the vertical curve required to negotiate the prescribed 7.01 m clearance above the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks occurs immediately north of Kent Avenue (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002). The guideway slopes upward at 4.5 % to achieve the required 18.3 m vertical clearance above mean high water for the navigable channels of the North Arm (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003) (Figure 6.2). Transport Canada, Navigable Waters Protection Division has determined the required height of the structure above the navigation channels. Although the specified clearance does not permit the passage of all forms of commercial shipping, it matches that of the Oak Street Bridge. The Oak Street Bridge acts as a downstream control, and as such, the vertical clearance of the proposed crossing does not need to exceed the clearance of this bridge.


6-11 December 2004

Figure 6.1


6-13 December 2004

Figure 6.2


6-15 December 2004

Structure The main bridge structure across the river will likely have spans ranging from 150 to 180 m in length (RAVCo 2004). This span arrangement is structurally efficient. The superstructure of the bridge could be built using either structural steel or concrete box segments (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002, 2003). For a steel alternative, varying depth I-girders (similar to those of the Oak Street Bridge) or steel box girders could be used. The support columns will probably be of hollow, cast-in-place concrete construction for optimal structure and cost efficiency. The total length of the bridge section of the crossing is approximately 500 m.

Span Arrangement and Pier Locations The bridge crosses two navigation channels: the Mitchell Island Channel (45 m wide) and the Main Channel (60 m wide) (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003). A conceptual span arrangement of 150 m – 180 m – 150 m has been developed for the crossing. Four piers are specified by the conceptual design (i.e., Piers NA1-NA4, with NA1 the most northerly pier and NA4 the most southerly pier). These span lengths and pier locations have been selected to accommodate the navigation channels. Pier locations for the approach spans near the CPR tracks maintain the required minimum horizontal clearance of 5.5 m from the centreline of the tracks.

Foundations Due to geotechnical site conditions, the foundations will likely consist of a variety of types, including spread footings, pile caps on short piles and deep caissons for some piers (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003). Augured caissons or open-ended driven piles are not recommended. Densification would be required around the foundations. Further, densification would likely also be required along the river banks. The control of differential settlement between adjacent foundations is extremely important due to the limited tolerances of the guideway rail alignments.

Pier Protection Fendering will be required for the piers in water (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002). The likely design impact vessel will be a 5000 ton aggregate scow. Pier protection may also be required for log boom impacts.


December 2004 6-16

The perimeter of the fenders would be armoured with rip rap. Rip rap aprons would be placed upon the river bottom around the pier footings and fenders to minimize scour.

6.3.1.2 Environmental Setting

Land and Water Uses The North Arm is divided by Mitchell Island immediately upstream of the conceptual alignment of the bridge crossing. The north channel, named the Mitchell Island Channel, conveys river and tidal flows between the island and the mainland (City of Vancouver). The south channel, named the Main Channel, conveys river and tidal flows between Mitchell Island and Lulu Island (both islands occur within the City of Richmond). Water and land uses within and in proximity to the conceptual alignment are characterized by heavy industry and utilities. Mitchell Island was developed for heavy industry during the 1940’s and 1950’s. Mitchell Island was once three islands, namely Eburne, Mitchell and Twigg islands. The three islands were consolidated into a single island through infilling of the dividing river channels with dredge spoil. A formal dyke no longer exists on the island; all properties have been filled to or above historic dyke crest elevations. Characteristic land uses on Mitchell Island include saw milling, lumber manufacturing, marine boat works, transportation services, bitulithic production, cement production, auto recycling and steel recycling. Water uses include log storage and water vessel moorage. Characteristic land uses along the northern shoreline of the North Arm include saw milling, lumber manufacturing, fish processing, aquaculture support products, concrete products manufacturing, construction material recycling and electrical utilities. Water uses include log storage and water vessel moorage. The alignment traverses the Mitchell Island Forest Products facility. Log storage occurs within a water lot traversed by the RAV Project alignment. Characteristic land uses along the southern shoreline of the North Arm include terminal facilities, fish processing, marine services, plywood manufacturing and transport services. A dyke delineates the southern


6-17 December 2004

shoreline (the northern margin of Lulu Island). Water uses include log storage and water vessel moorage. The alignment passes through the parking lot of Fraser River Terminal, a wharf facility with docks and buildings that is located immediately west of the alignment. The dyke delineates the riverward margin of the parking lot. The alignment engages the easternmost portion of the moorage basin of the wharf facility. The Mitchell Island and Main channels are utilized extensively by commercial shipping and for the transport of logs. Commercial and recreational fisheries are not documented to occur at or in proximity to the crossing location.

Biophysical Features Northern Shoreline Features associated with past and existing forest products operations characterize the northern shoreline environment of the North Arm. The Mitchell Island Forest Products facility and the Kidd No.1 Substation define upland features within the project alignment (Photos 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3). Revetment along the shoreline of the North Arm is predominantly rip rap. Riparian vegetation consists of ornamental plantings of western redcedar (Thuja plicata) and naturally recruited black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) and other native shrub species. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is a conspicuous grass of the riparian plant assemblage. Intertidal marsh and mudflat occur along the eastern margin of the alignment, immediately riverward of the Kidd No.1 Substation. Dominant species of the marsh include reed canary grass and Lyngby’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei). Two ditches occur parallel to Kent Street within the rail corridor immediately north of the Mitchell Island Forest Products facility and the Kidd No.1 Substation (Photos 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6). Vegetation adjacent to the ditches is limited to reed canary grass, horsetail (Equisetum sp.), and broadleaved cattail (Typha latifolia). The ditches are shallow, low gradient features that


December 2004 6-18

collect road and rail line runoff; flow is conveyed into the piped storm sewer system and is ultimately discharged into the North Arm.

Southern Shoreline The riparian zone in the project alignment is defined by the crest and riverward slope of the Lulu Island dyke (Photos 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9). The crest is characterized by an aggregate road. Except for tire paths, the crest is vegetated with grasses and forbs. The riverward slope is regularly mowed. Conspicuous shrubs of the plant assemblage inhabiting the slope include hardhack, snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), salmonberry (R. spectabilis), thimbleberry, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). Conspicuous grasses and forbs include fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), common horsetail (Equisetum arvense), reed canary grass, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), sword fern (Polystichum munitum) and morning glory (Convolvulus arvense) (Photo 6.10).

A two-tiered intertidal bench fronts the dyke slope (Photos 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12). The high tier, approximately 6 m to 8 m in width, is inhabited by marsh. Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) and Lyngby’s sedge are the dominant species, with broadleaved cattail occurring as distinctive clumps. Other conspicuous species include jointed rush (J. articulatus), soft-stemmed bulrush (Scirpus validus), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), silverweed (Potentilla pacifica), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) and water parsely (Oenanthe sarmentosa). The second tier is characterized by mudflat; the mudflat varies in width from approximately 5 m to 15 m. 6.3.1.3 Impact Analysis

Impacts for the North Arm crossing are defined according to the conceptual design, construction and operation of the crossing. Design Impacts Elements of the design of the crossing that would affect shoreline features of the North Arm include the piers and associated footings, fenders, foundations, and densification treatments.


6-19 December 2004

Northern Shoreline The conceptual design locates Pier NA1 approximately 30 m landward of the rip rap armoured bank of the North Arm. It occurs within an area currently occupied by a mill building. The pier footing and foundation would be contained entirely within this upland area. Further, utilizing the densification treatments for pier footings of the Sapperton Reach component of the SkyTrain Millennium Line as a design reference, the densification treatment would likely occur entirely upon upland and not extend into the river channel. As such, intertidal marsh and mudflat fronting the Kidd No.1 Substation would likely not be impacted by the densification treatment; however, riparian vegetation landward of the top-of-bank may be impacted. Pier NA2 is located upon river bottom 150 m riverward (south) of Pier NA1, and approximately 110 m south of the high water level mark of the northern shoreline. It occurs approximately 30 m west of the high water level mark of the downstream tip of Mitchell Island. The pier is located approximately 20 m south of the southern harbour headline of the Mitchell Island Channel. The river bottom at the location of Pier NA2 is comprised predominantly of sands and silts (McLaren and Ren 1995). The footings, fenders and associated rip rap armaments would permanently alienate portions of the river bottom. The area affected by the densification treatment would readily recover, with substrates characteristic of the design pier locations readily deposited upon the treated areas following construction. The piers would occupy a portion of the water column. Southern Shoreline The conceptual design locates Pier NA4 landward of the dyke on an asphalt parking lot, approximately 40 m landward of the high water level mark of the southern shoreline. The pier footing and foundation would be contained entirely within this upland area. Further, utilizing the densification treatments for pier footings of the Sapperton Reach component of the SkyTrain Millennium Line as a design reference, the densification treatment would likely occur entirely upon upland and not extend beyond the dyke and into the river channel. As such, intertidal marsh and mudflat fronting the dyke would not be impacted by the densification treatment.


December 2004 6-20

Pier NA3 is located upon the river bottom. It occurs 150 m north of Pier NA4 and approximately 100 m north of the high water level mark of the southern shoreline. The pier is located along the southern margin of the Main Channel. As for Pier NA2, the river bottom at the Pier NA3 location is comprised predominantly of sands and silts (McLaren and Ren 1995). The pier footings, fenders and associated rip rap armaments would permanently alienate a portion of the river bottom. The areas affected by the densification treatments would readily recover, with substrates characteristic of the design pier locations readily deposited upon the treated area following construction. The piers would occupy a portion of the water column. Construction Impacts Details regarding construction methodologies have yet to be developed for the conceptual design of the bridge. However, methodologies common to many bridge crossings of the Fraser River can be introduced for the RAV Project so that general impacts can be identified. Impact mitigation protocols, once disparate from conventional construction protocols, are now typically elements of the overall protocol for construction. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters, to prevent the discharge of concrete wash water and solids, and to respond to accidental spills of oils and fuels from construction equipment will be incorporated into the Concession’s overall protocol for construction of the bridge crossing (see SECTION 20. 4). The impact mitigation protocols will comprise a component of the environmental specifications of the contract for detailed design and construction of the RAV Project. The specifications will be compliant with environmental legislation and will adequately address the requirements of regulatory agencies as communicated during the environmental review of the project. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters will be formally presented by the Concession in a ‘Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan’ (see Plan outline in SECTION

20.4.1). The Plan will provide details regarding facilities that collect and


6-21 December 2004

detain sediment laden waters sufficient to remove suspended solids to less than 75 parts per million (ppm) above receiving water concentrations. Special contingencies will be presented for slurries produced by ground improvement works (e.g., vibro-densification). The suspended solid concentration regime of receiving waters is seasonably variable, with large disparities between low and high values. Seasonal concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) within the North Arm at the Oak Street Bridge measured between 1972 and 1995 (BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) 2003a) suggest that the highest concentration of TSS within the North Arm occurs during April, May and June (i.e., spring freshet). The highest and lowest concentrations of TSS measured during freshet are 224 mg/L (1994) and 21 mg/L (1992), respectively. The lowest concentration of TSS within the North Arm occurs immediately prior to and following freshet (i.e., January through March and August through October). The highest and lowest concentrations of TSS measured during non-freshet periods are 96 mg/L (1973) and 5 mg/L (1993), respectively. The Concession’s Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan will set out procedures for constant monitoring of receiving waters to address the seasonal variations in suspended solid concentrations, and the influence these variations have on the allowable suspended solid concentrations of waters discharged to the North Arm. The Plan will also formalize protocols for the handling of concrete wash water and solids. All concrete wash water and solids produced during the operation of concrete ready-mix and pumper trucks will be collected, contained and transported offsite to a treatment facility. Contingencies for the collection, containment and transport of waters originating in and about poured foundations will also be addressed by the Plan. A ‘Hazardous Waste Management Plan’ and a ‘Spill Prevention and Spill Control Plan’ will present protocols for containment facilities and emergency response to spills.


December 2004 6-22

Densification Densification of sediments beneath and surrounding the pier foundations would probably be by vibro-compaction or comparable practice. This technique involves the insertion of a vibrating probe into the sediments to induce compaction. Densification requires the use of heavy machinery. Accordingly, work pads will be required for the machinery. Existing working and parking areas at Mitchell Island Forest Products and Fraser River Terminal would suffice as the working pads for Piers NA1 and NA4, respectively. The remaining piers would likely require work pads founded on the decks of barges anchored by spuds. Densification requires relatively extensive in-water works for Piers NA2 and NA3. Accordingly, densification will be constrained to the construction window that avoids the downstream migration of juvenile salmonids within the Fraser River. The window for in-water works is June 16 to February 28 of the following year. No work will be permitted in or adjacent to the wetted perimeter between March and June. Pier Construction Pier construction will involve extensive concrete works. All concrete works, irrespective of the design of the piers, will be conducted ‘in the dry’. The TransLink SkyBridge, located upstream of the trifurcation of the Fraser River at New Westminster, where concrete pier columns extend to the bottom of the river, utilized cofferdams for construction (Rogers 2004). Reinforced concrete works are contained within the cofferdams. The No.2 Road Bridge (Middle Arm) applied a precast concrete suspended pile cap design. Steel piles extend to the bottom of the river. The shell of the pile cap (i.e., a concrete box) is floated to the location of the steel piles and fitted to the top of the piles. The cap is filled with reinforced concrete to complete pile cap construction. In-water works directly associated with pier construction will include the driving of steel piles (sheet piles for cofferdam construction or pipe piles as part of the construction of pile cap structures). As for densification, heavy machinery is required; the machinery would likely utilize the same work pads utilized for densification and/or temporary timber decks supported by wood piles. All wood utilized in the construction of pile


6-23 December 2004

supported work pads would be untreated. All temporary work pads would be decommissioned upon completion of construction. The temporary timber decks may traverse intertidal marsh and mudflat. The piles would impact marsh and mudflat. The cumulative area of impact would be small. Upon decommissioning of the decks, the piles would be removed. Special mitigatory measures are not required; the marsh and mudflat would readily recover upon decommissioning. The option exploited for the foundations of the piers is dependent upon adequacy of a bearing layer beneath the design location of the piers (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002). An adequate bearing layer would allow the use of end-bearing compaction piles or the construction of a pad footing. Friction piles may be another option. Compaction piles require drilling of a borehole and then placement and compaction of concrete within a reinforcing cage. The compaction is achieved by dropping a weight from a crane. Pad footing construction would require excavation and disposal of sediments that occur above the bearing layer within the cofferdam. The in-water installation of all piles will have to occur during the construction window identified for densification. Work within cofferdams may occur at any time during the year. Construction within cofferdams will require daily dewatering of the interior of the dams. The water removed from cofferdams is typically laden with sediments. Pumped waters exceeding suspended solid concentrations of 75 ppm above receiving water concentrations will have to be stored within tanks until settlement of solids achieves suspended solid concentrations less than 75 ppm. This is a conventional technique applied for many construction scenarios. The tanks may be stored upon barges or within upland areas. The piers, fenders and perhaps foundation slabs would be constructed through casting of concrete ‘in place’ (ND Lea Consultants Ltd., 2002). The concrete would be cast through conventional means inside prefabricated formwork. The concrete would be heavily reinforced with steel. The casting of concrete would be conducted from work pads utilized for other elements of construction.


December 2004 6-24

Rip Rap Armour Installation The installation of the rip rap aprons surrounding the pier footings will require dredging of the river bottom to allow subgrade preparation for the rip rap and to minimize the vertical profile of the apron (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002). The in-water installation of all rip rap armour will have to occur during the same work window identified for the densification element of construction. Guideway Construction The shorter span approach structures would likely be constructed of pre-stressed concrete structures (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002). The river crossing structures may be constructed of either steel or concrete. Storage and Staging The construction of the North Arm Crossing will require relatively large areas for the storage and staging of construction materials, structures and machinery. A large storage and staging area is available at the Mitchell Island Forest Products property along the northern shoreline. Another large area is available at a trailer storage gravel lot landward of the dyke along the southern shoreline. The design alignment of the crossing can be readily accessed from both areas. Storage and staging of construction materials, structures and machinery would occur on lands currently characterized by commercial and industrial uses. It is anticipated that the storage and staging elements of construction would not impact fish habitat. Operational Impacts Hydraulic Conditions The presence of bridge piers in the North Arm is expected to cause a change in hydraulic conditions. Although the conceptual design is not accompanied by an analysis of the impacts of the piers upon the hydraulics of the river channels, the magnitude of impacts can be approximated through a review of the hydraulic analysis conducted for the operation of the Translink SkyBridge (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984) crossing of the Fraser River, located upstream of the trifurcation of the river and downstream of the Patullo Bridge. The in-water portions of the piers are similar to those that will likely be installed for the North Arm Crossing. A hydrotechnical study, similar to those conducted for the SkyBridge and Airport Connector (Vancouver International Airport


6-25 December 2004

Authority 1998) crossings, may be required to quantify changes in hydraulic conditions. Invariably, the bridge piers will affect: • the cross-sectional area of the channels; • local flow velocities; • downstream flow patterns; • erosion and sedimentation; and • water levels. Dramatic changes to the first three parameters may affect the ability of fish to move upstream through the channels, in particular Pacific salmon during their annual migration to spawning grounds. Substantive changes in the erosion and sedimentation of the river may affect fish habitats; both losses and gains in habitat types may be realized. Changes in the normal water level regime of the channels may affect organisms that inhabit a specific inundation regime within intertidal areas. It is unlikely that the bridge piers will affect river hydraulics sufficiently to impede the movement of fish. In the hydraulic analysis for the SkyBridge, it was concluded that post-construction conditions would not incur delays or increased energy expenditures that may affect the reproductive success of adult Pacific salmon. Further, the analysis concluded that the migratory behaviour of juvenile salmonids or their access to important nearshore habitats such as intertidal marsh and riparian woodlands would not be constrained. The hydrotechnical assessment would allow a comprehensive assessment of the impact of changes in hydraulic conditions upon fish and fish habitats. Cross-Sectional Area of the Channels The piers and associated foundations, fenders and rip rap armour will reduce the cross-sectional area of the river channels. The net reduction in the cross-sectional area of the Mitchell Island channel will be less than 5%. The net reduction in the cross-sectional area of the Main Channel will also be less than 5%. The reduction in cross-sectional area is largely attributable to the piers that occur within the two channels, one on each margin of each


December 2004 6-26

navigable corridor, and the other immediately riverward of the local low water level of the southern shoreline. The effective reduction in flow area may be less as the river bottom, comprised predominantly of sand that is readily transported by flows, may realize a depth adjustment between the piers that would compensate for any initial reduction in flow area. Local Flow Velocities The hydraulic analysis for the SkyBridge demonstrated that average velocities during flood tides are considerably lower than average velocities during ebb tides (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984). As average velocity increases, the proportion of channel area with velocities less than 1 m/s declines rapidly. Average velocity and channel area with velocities less than 1 m/s vary through the tidal cycle. There is a strong inverse relationship between these two parameters. As average velocity decreases during the flood tide, the amount of low velocity water increases, mostly in relatively shallow nearshore areas. The most apparent effects of the piers and associated structures will be realized upon velocities in immediate proximity to the piers. As presented for the SkyBridge, the flow pattern around a cylindrical or round-nosed pier is generally characterized by a ‘stagnation point’ of zero velocity on the upstream axis, and a substantial acceleration in local velocities around the nose and along the flanks of the piers (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984). For the theoretical case of a frictionless fluid, the maximum velocity at the 90 degree points is twice the ‘free-stream’ velocity some distance upstream. The velocity is approximately 10% above the free-stream velocity at a point away from the pier equal in distance to the diameter or width of the pier. The effect is quite localized and is insignificant more than two pier widths from the structure. The effect of friction slightly reduces the theoretical increase in velocity. The piers will cause a three-dimensional vortex or roller near the river bottom. The vortex or roller will likely extend approximately one pier width beyond each pier. Flow within approximately three pier widths of each pier will be appreciably disturbed.


6-27 December 2004

Downstream Flow Patterns In the analysis of the SkyBridge, the bridge was considered to be well separated from upstream bridges, namely the Pattulo Bridge and the CN Rail bridge (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984). The distance between the SkyBridge and the Pattulo Bridge is 400 m. The effect of piers on downstream flows was considered to be minor, with changes in flows not detectable more than a few hundred metres downstream of the bridge. Where two or more bridges exist in close proximity, their piers can have a cumulative ‘channelling’ or ‘flow dividing’ effect. As the conceptual bridge occurs approximately 700 m upstream of the Oak Street Bridge, and approximately 950 m downstream of the Knight Street Bridge, it is anticipated the effects of the bridge piers upon downstream flows will be minor. Erosion and Sedimentation The design of the piers located below local low water would incorporate features to minimize erosion. The perimeter of the pier foundations and fenders would be armoured with rip rap. A rip rap apron would likely be placed on the river bottom. The rip rap apron would likely extend horizontally from the piers, and vertically into the river bottom to distances sufficient to prevent scour holes that would otherwise occur without protection. The effect upon the sedimentation regime, especially within shallow nearshore environments, is uncertain. The southern in-water pier of the SkyBridge has caused extensive sedimentation of downstream environments, most notably a marina basin, log storage areas, and a log handling pocket. Post-construction dredging of these features occurs more frequently than pre-construction dredging. The hydrotechnical assessment would investigate the prospect of the piers impacting the sedimentation regime of the North Arm. Water Levels Increases in water levels are attributable to the increase in the velocity head caused by the piers (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984). Those increases may be offset by concurrent decreases in the river bottom elevation. As for impacts upon the sedimentation regime, prospective impacts upon water levels would have to be investigated by the hydrotechnical assessment.


December 2004 6-28

Light Conditions The post-construction light regime beneath the bridge would likely not deviate substantively from the pre-construction light regime. Shading of the intertidal and riparian zones by the superstructure of the bridge would likely not cause any measurable decrease in the vigour of marsh or woodland plants, nor would it pre-empt the colonization and successful establishment of marsh plants on intertidal flats that are currently unvegetated. The intensity of light is maximized and the area shaded is minimized by the height of the superstructure above intertidal environments (i.e., a minimum of 18 m). Inadequate clearance is likely the cause of the decrease in areal cover and stem density of Lyngby’s sedge marsh (pre- to post-construction) beneath the No.2 Road Bridge along the southern shoreline of the Middle Arm. In contrast, as part of the seismic upgrade of the pier footings of the Oak Street Bridge in 1996, Lyngby’s sedge planted within an intertidal bench along the northern shoreline beneath the superstructure of the bridge exhibits vigour similar to that of adjacent marshes upstream and downstream of the bridge. The North Arm Crossing will exhibit clearances similar to those of the Oak Street Bridge. 6.3.1.4 Residual Impacts and Compensation Strategy

Significant residual impacts on fish and fish habitat are not associated with the conceptual design, construction and operation of the North Arm Crossing of the Fraser River. Of the residual impacts deemed insignificant by this assessment, only those impacts associated with project construction, specifically those attributable to the footprint of the wood piles of prospective temporary work pads, may be considered by regulatory agencies as an impact of sufficient magnitude to require compensation. FREMP has classified the fish habitat values of shorelines throughout the estuary (see SECTION 3.6.1). FREMP’s authority is founded upon the mandates of the individual regulatory agencies participating in the Program. Participating agencies include DFO, Environment Canada and the BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. The classifications guide activities and development within the estuary. Shorelines are colour coded to denote their fish habitat value. Highly productive shorelines are colour coded red; development is typically not permitted unless the proponent


6-29 December 2004

of a particular activity or development can demonstrate that no alteration to, or alienation of, habitat will occur. Moderately productive areas are colour coded yellow; the activity or development must demonstrate mitigation to the greatest extent practical. Unmitigable impacts must be compensated for through the construction of habitats that replace the functional capacity of impacted habitats. Areas of low productivity are colour coded green; an activity or development must demonstrate environmentally sound design, construction and operation criteria. The intertidal fish habitats along the southern shoreline in proximity to Pier NA3 have been colour coded red. If a pile supported work pad is required to facilitate access to the pier location, the regulatory agencies, most notably DFO, may be satisfied that such a work pad, in contrast to a work pad constructed of fill, represents adequate mitigation of impacts to intertidal marsh and mudflat along the southern shoreline. They may, however, require compensation for the impact of piles on these habitats. Compensation for impacts, in the form of constructed habitats, can be readily delivered by the RAV Project. For example, habitat may be constructed along the shoreline of the Doman Forest Products property located immediately west (downstream) of the Mitchell Island Forest Products property. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 present a conceptual design for compensation habitats at this location. The area of habitats detailed by the design readily addresses all prospective compensation scenarios that may be required by regulatory agencies. Similar opportunities for habitat creation exist elsewhere within the lower reaches of the Fraser River. Alternatively, habitat credits may be purchased from NFPA’s habitat bank at Gladstone Park, Vancouver. The bank is located along the northern shoreline of the North Arm in close proximity to the RAV Project location.


6-31 December 2004

Figure 6.3


6-33 December 2004

Figure 6.4


6-35 December 2004

6.3.2 Middle Arm Crossing


Horizontal and Vertical Alignment The proposed location of the Middle Arm Crossing commences at a point 30 m north of the centre of the intersection of Beckwith and Sexmith roads, approximately 400 m east of the Middle Arm of the Fraser River, and terminates at a point approximately 275 m west of the Middle Arm (IBI Group 2002) (Figure 6.5). The crossing structure east of the channel is an elevated guideway. An elevated guideway avoids conflicts with roads, and overhead and underground utilities. The guideway crosses the CPR tracks above the prescribed 7.01 m clearance. The crossing guideway slopes upward from its eastern terminus at a grade of approximately 2.5% to clear the navigation channel by approximately 13.6 m. The crossing structure west of the channel may be elevated or at-grade (IBI Group 2002). At-grade, the approach to the crossing from the west slopes upward at a grade of approximately 4% to achieve the design clearance of the navigation channel (Figure 6.6). With an elevated guideway, the crossing slopes upward from its western terminus at an initial grade of 0.5% (for approximately 125 m), and steepens to 4% to clear the navigation channel. The height of the structure above the navigation channel is approximately 13.6 m (IBI Group 2002). The clearance of the bridge structure exceeds that of both the Airport Connector and Moray Channel bridges. Commercial shipping and permitted log storage do not occur within the Middle Arm. Marine traffic is limited to recreational vessels. The majority of marine traffic is associated with marinas (to access moorage) operating within the Middle Arm. Access is typically from the North Arm, upstream of the conceptual alignment of the crossing. As such, the downstream control of marine traffic by the Airport Connector and the Moray Channel bridges is not an issue from an operational perspective. A critical aspect of the height of the structure is that it exceeds the clearance requirements of recreational vessels that currently utilize the Middle Arm.


December 2004 6-36

Structure The main bridge structure across the river could have spans ranging from 65 m to 90 m in length (IBI Group 2002). The superstructure of the bridge could be built using varying depth steel I-girders continuously over all of the spans. The main centre girders would be haunched. Haunched girders allow the height and weight of the bridge to be minimized while still achieving the required vertical clearance for navigation. A cast-in-place post-tensioned concrete bridge type, or post-tensioned concrete segmental bridge type, both feasible alternatives to the recommended steel option, have not been recommended by design engineers due to the difficulty and high cost to construct such structures over water. The total length of the bridge section of the crossing is approximately 310 m.


6-37 December 2004

Figure 6.5


6-39 December 2004

Figure 6.6


6-41 December 2004

A significant advantage of the steel girders is the flexibility in options for erecting the superstructure (IBI Group 2002). The girders would be fabricated off-site and likely brought to the site by barge. The river spans would likely be erected from a barge and spliced in place. Erection of the steel on land would likely be facilitated by the use of large cranes. Span Arrangement and Pier Locations Moray Channel is the navigation channel (45 m wide) of the Middle Arm. It is completely spanned by the conceptual bridge structure. This is in marked contrast to the Airport Connector Bridge, where the navigation channel is divided by a centre pier into western and eastern channels 19 m and 24 m in width, respectively, and the Moray Channel Bridge, which divides the navigation channel into two channels 18 m in width (IBI Group 2002). A conceptual span arrangement of 65 m – 90 m – 90 m – 90 m – 65 m has been developed for the conceptual crossing. Six piers are specified by the conceptual design (Piers MA1-MA6, with MA1 the most westerly pier and MA6 the most easterly pier). These span lengths and pier locations have been selected to accommodate the navigation channel while optimizing and balancing the span lengths. The span length over the navigation channel is 90 m. Foundations The bridge structure could be supported on 914 mm to 1220 mm diameter steel piles averaging 15 m in length (IBI Group 2002). The vertical piles could be supported by densification zones 8 m in width to provide lateral support, or by a special battered pile foundation designed to take both compressive and uplift loads. Densification zones would be required along the river banks. The control of differential settlement between adjacent foundations is extremely important due to the onerous tolerances of the guideway rail alignments. The pier footings would be armoured with rip rap. Rip rap aprons would be placed upon the river bottom to minimize scour.


December 2004 6-42


Land and Water Uses Land and water uses within, and in proximity to the conceptual alignment are characterized by heavy industry and commercial activities along the eastern shoreline of the Middle Arm, while marine facilities and a road occur along the western shoreline of the channel. The alignment spans the historic location of Duck Island. Duck Island was once separated from Lulu Island by a side channel approximately 100 m in width. The first road crossing of the Middle Arm crossed Duck Island at approximately the same location as the conceptual crossing. Further, the road crossing once ‘landed’ upon Lulu Island at the same location as the conceptual crossing. The road crossing of the Middle Arm was linked to a road crossing of the North Arm that occurred within the current alignment of the Arthur Laing Bridge. Duck Island received its first deposit of dredge spoil during the late 1940s as part of the initial stages of industrial development (apart from bridge construction) (Government of Canada 1950). The first fill of the side channel occurred within the bridge alignment during the early 1950s (Province of British Columbia 1954a). Approximately 25% of the side channel had been filled by 1963, at which point the current aggregate handling use on the island had become established (Province of British Columbia 1963a). The Moray Channel and the Oak Street bridges had also been constructed by 1963; the North Arm crossing that was linked to the Middle Arm crossing had been decommissioned and removed. By 1969, the Middle Arm road crossing had been removed, and approximately 75% of the side channel had been filled with dredge spoil (Province of British Columbia 1969). The embayment immediately south of the Bridgepoint Market complex is a relic feature of the side channel. Characteristic land uses occurring along the eastern shoreline of the Middle Arm in proximity to the RAV Project alignment include concrete production, aggregate storage and handling, commercial (i.e., small charter vessels) and recreational vessel moorage and retail services (i.e., Bridgepoint Market). Log storage is not a permitted use within the Middle Arm; however, log rafts are frequently moored to dolphins fronting the historic shoreline of Duck Island.


6-43 December 2004

Land within the upstream third of the western shoreline was vacant from at least the 1940s to the early 1980s. The land was consistently clear of woody vegetation during this period. Dry storage of boats commenced at this location during the early 1980s and continued until the late 1990s. Moorage of recreational and commercial vessels occurred along this section of shoreline from at least the 1940s to the late 1990s. Land uses along the downstream two-thirds of the Project shoreline have been associated with either recreational and commercial vessel moorage or the operation of a barge ramp and bulkhead. Moorage of vessels occurred along the Project shoreline from at least the 1940s to the late 1990s. Offices associated with the commercial operation of moorage facilities occurred upon upland areas. A bulkhead and barge ramp was operating at the downstream limit of the RAV Project alignment by 1963; by 1974 the barge ramp was decommissioned and the bulkhead converted to a storage area and landing for a pedestrian ramp (Province of British Columbia 1963a, 1974). The marina and associated amenities were gone by the early 1980s (Province of British Columbia 1986). The bulkhead was recommissioned during 1999 as part of the construction of the Airport Connector Bridge. Characteristic land uses along the western shoreline of the Middle Arm in proximity to the Project alignment include commercial and recreational vessel moorage, hospitality services (i.e., Delta Vancouver Hotel), marine services, and road (i.e., Grauer Road and abutment of the Arthur Laing Bridge). Biophysical Features

Western Shoreline The western shoreline is characterized by steep slopes armoured with concrete construction debris (Photo 6.13). The banks are steep (to 1horizontal:1vertical). The concrete debris is primarily comprised of fragmented slabs. The armoured slopes encompass the range of intertidal elevations typically inhabited by marsh. The toe of the slope engages the river bottom at approximately 1 metre above the local low water elevation. A narrow bench of concrete rubble, gravels and silts fronts the armoured slope. Portions of the shoreline bank are being actively eroded by waves and currents (Photos 6.14 and 6.15). The eroded face is comprised of


December 2004 6-44

construction debris. Clumps of vegetation, undermined by erosion, have fallen down into the intertidal zone from the top of the bank. The most conspicuous of the clumps are comprised of reed canary grass and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum). Intertidal marsh occurs as isolated patches rooted within the interstices of the construction debris. The marsh is comprised of assemblages dominated by either Lyngby’s sedge, Baltic rush or reed canary grass. Sow thistle (Sonchus sp.), aster (Aster subspicatus), dock (Rumex occidentalis), iris (Iris pseudacorus), silverweed (Potentilla pacifica), water parsely, and reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea) occur sporadically amongst these dominants. Riparian vegetation is comprised of an array of native and non-native species predominantly organized according to the footprints of past land uses. A road that occurs upon a section of relic dyke, and that once provided access to the bulkhead, sustains an assemblage of plants characteristic of waste sites (Photos 6.16, 6.17, and 6.18). Grasses and forbs of the road banks include sweet white clover (Melilotus alba), clover (Trifolium sp.), wall lettuce (Lactuca muralis), sow thistle, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata), red fescue (Festuca rubra), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) and reed canary grass. Woody vegetation scattered along the road banks include Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), whips of goldenchain tree (Laburnum sp.), and seedling/sapling red maple (Acer rubrum). The road surface or crest of the relic dyke is inhabited by many of the species of the road banks, as well as bitter-cress (Cardamine sp.), wormseed mustard (Erysimum cheiranthoides), vetch (Vicia sp.), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), self heal (Prunella vulgaris), pineapple weed (Matricaria discoidea), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), and sapling cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and alder (Alnus rubra). The area between the road and the top-of-bank is characterized by many of the species associated with the road. The notable exception is the presence of some large trees in proximity to a decommissioned storm sewer outfall. These include two red alders (diameter-at-breast heights (dbhs) of 125 mm and 120 mm), a western redcedar (Thuja plicata var. excelsa; dbh of 115 mm) and four cottonwood trees (dbhs of 84 mm, 172 mm, 118 mm and


6-45 December 2004

115 mm). Red-osier dogwood occurs at the top-of-bank in immediate proximity to the red alders. The presence of residential garden and landscape plants, such as laurel (Prunus sp.), English ivy (Hedera helix), domestic rose (Rosa sp.), lilac (Syringa sp.) and rhubarb (Rheum sp.) suggests that this site has been used to dispose of garden waste. Eastern Shoreline Features associated with the eastern shoreline are, in part, a function of industrial shoreline uses (Photo 6.19). A road utilized to move heavy machinery associated with the aggregate storage and handling operation on Duck Island defines the top-of-bank. Aggregate is stored and handled immediately landward of the road. The road is constructed on aggregate fill (Photo 6.20). Construction debris is incorporated within the fill slope. Riparian vegetation is limited to the fill slope (Photo 6.21). The plant assemblage is characterized by a mix of grasses and forbs, such as reed canary grass and sow thistle, and scattered clusters of mostly non-native shrubs and vines, such as Japanese knotweed, Himalayan blackberry and morning glory. Intertidal marsh commences at the toe of slope, extending towards the river upon a contiguous bench. The width of the marsh varies dramatically, from approximately 5 m to 25 m. The front of the marsh displays scars of prop scour, likely a result of the handling of log rafts that are frequently stored within the river channel fronting the RAV Project shoreline. Three distinct assemblages of vegetation, haphazardly organized along an elevational gradient, are each defined by a dominant species, specifically broadleaved cattail, Lyngby’s sedge and Baltic rush. The cattail assemblage occurs within those areas that exhibit the poorest drainage of the marsh, where standing water often occurs during low tide (Photo 6.22). Lyngby’s sedge is a conspicuous sub-dominant species. Reed canary grass and Japanese knotweed occur with cattail in immediate proximity to the toe of slope. The Lyngby’s sedge assemblage is often characterized by monospecific stands of the sedge. Cattail and Baltic rush occur sporadically within the Lyngby’s sedge assemblage. The Baltic rush assemblage occurs within the best draining portions of the marsh. Lyngby’s sedge is a frequent sub-dominant along the riverward margin of Baltic rush stands, while reed


December 2004 6-46

canary grass is a frequent sub-dominant along the landward margin of stands (Photo 6.23). Mudflat occurs within the lower elevations of the intertidal bench. The width of mudflat varies from approximately 30 m to 50 m. Several dolphins comprised of wood piles occur approximately 10 m to 15 m from the riverward margin of the mudflat. Log rafts are often tethered to the dolphins along their riverward margin. The logs ground upon mudflat during low tide (Photo 6.24).

6.3.2.3 Impact Analysis

Impacts for the Middle Arm Crossing are defined according to the conceptual design, construction and operation of the crossing.

Design Impacts Elements of the design of the crossing that would affect shoreline features of the Middle Arm include the piers and associated footings, foundations, and densification treatments. Piers MA1, MA2, MA3 and MA4 are located west of the navigation channels and are considered to be associated with the western shoreline. In turn, Piers MA5 and MA6 are eastern shoreline design features. Western Shoreline Piers MA1 and MA2 are located west of the fill abutment of the Arthur Laing Bridge. Footings, foundations and densification treatments associated with these piers would not affect fish habitats.

Pier MA3 is located in immediate proximity to the decommissioned stormwater outfall, approximately 10 m landward of the top-of-bank. Riparian vegetation associated with this outfall, including alder, cottonwood and western redcedar trees, would be affected by the footing, foundation and densification treatment for the pier. Pockets of intertidal marsh and a small area of intertidal mudflat within the small embayment of the outfall would be impacted by the densification treatment and rip rap associated with anticipated bank revetment.


6-47 December 2004

Pier MA4 is located on the river bottom, approximately 80 m riverward of the western shoreline top-of-bank. The pier is located approximately 15 m west of the harbour headline of the navigation channel. The river bottom is comprised predominantly of sands and silts (McLaren and Ren 1995). The pier footing and associated rip rap armament would permanently alienate a portion of the river bottom. The area affected by the densification treatment would readily recover, with substrates characteristic of the design location readily deposited upon the treated area following construction. The pier would occupy a portion of the water column. Eastern Shoreline Pier MA5 is located on the river bottom, approximately 85 m from the riverward margin of the aggregate handling road. The pier is located approximately 5 m east of the harbour headline of the navigation channel. The river bottom is comprised predominantly of sands and silts (McLaren and Ren 1995). The pier footing and associated rip rap armament would permanently alienate a portion of the river bottom. The area affected by the densification treatment would readily recover, with substrates characteristic of the design location readily deposited upon the treated area following construction. The pier would occupy a portion of the water column. The impact of the footing, foundation and densification treatment of Pier MA6 would be substantial. Several hundred square metres of marsh and mudflat would be either temporarily or permanently impacted. Impacts to riparian vegetation are negligible due to the limited resource value of existing riparian vegetation. Construction Impacts Details regarding construction methodologies have yet to be developed for the conceptual design of the bridge. However, methodologies common to many bridge crossings of the Fraser River can be introduced for the RAV Project so that general impacts can be identified. Impact mitigation protocols, once disparate from conventional construction protocols, are now typically elements of the overall protocol for construction. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters, to prevent the discharge of concrete wash water and solids, and to respond to accidental spills of oils and fuels from construction


December 2004 6-48

equipment will be incorporated into the Concession’s overall protocol for construction of the bridge crossing (see SECTION 20.4). The impact mitigation protocols will comprise a component of the environmental specifications of the contract for construction of the RAV Project. The specifications will be compliant with environmental legislation and will adequately address the requirements of regulatory agencies as communicated through the environmental review of the project. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters will be formally presented in the Concession’s ‘Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan’ (see Plan outline in SECTION 20.4.1). The Plan will provide details regarding facilities that collect and detain sediment laden waters sufficient to remove suspended solids to less than 75 ppm above receiving water concentrations. Special contingencies will be presented for slurries produced by ground improvement works (e.g. vibro-densification). The suspended solid concentration regime of receiving waters is seasonably variable, with large disparities between low and high values. The concentrations of suspended solids have not been recorded for the Middle Arm; however, characteristics of the regime for the Middle Arm may be extrapolated from data collected for the North Arm. Seasonal concentrations of TSS within the North Arm at the Oak Street Bridge measured between 1972 and 1995 (MWLAP 2003a) suggest that the highest concentration of TSS within the North Arm occurs during April, May and June (i.e., spring freshet). The highest and lowest concentrations of TSS measured during freshet are 224 mg/L (1994) and 21 mg/L (1992), respectively. The lowest concentration of TSS within the North Arm occurs immediately prior to and following freshet (i.e., January through March and August through October). The highest and lowest concentrations of TSS measured during non-freshet periods are 96 mg/L (1973) and 5 mg/L (1993), respectively. The Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan will include provision for constant monitoring of receiving waters to address the seasonal variations in suspended solid concentrations, and the influence these variations have on


6-49 December 2004

the allowable suspended solid concentrations of waters discharged to the Middle Arm. The Plan will formalize protocols for the handling of concrete wash water and solids. All concrete wash water and solids produced during the operation of concrete ready-mix and pumper trucks will be collected, contained and transported offsite to a treatment facility. Contingencies for the collection, containment and transport of waters originating in and about poured foundations will also be addressed by the Plan. A ‘Hazardous Waste Management Plan’ and a “Spill Prevention and Spill Control Plan’ will present protocols for containment facilities and emergency response to spills. Densification Densification of sediments beneath and surrounding the pier foundations would probably be by vibro-compaction or comparable practice. This technique involves the insertion of a vibrating probe into the sediments to induce compaction. Densification requires the use of heavy machinery. Accordingly, work pads will be required for the machinery. The grass areas of the MA1 and MA2 pier locations would suffice as working pads. The road atop the relic dyke crest would be the working pad for Pier MA3; the working area atop the dyke may be expanded riverward with aggregate fill. The two piers located along the harbour headlines of the navigation channel will require work pads founded on the decks of barges anchored by spuds. A temporary timber deck supported by wood piles would provide the working pad for Pier MA6 over intertidal marsh and mudflat. All wood utilized in the construction of the temporary deck would be untreated. All temporary work pads would be decommissioned upon completion of construction. The piles of the timber work pad will impact marsh and mudflat. The cumulative area of impact would be small. Upon decommissioning of the decks, the piles would be removed. Special mitigatory measures are not required; the marsh and mudflat would readily recover upon decommissioning.


December 2004 6-50

Densification requires in-water works for Pier MA3 through to, and including Pier MA6. Accordingly, densification and associated work pad construction will be constrained to the construction window that avoids the downstream migration of juvenile salmonids within the Fraser River. The window for in-water works is June 16 to February 28 of the following year. No work will be permitted in or adjacent to the wetted perimeter between March and June. Pier Construction Pier construction will involve extensive concrete works. All concrete works, irrespective of the design of the piers, will be conducted ‘in the dry’. The Translink SkyBridge, where concrete pier columns extend to the bottom of the river, utilized cofferdams for construction (Rogers 2004). Reinforced concrete works are contained within the cofferdams. The No.2 Road Bridge (Middle Arm) applied a pre-cast concrete suspended pile cap design. Steel piles extend to the bottom of the river. The shell of the pile cap (i.e. a concrete box) is floated to the location of the steel piles and fitted to the top of the piles. The cap is filled with reinforced concrete to complete pile cap construction. In-water works directly associated with pier construction will include the driving of steel piles (sheet piles for cofferdam construction or pipe piles as part of the construction of pile cap structures). As for densification, heavy machinery is required for pier construction; the machinery would likely utilize the work pads utilized for densification and/or additional temporary timber decking (from Piers MA6 to MA5, MA2 to MA3 and MA3 to MA4). All temporary work pads would be decommissioned upon completion of construction. The option exploited for the foundations of the piers is dependent upon adequacy of a bearing layer beneath the design location of the piers (IBI Group 2002). An adequate bearing layer would allow the use of end-bearing compaction piles or the construction of a pad footing. Friction piles may be another option. Compaction piles require drilling of a borehole and then placement and compaction of concrete within a reinforcing cage. The compaction is achieved by dropping a weight from a crane. Pad footing construction would require excavation and disposal of sediments that occur above the bearing layer within the cofferdam.


6-51 December 2004

The in-water installation of all piles will have to occur during the construction window identified for densification. Work within cofferdams may occur at any time during the year. Construction within the cofferdams will require daily dewatering of the interior of the dams. The water removed from cofferdams is typically laden with sediments. Pumped waters exceeding suspended solid concentrations of 75 ppm above receiving water concentrations will have to be stored within tanks until settlement of solids achieves suspended solid concentrations less than 75 ppm. This is a conventional technique applied for many construction scenarios. The tanks may be stored upon barges or within upland areas. The piers and perhaps foundation slabs would be constructed through casting of concrete ‘in place’ (IBI Group 2002). The concrete would be cast through conventional means inside prefabricated formwork. The concrete would be heavily reinforced with steel. The casting of concrete would be conducted from work pads utilized for other elements of construction.

Rip Rap Armour Installation The installation of the rip rap aprons surrounding the pier foundations and as bank revetment (Pier MA3) will require dredging of the river bottom to allow subgrade preparation for the rip rap and minimize the vertical profile of the apron. The in-water installation of all rip rap armour will be conducted during the same work window identified for the densification element of construction. Guideway Construction The shorter span approach structures would likely be constructed of pre-stressed concrete structures (IBI Group 2002). The river crossing structures may be constructed of either steel or concrete; concrete, however, is the anticipated material of construction. The length of the river crossing is sufficient to warrant the use of the segmental, balanced cantilever method of construction. Pre-cast concrete segments should be readily barged to the site and lifted into place in the bridge superstructure. This method of construction was used for the No.2 Road Bridge within the Middle Arm.


December 2004 6-52

Storage and Staging The construction of the Middle Arm Crossing will require relatively large areas for the storage and staging of construction materials, structures and machinery. A large storage and staging area is available at the aggregate storage and handling area located immediately landward of the eastern shoreline. Another large area is available at vacant lands located immediately landward of the western shoreline; a large portion of these lands were utilized for storage and staging during the construction of the Airport Connector Bridge (located immediately downstream of the proposed design alignment). The design alignment of the crossing can be readily accessed from both areas. Storage and staging of construction materials, structures and machinery would occur on lands recently and currently characterized by commercial and industrial uses. It is anticipated that the storage and staging elements of construction would not affect fish habitat.

Operational Impacts Hydraulic Conditions The presence of bridge piers in the Middle Arm is expected to cause a change in hydraulic conditions. Although the conceptual design is not accompanied by an analysis of the impacts of the piers upon the hydraulics of the river channels, the magnitude of impacts can be approximated through a review of the hydraulic analysis conducted for the operation of the Translink SkyBridge (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984) crossing of the Fraser River, located upstream of the trifurcation of the river and downstream of Patullo Bridge. A hydrotechnical study, similar to those conducted for the SkyBridge and Airport Connector (Vancouver International Airport Authority 1998) crossings, may be required to quantify potential changes in hydraulic conditions. Invariably, the bridge piers will affect:

• the cross-sectional area of the channels; • local flow velocities; • downstream flow patterns; • erosion and sedimentation; and • water levels.


6-53 December 2004

Dramatic changes to the first three parameters may affect the ability of fish to move upstream through the channels, in particular Pacific salmon during their annual migration to spawning grounds. Substantive changes in the erosion and sedimentation of the river may impact fish habitats; both losses and gains in habitat types may be realized. Changes in the normal water level regime of the channels may impact organisms that inhabit a specific inundation regime within intertidal areas. It is unlikely that the bridge piers will affect river hydraulics sufficiently to impede the movement of fish. In the hydraulic analysis for the SkyBridge, it was concluded that post-construction conditions would not incur delays or increased energy expenditures that may affect the reproductive success of adult Pacific salmon. Further, the analysis concluded that the migratory behaviour of juvenile salmonids or their access to important nearshore habitats such as intertidal marsh and riparian woodlands would not be constrained. The hydrotechnical assessment would allow a comprehensive assessment of the impact of changes in hydraulic conditions upon fish and fish habitats. Cross-Sectional Area of the Channels The piers and associated foundations and rip rap armour will reduce the cross-sectional area of the Middle Arm. The net reduction in the cross-sectional area of the river channel will be approximately 10%. The reduction in cross-sectional area is largely attributable to the three piers that occur within the channel, one on each margin of the navigable corridor, and the other upon the intertidal zone of the eastern shoreline. The effective reduction in flow area may be less as the river bottom, comprised predominantly of sand that is readily transported by flows, may realize a depth adjustment between the piers that would compensate for any initial reduction in flow area.

Local Flow Velocities The hydraulic analysis for the SkyBridge demonstrated that average velocities during flood tides are considerably lower than average velocities during ebb tides (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984). As average velocity increases, the proportion of channel area with velocities less than 1 m/s declines rapidly. Average velocity and channel area with velocities less than


December 2004 6-54

1 m/s vary through the tidal cycle. There is a strong inverse relationship between these two parameters. As average velocity decrease during the flood tide, the amount of low velocity water increases, mostly in relatively shallow nearshore areas. The most apparent effects of the piers and associated structures will be realized upon velocities in immediate proximity to the piers. As presented for the SkyBridge, the flow pattern around a cylindrical or round-nosed pier is generally characterized by a ‘stagnation point’ of zero velocity on the upstream axis, and a substantial acceleration in local velocities around the nose and along the flanks of the piers (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984). For the theoretical case of a frictionless fluid, the maximum velocity at the 90 degree points is twice the ‘free-stream’ velocity some distance upstream. The velocity is approximately 10% above the free-stream velocity at a point away from the pier equal in distance to the diameter or width of the pier. The effect is quite localized and is insignificant more than two pier widths from the structure. The effect of friction slightly reduces the theoretical increase in velocity. The piers will cause a three-dimensional vortex or roller near the river bottom. The vortex or roller will likely extend approximately one pier width beyond each pier. Flow within approximately three pier widths of each pier will be appreciably disturbed.

Downstream Flow Patterns In the analysis of the SkyBridge, the bridge was considered to be well separated from upstream bridges, namely the Pattulo Bridge and the CN Rail bridge (MacLaren PlanSearch 1984). The distance between the SkyBridge and the Pattulo Bridge is 400 m. The effect of piers on downstream flows was considered to be minor, with changes in flows not detectable more than a few hundred metres downstream of the bridge. Where two or more bridges exist in close proximity, their piers can have a cumulative ‘channelling’ or ‘flow dividing’ effect. The conceptual RAV Bridge is situated approximately 250 m upstream of the Airport Connector Bridge, which is in turn 50 m upstream of the Moray Channel Bridge. There would be a cumulative ‘channelling’ effect; the extent of this effect is not likely to be significant as the piers of the three crossings would not be directly aligned in the direction of river flow.


6-55 December 2004

Erosion and Sedimentation The design of the piers located below local low water would incorporate features to minimize erosion. The perimeter of the pier foundations would be armoured with rip rap. A rip rap apron would likely be placed on the river bottom. The rip rap apron would likely extend horizontally from the piers, and vertically into the river bottom to distances sufficient to prevent scour holes that would otherwise occur without protection. The effect upon the sedimentation regime, especially within shallow nearshore environments, is uncertain. The southern in-water pier of the SkyBridge has caused extensive sedimentation of downstream environments, most notably a marina basin, log storage areas, and a log handling pocket. Post-construction dredging of these features occurs more frequently than pre-construction dredging. The hydrotechnical assessment would investigate the prospect of the piers affecting the sedimentation regime of the Middle Arm.

Water Levels Increases in water levels are attributable to the increase in the velocity head caused by the piers (MacLaren PlanSearch, 1984). Those increases may be offset by concurrent decreases in the river bottom elevation. As for impacts upon the sedimentation regime, prospective impacts upon water levels would have to be investigated by the hydrotechnical assessment.

Light Conditions The post-construction light regime beneath the bridge would likely not deviate substantively from the pre-construction light regime. Shading of the intertidal zone by the superstructure of the bridge would likely not cause any measurable decrease in the vigour of marsh plants, nor would it pre-empt the colonization and successful establishment of marsh plants on intertidal flats currently unvegetated. Although not as high as the design crossing for the North Arm, it is anticipated that the intensity of light should be sufficient to avoid measurable impacts on intertidal vegetation. The west-east alignment of the structure allows irradiance of the river bottom within the intertidal zone during most times of the day. The approximate north-south alignment of the No.2 Bridge exacerbated the shading impacts of a low profile structure. Inadequate clearance is the likely cause of the decrease in areal cover and stem density


December 2004 6-56

of Lyngby’s sedge marsh (pre- to post-construction) beneath the No.2 Road Bridge along the southern shoreline of the Middle Arm. 6.3.2.4 Residual Impacts and Compensation Strategy

Residual impacts to fish habitat occur with the conceptual design of piers and associated structures of the Middle Arm Crossing. Residual impacts are not associated with the construction and operation of the crossing. The fish habitats impacted by Pier MA3 and Pier MA6 have been colour coded red by FREMP. The persistence of the piers at their present design locations is dependent upon the demonstration that relocation is not practical from an engineering or economic perspective. Impacts to red coded habitats attributable to bridge crossings within the Fraser River estuary have occurred in the past. Impacts to red coded intertidal marsh, attributable to shading by the superstructures of the No.2 Road and Airport Connector bridges, and to fill associated with a barge facility for the construction of the Airport Connector Bridge have been permitted by FREMP agencies, including DFO. The areal extent of impacts was similar to that associated with the conceptual designs of Pier MA3 and Pier MA6. In a scenario whereby impacts to red coded features are permitted by regulatory agencies, habitat may be constructed in immediate proximity to the pier location as compensation for impacts. This would involve relocation of the aggregate handling road sufficiently landward to allow the construction of intertidal marsh and mudflat. The area of marsh and mudflat to be constructed would have to be at least twice that of those features impacted by the pier design. Figures 6.7 and 6.8 present a conceptual design for compensation habitats, demonstrating the feasibility of constructing habitats at this location. The conceptual design can readily accommodate replacement habitats that may be required for impacts to intertidal habitats associated with Pier MA3. Alternatively, the RAV Project may purchase intertidal marsh credits from NFPA’s habitat bank at Gladstone Park, Vancouver. The bank is located along the northern shoreline of the North Arm in close proximity to the RAV Project location.


6-57 December 2004

Figure 6.7


6-59 December 2004

Figure 6.8


6-61 December 2004

6.3.3 Airport Branch


Horizontal and Vertical Alignment The conceptual design alignment of the Airport Branch on Sea Island commences at the Vancouver International Airport terminal buildings, follows Grant McConachie Way east, crosses the southern margin of the Arthur Laing bridge interchange, and continues east to the design location of the Middle Arm Crossing (IBI Group 2002) (Figures 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11). This portion of the alignment provides the most direct link between the conceptual design location of the Bridgeport Station and the Arthur Laing Bridge interchange; it minimizes the crossing distance at the Middle Arm and minimizes impacts to the conveyance of traffic within the interchange. Crossing of the approach roads at the Arthur Laing Bridge interchange will require a minimum clearance of 5 m; a 5% grade has been conceptually specified for the Sea Island approach to the Middle Arm Crossing. Various station options are being considered; four stations have been identified for the Airport Branch. The length of the Airport Branch, from the terminal buildings to the Middle Arm Crossing, is approximately 3100 m.

The Middle Arm Crossing is an elevated bridge structure and the guideway of the Airport Branch will be elevated.

Structure The elevated guideway will require piled foundations; options include closed-end steel piles or expanded cast-in-place concrete piles with appropriate ground treatment to limit ground deformations (IBI Group 2002). A densification zone comprising vibro-replacement or compaction piles will likely be required. The construction footprint will be relatively large, and may conflict with proximal facilities and buried utilities. The alternative to a conventional vertical pile group with a vibro-densification zone would be a battered, trapezoidal or similar pile group configuration. A smaller design footprint may be achieved and, as such, conflicts with proximal facilities and buried utilities may be reduced.


6-63 December 2004

Figure 6.9


6-65 December 2004

Figure 6.10


6-67 December 2004

Figure 6.11


6-69 December 2004


Land Uses Sea Island was initially developed as farmland during the late 1800s. Small marine-based industries later became established along the perimeter of the island, in particular near the bifurcation of the North and Middle arms. The Vancouver International Airport commenced operation in 1930. Industrial development to service airport operations soon followed. Residential development of lands surrounding the airport also occurred; however, many residential neighbourhoods were later removed to accommodate airport expansion. Compensation for environmental impacts associated with airport expansion included the establishment of a wildlife habitat conservation area along the north side of the island. Recent comprehensive development of the airport has included the establishment of formal industrial parks. Sea Island is linked to Lulu Island by four road bridges, namely the No.2 Road, Dinsmore, Moray Channel and Airport Connector bridges. The Arthur Laing Bridge is the sole direct link to the mainland (City of Vancouver). Grant McConachie Way is the main thoroughfare that links the airport to the bridge crossings. Miller Road and North Service Road are frontage roads to Grant McConachie Way. Airport-related businesses are located off Miller Road; large commercial hangars and fuel storage and transfer facilities are located off North Service Road. Numerous paved parking areas occur on either side of Grant McConachie Way adjacent to the terminal buildings. Grassed areas occur around the terminal buildings, within the centre boulevard of Grant McConachie Way, and about the Arthur Laing Bridge interchange. Development on the island is protected from flooding by a perimeter dyke. An elaborate stormwater drainage system, comprised of pipe and open channel conveyances and pump stations, drains the interior of the island.

Biophysical Features Roads, stormwater drainages and grass boulevards, slopes and flats are the main biophysical features within the conceptual design alignment of the Airport Branch (see Figures 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11). Grass swales and roadside ditches are the prevailing drainage features within the design alignment. Flows within the grass swales and roadside ditches


December 2004 6-70

are ultimately conveyed to pump stations located at the north foot of Templeton Street, the north foot of McDonald Road, and the north foot of Shannon Road, all of which discharge flows to the North Arm. The pump stations convey both gravity and pumped drainage through a single piped outlet fixed with a top-mounted flapgate. A stormwater outlet (gravity drainage) occurs at the east foot of Miller Road and discharges into the Middle Arm; the outlet is fixed with a top-mounted flapgate. The flapgates pre-empt the ‘upstream’ migration of fish from the Middle and North arms into the Sea Island drainage system. Grass swales occur within the Grant McConachie Way boulevard (Photo 6.25), on the east side of Templeton Street, and within the grass fields immediately west of the Arthur Laing Bridge interchange (Photo 6.26); approximately 260 linear metres of grass swale occur within the conceptual design alignment. The grass swales receive overland flow from roadways and piped discharge from asphalt-paved parking areas. Numerous stormwater pipes discharge flows to the grass swale of the Grant McConachie Way boulevard. The pipe outlets are affixed with top-mounted flapgates. Flow was absent from the grass swales during surveys conducted in May 2003; water occurred as isolated pools throughout the swales during the surveys. Roadside ditches occur along the north side of Grant McConachie Way (Photo 6.27), the north side of North Service Road (Photo 6.28), the east side of Templeton Street (Photo 6.29) and the south side of Miller Road (Photo 6.30). Approximately 785 linear metres of roadside ditch occur within the conceptual design alignment. The roadside ditches are generally excavated channels with a shallow hydraulic grade line. Stormwaters within the roadside ditches originate as overland flow, runoff from adjacent asphalt-paved parking areas, and effluent from the terminal building cooling system. The airport utilizes a groundwater cooling system for the terminal building. Effluent from the cooling system (warmed groundwater) is pumped from the terminal building into the roadside drainage located along the north shoulder of North Service Road (Robinson 2003). Flow was sporadic throughout the ditches at the time of survey. Many ditches did not exhibit flows or standing water; notable exceptions were the North Service Road ditch at the point of effluent discharge and the ditches along the south side of Miller Road. Bottom substrates are typically comprised of silts.


6-71 December 2004

Water quality within the ditches is poor. Values of water quality parameters measured at the time of surveys consisted of: less than 1.00 to 15.65 mg/L for dissolved oxygen; 15.2o to 29.3o C for temperature; and 5.4 to 7.4 for pH. The measured values do not meet the overall criteria for the habitat requirements of salmonids. The values of the measured parameters required by salmonids to maintain normal life history functions include: 5.00 to 9.00 mg/L for dissolved oxygen (MWLAP 2001); 10o to 16o C for temperature (Meehan 1991); and 6.5 to 9.0 for pH (MWLAP 2001). The dissolved oxygen measured in most ditches was considerably less than the minimum accepted value and the temperature measured in most ditches was considerably higher than the maximum accepted value. The values of pH were within accepted ranges for all ditches. Three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and bullfrog tadpoles (Rana catesbiana) were captured within ditches that exhibited dissolved oxygen values greater than 5.02 mg/L; fish and amphibians were not captured within ditches that exhibited dissolved oxygen concentrations less than this value (Appendix 6-B: Table 6-B1 and Figure 6-B1). Vegetation along the upland margins of the Sea Island ditches is limited to mowed grass (fields and roadside boulevards and shoulders) and conventional landscape groundcover such as English ivy. The vegetation maintenance regime (including mowing) pre-empts the colonization and persistence of native vegetation. Instream vegetation within the Sea Island ditches is comprised of broadleaved cattail, common rush (Juncus effusus), sedges (Carex spp.), duckweed (Lemna minor), reed canary grass and a variety of other grass species. It is apparent from the extent of exposed substrates and the limited cover of vegetation that the ditches are regularly mowed and/or excavated as part of maintenance activities.


Impacts of the Airport Branch of the conceptual design alignment on fish habitat are defined according to the conceptual design, construction and operation of the guideway.


December 2004 6-72

Design Impacts A grade-supported guideway would require enclosure of ditches within culverts and the filling of predominantly grassed areas. Conspicuous features that would be affected include the network of grass swales encompassed by the Grant McConachie Way boulevard, the roadside ditch on the west side of Templeton Street, and the grass swales immediately west of the Arthur Laing Bridge interchange. An elevated guideway would avoid the majority of impacts associated with the grade-supported guideway. Residual impacts would be attributable to the design footprints of structures and associated amenities. Impacts associated with densification treatments would be temporary; landscape features impacted by densification could be readily restored upon completion of construction.

Construction Impacts For the purposes of this assessment, it was assumed that construction methods similar to those implemented during the recent SkyTrain Millennium Line Project would be used during RAV line development. Impact mitigation protocols, once disparate from conventional construction protocols, are now typically elements of the protocol for construction. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters, to prevent the discharge of concrete wash water and solids, and to respond to accidental spills of oils and fuels from construction equipment will be incorporated into the Concession’s overall protocol for construction of the guideway (see SECTION 20. 4). The impact mitigation protocols will comprise a component of the environmental specifications of the contract for construction of the RAV Project. The specifications will be compliant with environmental legislation and will adequately address the requirements of regulatory agencies as communicated through the environmental review of the project. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters will be formally presented in the Concessionare’s ‘Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan’ (see Plan outline in SECTION

20.4.1). The Plan will provide details regarding facilities that collect and


6-73 December 2004

detain sediment laden waters sufficient to remove suspended solids to less than 75 ppm above receiving water concentrations. Special contingencies will be presented for slurries produced by ground improvement works (e.g., vibro-densification). The Plan will formalize protocols for the handling of concrete wash water and solids. All concrete wash water and solids produced during the operation of concrete ready-mix and pumper trucks will be collected, contained and transported offsite to a treatment facility. Contingencies for the collection, containment and transport of waters originating in and about poured foundations will also be addressed by the Plan. A ‘Hazardous Waste Management Plan’ and a ‘Spill Prevention and Spill Control Plan’ will present protocols for containment facilities and emergency response to spills.

Operational Impacts The Project will operate within an existing transportation corridor. The delivery of contaminants by stormwaters to receiving waters that sustain important fish habitat values (namely those of the Middle and North arms of the Fraser River) associated with the operation of the guideway can be mitigated through the installation (within the piped system) of oil-water separators immediately downstream of the catchment areas of guideway stations, and the conveyance of road drainage through grass swales. Both oil-water separators and grass swales remove contaminants associated with parking areas and roadways, and are features that can be easily and cost-effectively maintained.

6.3.3.4 Residual Impacts and Compensation Strategy

The fish habitat values of the drainage system encompassed by the conceptual design alignment are marginal. Despite modification of drainages and proximal areas by either the elevated or grade supported design options, the impact on fish habitat would be negligible. Accordingly, significant residual impacts on fish habitat are not associated with the conceptual design, construction and operation of the Airport Branch.


December 2004 6-74

6.3.4 Lulu Island Branch


Horizontal and Vertical Alignment The conceptual design alignment of the Lulu Island Branch passes through urban centres located about Bridgeport Road and No.3 Road (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003) (Figure 6.12). Six stations have been depicted for this portion of the conceptual alignment; preliminary names for these stations are Capstan, Cambie, Alderbridge, Westminster, Bridgeport, and Richmond Centre. The Lulu Island Branch will be an elevated guideway (ND Lea Consultants Ltd., 2003). The northern limit of the Lulu Island Branch commences at the south end of the North Arm Crossing at Van Horne Way, and proceeds southwest, crossing River Drive and approximately following the alignment of the CPR spur line of Fraser River Terminal. The alignment of the elevated guideway curves west under the Oak Street (Highway No.99) Bridge and across provincially owned property located north of Charles Street between Garden City Road and No.3 Road. Bridgeport Station is to be elevated on the crescent-shaped property located north of the CPR tracks immediately west of Garden City Road. The Lulu Island Branch splits into two guideways at approximately Charles Street. One guideway continues southwest across Charles Street and west across the CPR tracks to the design linkage with the Middle Arm Crossing. The other guideway curves south to cross Bridgeport Road and is aligned at-grade along No.3 Road to its southern terminus at Granville Avenue and Park Street. The No.3 Road section of the guideway is termed by the conceptual design as the No.3 Road Extension of the Lulu Island Branch.

Design elements associated with the guideway and stations include storage and retail facilities and a park-and-ride facility at the Bridgeport Station (ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003). The conceptual design location of the Bridgeport Station occurs within the block bounded by River Road to the north and west, the future Garden City Road to the east, and Charles Street to the south. The parkade facility occurs immediately south of River Road north of the design station. The length of the Lulu Island Branch is approximately 3550 m.


6-75 December 2004

Figure 6.12

Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project

6-77 December 2004

Structure An elevated guideway would require piled foundations; options include closed-end steel piles or expanded cast-in-place concrete piles with appropriate ground treatment to limit ground deformations (IBI Group 2002). A densification zone comprising vibro-replacement or compaction piles will likely be required. The construction footprint would be relatively large and may conflict with proximal facilities and buried utilities. The alternative to a conventional vertical pile group with a vibro-densification zone would be a battered, trapezoidal or similar pile group configuration. A smaller design footprint may be achieved and, as such, conflicts with proximal facilities and buried utilities may be reduced.


Land Uses Lulu Island at and in proximity to the RAV Project alignment was initially developed as farmland during the late 1800s. As marine-based industries became established along the shorelines of the Middle and North arms, the interior of the island was converted from agricultural to residential uses. Residential land uses gave way to small commercial and industrial operations, to a point where two schools within the Bridgeport municipal planning area closed during the late 1970s.

Development on the island is protected from flooding by a perimeter dyke. An elaborate stormwater drainage system, comprised predominantly of pipe conveyances and pump stations, drains the interior of the island. Open ditches occur sporadically within the conceptual design alignment. Isolated pockets of vegetation are associated with these ditches. Current land use of Lulu Island consists of urban centres surrounded by suburban residential developments; farming still occurs on eastern and southern areas of the island. Industrial and commercial developments occur along the north shore of the island. Land use within the conceptual design alignment is comprised of warehousing and storage operations immediately west of the North Arm Crossing, light industrial/commercial facilities to the south, and commercial/resident areas adjacent to the design Bridgeport Station. Land use along the No.3 Road Extension is dominated by commercial operations.


December 2004 6-78

Biophysical Features Ditches and isolated pockets of vegetation along rail lines occur within the design alignment of the main section of the Lulu Island Branch (see Figure 6.12). Drainages are absent within the No.3 Road Extension. Drainages occurring within and in close proximity to the conceptual design alignment occur as roadside swales, roadside ditches, and railway ditches. A roadside swale occurs immediately west of Garden City Road north of Bridgeport Road (Photo 6.31). Roadside ditches occur: on the north and south side of River Drive between Highway No.99 and No.4 Road (Photo 6.32); on the north and south side of Charles Street between No.3 Road and Smith Street (Photo 6.33); on the north and south side of Beckwith Road (Photo 6.34) between Sexsmith Road and Garden City Road; on the north and south side of Douglas Street between No.3 Road and Smith Street; and immediately west of Sexsmith Road between Douglas Street and Bridgeport Road (Photo 6.35). Railway ditches occur within the CPR right-of-way between River Road and Charles Street (Photo 6.36). Flows from the ditches are ultimately conveyed east to the No.4 Road Pump Station. The pump station occurs at the north foot of No.4 Road. The outlet pipe, which conveys both pumped and gravity flows to the North Arm, is affixed with a top-mounted flapgate. The flapgate pre-empts the ‘upstream’ migration of fish from the North Arm into the drainage system. The roadside and railway ditches are excavated channels. The ditches are generally characterized by a shallow grade line. Many of the ditches were dry during a survey undertaken in June 2003; flows were minimal to stagnant during the survey. Substrates are comprised of silts. Water quality within the ditches of the conceptual design alignment is poor. Values of water quality parameters measured at the time of the survey consisted of: 1.04 to 5.87 mg/L for dissolved oxygen; 16.7o to 20.3o C for temperature; and 6.3 to 7.1 for pH. The measured values do not meet the overall criteria for the habitat requirements of salmonids. The values of the measured parameters required by salmonids to maintain normal life history functions include: 5.00 to 9.00 mg/L for dissolved oxygen (MWLAP 2001); 10

o to 16 o C for temperature (Meehan 1991); and 6.5 to 9.0 for pH (MWLAP 2001). The dissolved oxygen measured in most ditches was considerably less than the minimum accepted value and the temperature measured in


6-79 December 2004

most ditches was considerably higher than the maximum accepted value. The pH values were within accepted ranges for all ditches. Fish and amphibians were captured in only one of the sampling locations; two three-spine stickleback were captured at this location (see Appendix 6-B: Table 6-B2 and Figure 6-B2). Vegetation along the upland margins of Lulu Island ditches is comprised primarily of mowed grass, Himalayan blackberry, morning glory, red elderberry and bracken fern. Trees occur sporadically along the margins of ditches, including willow (Salix spp.) cherry, oak (Quercus sp.), western redcedar and pine (Pinus nigra). English ivy occurs on many of the trees. Many of the trees and the ivy are likely relics of past landscaping. Instream vegetation occurring within Lulu Island ditches is comprised of sedges, duckweed, reed canary grass and a variety of other grass species. It is apparent from the extent of exposed substrates and the limited cover of vegetation that the ditches are regularly mowed and/or excavated as part of maintenance activities.


Impacts of the Lulu Island Branch on fish habitat are defined according to the conceptual design, construction and operation of the guideway. Design Impacts The conceptual design of the guideway, Bridgeport Station and the park-and-ride facility encompasses approximately 500 linear metres of ditch; impacts would be limited to the drainages occurring on both sides of River Road and Charles Street, and those along the CPR tracks.

Residual impacts would be attributable to the design footprints of structures and associated amenities. Impacts associated with densification treatments would be temporary; landscape features impacted by densification could be readily restored upon completion of construction. Construction Impacts Details regarding the construction methodologies have yet to be developed for the conceptual design of the guideway. However, the methodologies


December 2004 6-80

implemented as part of the construction of the recently completed SkyTrain Millennium Line can be referenced for the RAV Project so that general impacts can be identified.

Impact mitigation protocols, once disparate from conventional construction protocols, are now typically elements of the protocol for construction. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters, to prevent the discharge of concrete wash water and solids, and to respond to accidental spills of oils and fuels from construction equipment will be incorporated into the Concession’s overall protocol for construction of the guideway (see SECTION 20.4). The impact mitigation protocols will comprise a component of the environmental specifications of the contract for construction of the RAV Project. The specifications will be compliant with environmental legislation and will adequately address the requirements of regulatory agencies as communicated through the environmental review of the project. Protocols to adequately control sediments and the discharge of sediment laden waters will be formally presented within a ‘Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan’. The Plan will provide details regarding facilities that collect and detain sediment laden waters sufficient to remove suspended solids to less than 75 ppm above receiving water concentrations. Special contingencies will be presented for slurries produced by ground improvement works (e.g., vibro-densification). The Plan will formalize protocols for the handling of concrete wash water and solids. All concrete wash water and solids produced during the operation of concrete ready-mix and pumper trucks will be collected, contained and transported offsite to a treatment facility. Contingencies for the collection, containment and transport of waters originating in and about poured foundations will also be addressed by the Plan. A ‘Hazardous Waste Management Plan’ and a ‘Spill Prevention and Spill Control Plan’ will present protocols for containment facilities and emergency response to spills.


6-81 December 2004

Operational Impacts The RAV Project will operate within existing transportation corridors (e.g., No.3 Road) and highly developed areas. The delivery of contaminants by stormwaters to receiving waters that sustain important fish habitat values (namely those of the North Arm of the Fraser River) associated with the operation of the guideway can be mitigated through the installation (within the piped system) of oil-water separators immediately downstream of the catchment areas of guideway stations, and the conveyance of road drainage through grass swales. Both oil-water separators and grass swales remove contaminants associated with parking areas and roadways, and are features that can be easily and cost-effectively maintained. 6.3.4.4 Residual Impacts and Compensation Strategy

The fish habitat values of the drainage system encompassed by the conceptual design alignment are marginal. Despite modification of drainages and proximal areas by either the elevated or grade supported design options, the impact on fish habitat would be negligible. Accordingly, significant residual impacts on fish habitat are not associated with the conceptual design, construction and operation of the Lulu Island Branch. 6.3.5 South Vancouver Branch


The conceptual alignment of the RAV Project between SW Marine Drive and Queen Elizabeth Park is along Cambie Street (Sandwell et al. 2002). An elevated guideway descends to grade approximately 250 m north of the design location of the SW Marine Drive Station. Between 63rd Avenue and 49th Avenue on Cambie Street, the guideway system follows a fully grade separated, at-grade or in-trench alignment. Alternatively, the guideway system may be partially grade separated or at-grade between 63rd Avenue and 46th Avenue. From 46th Avenue (or 49th Avenue if fully grade separated), the guideway enters a portal and proceeds in a tunnel to the downtown Vancouver terminus. Numerous watercourses once occurred throughout South Vancouver. Most of these watercourses are now entirely enclosed within piped sewer systems.


December 2004 6-82

Three watercourses once occurred in close proximity to the conceptual alignment of the South Vancouver Branch, specifically Elizabeth, Winona and Sexsmith creeks. Only the historical alignment of Winona Creek engages the conceptual alignment of the RAV Project (Figure 6.13). The City of Vancouver has undertaken an initiative to separate combined sewer systems (i.e., storm sewer and sanitary sewer), which could provide opportunities to daylight streams (City of Vancouver 2002a). The City of Vancouver Sewer Separation Program was established in 1978 by Council to help realize the pollution control benefits of separated sewer systems. Private property owners are reimbursed a maximum of $1000 towards the cost of plumbing alterations on their property required to separate the combined sewer systems. The Sewer Separation Program is focused mainly in the False Creek and West End areas, and to a lesser extent, within the downtown Eastside/Strathcona, Still Creek, and Fraser River areas. Benefits to separating the sewer systems include lowered fecal coliform levels, a reduction in industrial pollutants discharged into receiving waters, compliance with provincial initiatives to reduce and/or eliminate combined sewer overflows, and a reduction in dry weather flows to the Iona Sewage Treatment Plant, thereby reducing the annual sewerage levy (City of Vancouver 2002a). The City of Vancouver has expressed interest in considering the possibility of constructing open water channels as an alternative to costly storm sewers with the understanding that daylighted streams will likely not function as they had prior to development of the City (City of Vancouver 2002b). However, the City of Vancouver recognizes that daylighted streams could function as an educational tool for stream and environmental stewardship, provide a symbol of Vancouver’s natural history, and represent an aesthetic community amenity.


6-83 December 2004

Figure 6.13


6-85 December 2004

The design alignment is situated at depths sufficient to disturb underground utilities and services, including piped storm sewer systems. The design has the potential to alter the catchment boundaries of many of these systems. This would alter the flow regimes of not only the piped conveyances, but also prospective open water channels. An analysis of the locations of historical watercourses, in the context of conflicts with the design alignment, is required to properly assess the impact of the RAV Project upon future creek restoration efforts.


Land Use and Biophysical Descriptions Elizabeth Creek (Stream ‘R’) Elizabeth Creek was a watercourse that occurred on the south slope of Vancouver within an approximately north-south alignment. The creek is depicted on the City of Vancouver Historic Waterways Map as Stream ‘R’ (City of Vancouver 2003). Historical maps from 1927 and 1939 indicate the upper reaches of Elizabeth Creek commenced immediately south of Queen Elizabeth Park (City of Vancouver Archives 1927, 1939). At least three tributaries are shown to have discharged into Elizabeth Creek. Elizabeth Creek is estimated to have discharged into the North Arm of the Fraser River at the south foot of St. George Street (City of Vancouver Archives 1927, 1939; City of Vancouver 2003). The lower reaches of Elizabeth Creek south of Marine Drive are depicted on aerial photographs taken in 1954 and are shown as an open channel confluent with the North Arm of the Fraser River (Province of British Columbia 1954). The upper reaches of Elizabeth Creek (i.e., headwaters) are not shown on aerial photographs taken in 1949 (Province of British Columbia 1949a); the headwaters of Elizabeth Creek appear to have been enclosed within the sewer system for over 50 years. A relic open channel of Elizabeth Creek occurs presently within the Vancouver Community College King Edward Campus at 49th Avenue and Ontario Street (Photos 6.37, 6.38, and 6.39); upstream and downstream portions of Elizabeth Creek have been enclosed within the sewer system (South Hill C. Trunk) (City of Vancouver, 1963a, 1963b).


December 2004 6-86

Land use within and in proximity to the historical alignment of the upper reaches of Elizabeth Creek and its tributaries consists of residential development and the Vancouver Community College King Edward Campus. Land use within and in proximity to the historical alignment of the lower reaches of Elizabeth Creek includes light industrial development. Natural and/or park areas within and in proximity to the historical alignment include Langara Golf Course and Sunset Park. Relics of the creek are limited to the open channel and pond within the Vancouver Community College King Edward Campus; flow was observed within this portion of Elizabeth Creek during a survey undertaken in February 2003. Elizabeth Creek does not provide fish habitat values to the Fraser River, as the only portion of the creek that is not enclosed within a pipe is located approximately 2250 m upstream from the piped discharge into the Fraser River. Opportunities to daylight portions of Elizabeth Creek are contingent upon the conversion of existing residential, institutional and industrial properties to passive park or conservation uses. Sunset Park sustains relatively intensive recreational uses. An ice arena and several softball diamonds occupy the majority of the park. Due to high property values, and the high demand for recreational facilities, it is unlikely that proposals to daylight portions of Elizabeth Creek would be seriously considered by the community at-large. Only comprehensive redevelopment of shoreline properties along the North Arm of the Fraser River would provide opportunities to establish new park areas and potentially incorporate an open channel as a park and environmental amenity. Accordingly, opportunities to daylight Elizabeth Creek are limited. Winona Creek (Stream ‘S’) Winona Creek was a watercourse that occurred on the south slope of Vancouver within an approximate north-south alignment; it is depicted on the City of Vancouver Historic Waterways Map as Stream ‘S’ (City of Vancouver 2003). Historical maps from 1927 and 1939 (City of Vancouver Archives 1927, 1939) and aerial photographs from 1949 (Province of British Columbia 1949a) and 1954 (Province of British Columbia 1954b) suggest that the upper reaches of Winona Creek commenced at approximately 45th Avenue and Ash Street; a tributary to Winona Creek appears to have commenced at


6-87 December 2004

approximately 58th Avenue and Ash Street. The confluence with Winona Creek was at 63rd Avenue and Yukon Street. It appears that Winona Creek once discharged flows into the North Arm of the Fraser River at the south foot of Columbia Street (City of Vancouver Archives 1927, 1939; City of Vancouver 2003a). The lower reaches of Winona Creek south of Marine Drive are depicted in aerial photographs taken in 1954 (Province of British Columbia 1954b). The upper reaches of Winona Creek commenced within a wetland that occurred within the current footprint of Oakridge Centre at 41st Avenue and Cambie Street. The headwaters of Winona Creek occur as an open channel in aerial photographs taken in 1949; development of the headwaters of Winona Creek is depicted in aerial photographs taken in 1963 (Province of British Columbia, 1963b). Therefore, the headwaters of Winona Creek appear to have been enclosed within the sewer system for over 40 years.

A relic open channel of Winona Creek occurs within the southern portion of the Langara Golf Course at 59th Avenue and Alberta Street; upstream and downstream portions of Winona Creek are enclosed within the sewer system (Manitoba C. Trunk) (City of Vancouver 1963a, 1961a, 1961b and 1961c) (Photos 6.40 and 6.41). A constructed pool within the historic alignment of Winona Creek occurs northwest of the Langara Golf Course within a residential development, southeast of the intersection of Cambie Street and 49th Street (Photos 6.42 and 6.43); flow into the pool originates within the storm sewer system (i.e., piped headwaters of Winona Creek) and is discharged from the pool into the storm sewer system immediately north of the Langara Golf Course. Land use within and in proximity to the historical alignment of the upper reaches of Winona Creek consists of residential and commercial development and a hospital (George Pearson Centre immediately southwest of the golf course). Land use within and in proximity to the historical alignment of the lower reaches of Winona Creek consists of light industrial development. Tisdall Park, Cambie Park, and Winona Park (Photo 6.44) all occur within and/or in close proximity to the historical alignment of Winona Creek. Relics of the creek are limited to the open channel within the Langara Golf Course, the drainage channels along the south perimeter of the golf course (Photos 6.45 and 6.46) that discharge into Winona Creek where it enters the sewer system (Photos 6.47 and 6.48), and a portion of the ravine


December 2004 6-88

within the Sexsmith School property (Photo 6.49); flow was observed within Winona Creek and the tributary channels during a survey undertaken in February 2003. Woody vegetation within the immediate riparian environment of the tributary includes English ivy, reed canary grass, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, black cottonwood, broadleaf maple (Acer macrophylum) and red alder. Woody riparian vegetation of the lower reach of Winona Creek (prior to discharge into the sewer system) is comprised of salmonberry and red alder. Woody vegetation is generally absent within the upper reaches of the creek (i.e., through the golf course). Two water features occur within the golf course; however, these features are not contiguous with Winona Creek (Photos 6.50 and 6.51). Potable water is the source of the majority of flows that may be observed within Winona Creek (MWLAP 2003b). Flows are augmented to enhance the aesthetics of the creek through the golf course. The City of Vancouver, the owner of the golf course, wishes to ‘turn off the tap’ due to the increasing demand for potable water in Vancouver. The potential for expansion of reservoirs within Queen Elizabeth Park is limited. It is anticipated that the separation of domestic and storm sewers would occur concurrent with the elimination of potable water discharge into Winona Creek. The storm sewer system would become the primary source of flows for Winona Creek. The concept of storm sewer discharge from a heavily developed urban centre (i.e., Oakridge) as the primary source of flows may, upon initial scrutiny, seem to be an undesirable scenario. Contaminant loading from roadways and parking lots can be significant. Opportunities to retrofit existing developed areas with stormwater treatment facilities are limited. However, a unique source of water that does not originate as surface drainage is available. The Oakridge Centre utilizes groundwater of the original headwaters of Winona Creek as cooling water for its heating and cooling systems. The cooling waters are currently discharged into the storm sewer system that would ultimately discharge flows into Winona Creek upon decommissioning of the potable water source. Opportunities exist to both daylight portions of Winona Creek and to enhance existing open channels. Winona Park, which is located immediately south of the golf course, does not possess any infrastructure that would conflict with the construction of an open channel and riparian woodlands. The open


6-89 December 2004

channel of Winona Creek that traverses the golf course is a good candidate for riparian enhancement. Sexsmith Creek (Unnamed Creek) Sexsmith Creek was a watercourse that occurred on the south slope of Vancouver within an approximate north-south alignment; it is not depicted on the City of Vancouver Historic Waterways Map (City of Vancouver 2003). Historical maps from 1927 and 1939 (City of Vancouver Archives, 1927, 1939) indicate that upper reaches of Sexsmith Creek commenced within the Langara Golf Course; a tributary to Sexsmith Creek appears to have commenced at approximately 63rd Avenue and Manitoba Street. Sexsmith Creek once discharged into the North Arm of the Fraser River at the south foot of Manitoba Street (City of Vancouver Archives 1927, 1939; City of Vancouver 2003). The lower reaches of Sexsmith Creek south of Marine Drive are depicted in aerial photographs taken in 1954 (Province of British Columbia 1954). The headwaters of Sexsmith Creek are not depicted on aerial photographs taken in 1949 (Province of British Columbia 1949b); the headwaters, therefore, appear to have been enclosed for over 50 years.

Sexsmith Creek appears to have been completely enclosed within the storm sewer system (Manitoba C. Trunk) (City of Vancouver 1963a, 1961a, 1961b and 1961c). Land use within and in proximity to the historical alignment of the upper reaches Sexsmith Creek consists of residential development and a vacant school (Sexsmith School, immediately south of the golf course). Land use within and in proximity to the historical alignment of the lower reaches of Sexsmith Creek consists of light industrial development. Natural and/or park areas within and in proximity to the historical alignment of Sexsmith Creek are absent. Opportunities to daylight portions of Sexsmith Creek are contingent upon the conversion of existing residential, institutional and industrial properties to passive park or conservation uses. Due to high property values, it is unlikely that proposals to daylight portions of Sexsmith Creek would be seriously considered by the community at-large. Only comprehensive redevelopment of shoreline properties along the North Arm of the Fraser River would provide opportunities to establish new park areas and potentially incorporate an open


December 2004 6-90

channel as a park and environmental amenity. Accordingly, opportunities to daylight Sexsmith Creek are limited.


With the exception of the main channel of Winona Creek that had its headwaters within the current location of Oakridge Centre, the conceptual design alignment of the RAV Project does not engage the historical alignments of the main channels and tributaries of Elizabeth, Winona and Sexsmith creeks. In all instances, the project alignment does not pre-empt the prospective restoration of open channels for these creeks. Winona Creek does have some realistic opportunities to restore and/or enhance open channels. The success of the restoration and enhancement efforts will be contingent upon water of sufficient quality to sustain aquatic life. Accordingly, the RAV Project design will not conflict with the piped conveyance of cooling waters from Oakridge Centre, located west of Cambie Street, to Winona Creek east of Cambie Street. Furthermore, the project design will not pre-empt the piped conveyance of groundwater directly from the historical headwaters of Winona Creek to open channels east of Cambie Street. 6.3.5.4 Residual Impacts and Compensation Strategy

Significant residual impacts on fish habitat are not associated with the conceptual design, construction and operation of the South Vancouver Branch.

6.3.6 Conclusion

The analysis of the impacts of the conceptual design, construction and operation of the RAV Project on fish and fish habitat has demonstrated that only one element of the project has the potential to significantly impact fish habitat. Impacts of this element, namely the footing and foundation of Pier MA6 of the Middle Arm Crossing, can be mitigated through a modification to the design to achieve a span length sufficient to place the footing and foundation on industrial upland, or compensated for through construction of new habitat on industrial upland or the purchase of habitat credits from the


6-91 December 2004

NFPA habitat bank. Prospective impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources associated with other elements of the project can be readily mitigated and/or managed in the context of the design, construction and/or operation of the project. During the finalization of specific bridge design elements by the Concessionaire, discussions will continue with the DFO and an application will be made for Federal Fisheries Act Section 35(2) Authorizations prior to commencement of construction.

6.4 References

BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2003. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Victoria, B.C. Available online at: http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/eswp/.

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2003a. Water Quality Data (listed

by watershed). Victoria, B.C. Available online at: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/sry/p2/eq/wat_qual_data/index.html.

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2003b. Water and Air Monitoring

and Reporting. Victoria, B.C. Available online at: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wat/wamr/wat_use_catalogue/op_mgmt_tools.html.

BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2001. Compendium of Working

Water Quality Guidelines for British Columbia. 1998 Edition (Revised 2001). Victoria, B.C.

City of Vancouver. 2003. Engineering Services. Map: Peat, Assorted Soils and

Historical Waterways. Vancouver, B.C. City of Vancouver. 2002a. Engineering Services – Water and Sewers. Sewer

Operations – Sewer Separate Program. Vancouver, B.C. Available online at: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/watersewers/sewers/index.htm.


December 2004 6-92

City of Vancouver. 2002b. Engineering Services – Water and Sewers. Environmental Initiatives – Daylighting Streams. Vancouver, B.C. Available online at: www.city.vancouver.engsvcs.watersewers/initiatives/ daylighting.htm.

City of Vancouver. 1963a. Engineering Department Sewer Map Sheet S72c. Vancouver, B.C.

City of Vancouver. 1963b. Engineering Department Sewer Map Sheet S72d.

Vancouver, B.C. City of Vancouver. 1963c. Engineering Department Sewer Map Sheet S72a.

Vancouver, B.C. City of Vancouver. 1961a. Engineering Department Sewer Map Sheet S83a.

Vancouver, B.C. City of Vancouver. 1961b. Engineering Department Sewer Map Sheet S83c.

Vancouver, B.C. City of Vancouver. 1961c. Engineering Department Sewer Map Sheet 84d.

Vancouver, B.C. City of Vancouver Archives. 1927 and 1939. Historical Maps – Titles Unknown.

Vancouver, B.C. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2003. Species at

Risk. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Available online at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/htmlDocuments/CDN_SPECIES_AT_RISK_May2003_e.htm.

Government of Canada. 1950. Aerial Photograph. A12677:193. IBI Group. 2002. Richmond/Airport/Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Richmond

T/2 Segment. Project Definition Phase Final Report. Vancouver, B.C. 67 p + appendices.


6-93 December 2004

MacLaren PlanSearch. 1984. ALRT Fraser River Crossing Environmental Report. Rapid Transit Project – BC Transit. Vancouver, B.C.

McLaren, P. and P. Ren. 1995. Sediment Transport and its Environmental

Implications in the Lower Fraser River and Fraser Delta. DOE FRAP 1995-03. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 41p. + appendices.

Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on

Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:113.

ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2003. Richmond – Airport – Vancouver Rapid Transit

Project. Marine Drive to No.3 Road. Alignment Review. Vancovuer, B.C. 9 p + appendices.

ND Lea Consultants Ltd. 2002. Richmond – Airport – Vancouver Rapid Transit

Project. Fraser River Crossing Study. Vancouver, B.C. 19p + appendices.

Province of British Columbia. 1986. Aerial Photograph. BCC535:122. Province of British Columbia. 1974. Aerial Photograph. BC5572:82. Province of British Columbia. 1969. Aerial Photograph. BC5321:080. Province of British Columbia. 1963a. Aerial Photograph. BC5063:10. Province of British Columbia. 1963b. Aerial Photograph. BC5062:55. Province of British Columbia. 1954a. Aerial Photograph. BC1673:82. Province of British Columbia. 1954b. Aerial Photograph. BC1673:48. Province of British Columbia. 1949a. Aerial Photograph. BC791:105. Province of British Columbia. 1949b. Aerial Photograph. BC790:45.


December 2004 6-94

RAV Project Management Ltd. 2004. Fraser River North Arm Crossing. Alternate Alignment and Navigational Channel and Navigational Chart and Alternate Alignment and Navigational Channel and Orthophoto. August 25, 2004. Vancouver, B.C.

Robinson, S. 2003. Personal Communication (June 2003). Environment

Department, Vancouver International Airport Authority. Richmond, B.C.

Rogers, T. 2004. ND Lea Consultants Ltd. Vancouver, B.C. Personal Communication. January 2004.

Sandwell Engineering Inc., Hatch Mott McDonald, and Golder Associates Ltd.

2002. Richmond/Airport to Vancouver Rapid Transit Project. Project Definition Phase Contract T1 – Vancouver Segment. Technical Stream Report. 36p + appendices.

Vancouver International Airport Authority. 1998. Airport Connector Screening

Report. Richmond, B.C. 98p + appendices.

Site PhotosSECTION 6

Site Photographs Richmond.Airport.Vancouver Rapid Transit Project Fisheries and Aquatic Assessment November 2004 Page 1

Photograph 6.1 Looking northwest at Mitchell Island

Forest Products timber mill along northern shoreline of Fraser River (Vancouver) within North Arm Crossing alignment (July 14, 2003).

Photograph 6.2 Looking north at Kidd No. 1 Substation

along northern shoreline of Fraser River (Vancouver) within North Arm Crossing alignment (July 14, 2003).

Photograph 6.3 Looking north at rip rap revetment along

northern shoreline of Fraser River (Vancouver) within North Arm Crossing alignment (July 14, 2004).

Photograph 6.4 Looking west at north rail ditch south of

Kent Street (Vancouver) within North Arm Crossing alignment (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.5 Looking east at north rail ditch south of


Photograph 6.6 Looking east at south rail ditch south of



Photograph 6.7 Looking north from crest of dyke along

southern shoreline of Fraser River (Lulu Island) within North Arm Crossing alignment (July 14, 2003).

Photograph 6.8 Looking south from Mitchell Island at

southern shoreline of Fraser River (Lulu Island) within North Arm Crossing alignment (July 14, 2003).

Photograph 6.9 Looking west at dyke crest and riparian

vegetation along southern shoreline of Fraser River (Lulu Island) within North Arm Crossing alignment (July 14, 2003).

Photograph 6.10 Looking north at riparian vegetation,

marsh and mudflat along southern shoreline of Fraser River (Lulu Island) within North Arm Crossing alignment (July 14, 2003).

Photograph 6.11 Looking west at marsh bench along

southern shoreline of Fraser River (Lulu Island) within North Arm Crossing alignment (April 22, 2003).

Photograph 6.12 Looking east at marsh and mudflat along

southern shoreline of Fraser River (Lulu Island) within North Arm Crossing alignment (April 22, 2003).

Photograph 6.13 Looking north at concrete construction

debris along western shoreline of Fraser River (Sea Island) within Middle Arm Crossing alignment (April 21, 2003).

Photograph 6.14 Looking southwest at eroded bank along

western shoreline of Fraser River (Sea Island) within Middle Arm Crossing alignment (April 21, 2003).

Photograph 6.15 Looking northwest at eroded bank along


Photograph 6.16 Looking north at dyke along western

shoreline of Fraser River (Sea Island) within Middle Arm Crossing alignment (April 21, 2003).

Photograph 6.17 Looking south at dyke and riparian

vegetation along western shoreline of Fraser River (Sea Island) within Middle Arm Crossing alignment

(April 21, 2003).

Photograph 6.18 Looking south at riparian vegetation along




eastern shoreline of Fraser River (Duck Island) within Middle Arm Crossing alignment (April 22, 2003).

Photograph 6.20 Looking west at aggregate fill road

(foreground) and marsh along eastern shoreline of Fraser River (Duck Island) Middle Arm Crossing alignment

(April 22, 2003).


eastern shoreline of Fraser River (Duck Island) within southern portion of Middle Arm Crossing alignment

(April 22, 2003).

Photograph 6.22 Looking southwest at marsh along eastern

shoreline of Fraser River (Duck Island) adjacent to Middle Arm Crossing alignment (April 22, 2003).

Photograph 6.23 Looking northwest at marsh along eastern

shoreline of Fraser River (Duck Island) within Middle Arm Crossing alignment (April 22, 2003).

Photograph 6.24 Looking northeast at marsh and mudflat

along eastern shoreline of Fraser River (Duck Island) within Middle Arm Crossing alignment (April 22, 2003).


Photograph 6.25 Looking east at grass swale within Grant

McConachie Way Boulevard on Sea Island within Airport Branch alignment (May 21, 2003).

Photograph 6.26 Looking south at grass swale on Sea

Island immediately west of Arthur Laing Bridge within Airport Branch alignment (May 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.27 Looking west at roadside ditch on Sea

Island north of Grant McConachie Way within Airport Branch alignment (May 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.28 Looking west at ditch on Sea Island north

of North Service Road within Airport Branch alignment (May 28, 2003).

Photograph 6.29 Looking north at roadside ditch on Sea

Island within Airport Branch alignment (May 28, 2003).

Photograph 6.30 Looking east at roadside ditch on Sea

Island south of Miller Road adjacent to Airport Branch alignment (May 23, 2003).


Photograph 6.31 Looking south at roadside swale on Lulu Island northwest of Garden City Road and Bridgeport Road adjacent to Lulu Island Branch alignment (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.32 Looking west at roadside ditch on Lulu

Island southwest of River Road and No.4 Road adjacent to Lulu Island Branch alignment (July 01, 2003).

Photograph 6.33 Looking northwest at roadside ditch on

Lulu Island south side of Charles Street within Lulu Island Branch alignment (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.34 Looking west at roadside ditch on Lulu Island on south side of Douglas Street within Lulu Island Branch alignment (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.35 Looking south at roadside ditch on Lulu

Island on west side of Smith Street within Lulu Island Branch alignment (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.36 Looking east at ditch on Lulu Island north

of rail line within Lulu Island Branch alignment (September 15, 2003).


Photograph 6.37 Looking southwest at open section of

Elizabeth Creek at Langara College (southwest corner of Ontario Street and 49th Avenue), Vancouver

(September 11, 2003).

Photograph 6.38 Looking east at open section of Elizabeth

Creek at Langara College (southwest corner of Ontario Street and 49th Avenue), Vancouver (September 11, 2003).

Photograph 6.39 Looking southeast at open section of

Elizabeth Creek at Langara College (southwest corner of Ontario Street and 49th Avenue), Vancouver

(September 11, 2003).

Photograph 6.40 Looking south at open section of Winona

Creek within southern portion of Langara Golf Course, Vancouver (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.41 Looking north at open section of Winona

Creek within southern portion of Langara Golf Course, Vancouver (February 25, 2003).

Photograph 6.42 Looking north at pooled area within open

section of Winona Creek located southeast of Cambie Street and 49th Avenue, Vancouver (September 11, 2003).


Photograph 6.43 Looking east at pooled area within open

section of Winona Creek located southeast of Cambie Street and 49th Avenue, Vancouver (September 11, 2003).

Photograph 6.44 Looking south at Winona Park (historic

alignment of Winona Creek) located southeast of Yukon Street and 59th Avenue, Vancouver (February 25, 2003).

Photograph 6.45 Looking east at ditch along southern

perimeter of Langara Golf Course, Vancouver (September 11, 2003).

Photograph 6.46 Looking west at ditch along southern

perimeter of Langara Golf Course, Vancouver (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.47 Looking north at open section of Winona

Creek before entry into storm sewer system south of Langara Golf Course, Vancouver (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.48 Looking south at storm sewer inlet

structure south of Langara Golf Course in Vancouver into which Winona Creek flows (September 15, 2003).


Photograph 6.49 Looking north at Winona Creek relic

channel immediately north of 59th Avenue in Vancouver that conveys flow into storm sewer system (February 25, 2003).

Photograph 6.50 Looking northeast at water feature within

northern portion of Langara Golf Course, Vancouver (September 15, 2003).

Photograph 6.51 Looking southwest at water feature within

southern portion of Langara Golf Course, Vancouver (September 15, 2003).


Fish Occurrence within the Lower Fraser RiverAPPENDIX 6-A

Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Richmond•Airport•Vancouver Rapid Transit Project

1 December 2004

Appendix 6-A Fish Occurrence within the Lower Fraser River Table 6-A1. Fish Occurrence within the Lower Fraser River Sources

Scientific Name Common Name (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon * * * Acipenser transmontanus white sturgeon * * Acrocheilus alutaceus chiselmouth chub * Agonus acipenserinus sturgeon poacher * Alosa sapidissima American shad * Ammodytes hexapterus Pacific sandlance * * * * * Anoplopoma fimbria sablefish * Apodichthys flavidus penpoint gunnel * Artedius lateralis smoothhead sculpin * Asemichthys taylori spinynose sculpin * Atheresthes stomias turbot or arrowtooth flounder * Aulorhynchus flavidus tube-snout * Bathymaster signatus searcher * Catostomus catostomus longnose sucker * * Catostomus columbianus bridgelip sucker * Catostomus macrocheilus largescale sucker * * * * * * Catostomus platyhyncus northern mountain sucker * Cetorhinurs maximus basking shark * Citharichthys sordidus Pacific sanddab * * Citharichthys stigmaeus speckled sanddab * Clevelandia ios arrow goby * * Clinocottus acuticeps sharpnose sculpin * Clupea harengus pallasi Pacific herring * * * * * Cottus aleuticus coastrange sculpin * * * * Cottus asper prickly sculpin * * * * Cymatogaster aggregata shiner perch * * * Cyprinus carpio carp * * * * * Dasycottus setiger spinyhead sculpin *


December 2004 2

Table 6-A1. Fish Occurrence within the Lower Fraser River Sources Scientific Name Common Name (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)

Enophrys bison buffalo sculpin * Eopsetta jordani petrale sole * Gadus macrocephalus Pacific cod * Galeorhinus zyopterus soupfin shark * Gasterosteus aculeatus threespine stickleback * * * * * * Glyptocephalus zachirus rex sole * Hexagrammos decagrammus kelp greenling * Hexagrammos stelleri whitespotted greenling * Hexanchus griseus sixgill shark * Hippoglossoides elassodon flathead sole * Hippoglossus stenolepis Pacific halibut * Hybognathus hankinsoni brassy minnow * * * * * Hydrolagus colliei ratfish * Hypomesus pretiosus pretiosus surf or silver smelt * * * Icelinus tenuis spotfin sculpin * Ictalurus nebulosus brown bullhead or catfish * * * * * Isopsetta isolepis butter sole * * Lamna ditropis salmon shark * Lampetra ayresi river lamprey * * * * * Lampetra tridentatus Pacific lamprey * * * * * Lepidogobius lepidus bay goby * Lepidopsetta bilineata rock sole * Lepomis gibbosus pumpkin seed * Leptocottus armatus Pacific staghorn sculpin * * * * * Limanda aspera yellowfin sole * Lumpenus sagitta Pacific snake prickleback * * Lycodopsis pacifica blackbelly eelpout * Lyopsetta exilis slender sole * Mallotus villosus capelin * * Merluccius productus Pacific hake *


3 December 2004


Microgadus proximus Pacific tomcod * * * Microstomus pacificus Dover sole * Mylocheilus caurinus peamouth chub * * * * * * * Notorhynchus maculosus sevengill shark * Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner * Oligocottus maculosus tidepool sculpin * * Oligocottus rimensis saddleback sculpin * Oncorhynchus gorbuscha pink salmon * * * * * Oncorhynchus keta chum salmon * * * * * * * Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon * * * * * * * Oncorhynchus nerka sockeye salmon * * * * * Oncorhynchus nerka kokanee * Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chinook salmon * * * * * * * Ophiodon elongatus lingcod * Parophrys vetulus lemon or English sole * * Pholis laeta crescent gunnel * * Pholis ornata saddleback gunnel * Pholis sp. blennie or gunnel * * Platichthys stellatus starry flounder * * * * * * * Pomoxis nigromaculatus calico bass or black crappie * * * * Porichthys notatus plainfin midshipman * Poroclinus rothrocki whitebarred prickleback * Prionace glauca blue shark * Prosopium williamsoni mountain whitefish * * * * * Psettichthys melanostictus sand sole * Psychrolutes paradoxus tadpole sculpin * Ptychocheilus oregonesis northern squawfish or pikeminnow * * * * * * Radulinus asprellus slim sculpin * * Raja binoculata big skate * Raja rhina longnose skate *


December 2004 4


Rhacochilus vacca pile perch * Rhinichthys cataractae longnose dace * * * Rhinichthys falcatus leopard dace * * Richardsonius balteatus redside shiner * * * * * Ronquilus jordani northern ronquil * Salmo clarki clarki coastal cuttroat trout * * * * * * Salmo clarki lewisi westslope cuttroat trout * Salmo gairdneri steelhead trout or rainbow trout * * Salvelinus confluentus bull trout * Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden * * * * Sebastes maliger quillback rockfish * Sebastode rockfish * Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt * * * * * * Squalus suckleyi dogfish * Synchirus gilli manacled sculpin * Syngnathus griseolineatus bay pipefish * * Thaleichthys pacificus eulachon * * * * * * * Theragra chalcogrammus whiting, big-eye, or walleye pollock *


5 December 2004

References (A) Hoos, L.M. and G.A. Packman. 1974. The Fraser River Estuary - Status of Environmental Knowledge to 1974. Report of the

Estuary Working Group. Environment Canada. pp 275-277. (B) Gordon, D.K. and C.D. Levings. 1984. Seasonal Changes of Inshore Fish Populations on Sturgeon and Roberts Bank, Fraser River

Estuary British Columbia. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1240. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, West Vancouver, B.C. pp18-19.

(C) Whitehouse, T.R., D.E. Boyle, C.D. Levings, J. Newman, and J. Black. 1993. Fish Distribution Within a Tidal Freshwater Marsh in

the Lower Fraser River. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 917. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, West Vancouver, B.C. pp10-15.

(D) Tuominen, T., 1986. Letter Correspondence dated June 23, 1986 (T. Tuominen, Environment Canada to F. Fraser, Department of

Fisheries and Oceans). (E) Fisheries Data Warehouse. 2002. FISS Fish Distributions Report. (F) Scott, K.J., R. Susanto. 1992. Analysis of Fish Occurrence in Restored, Unvegetated and Natural Habitats in the Fraser River

Estuary. Scott Resource Services. p63. (G) Northcote, T.G., N.T. Johnston, and K. Tsumura. 1978. A regional comparison of species distribution, abundance, size and other

characteristics of lower Fraser River fishes. Technical Report No. 14. Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia. pp7-10.

(H) Levy, D.A., T.G. Northcote, and G.J. Birch. 1979. Juvenile salmon utilization of tidal channels in the Fraser River Estuary, British

Columbia. Technical Report No. 23, Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia. p11.

Lulu Island and Sea IslandDitch Water Quality and Fish Sampling Results

APPENDIX 6-B


1 December 2004

Appendix 6-B Lulu Island and Sea Island Ditch Water Quality and Fish Sampling Results

Table 6-B1. Sea Island Ditch Water Quality and Fish Sampling Results

Sampling Location

No. Temp. (0C)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Conductivity (μS/cm)

Salinity (ppt)

Total Suspended

Solids (mg/L)

Turbidity (NTU) pH Catch

1 17.4 9.08 1950 1.6 816 53.3 6.4 95 TSB1

2 N/A2

3a 16.7 10.3 357.1 0.2 13 10.5 6.6 94 TSB, 49 TAD3

3b 16.3 9.19 362.9 0.2 12 12.8 6.7 135 TSB, 4 TAD

4 14.8 4.38 406 0.2 46 47.6 6.6 8 TSB

5 15.2 9.32 453.7 0.3 86 25.4 6.6 85 TSB, 5 TAD

6 15.5 15.65 471 0.3 37 88.7 6.6 125 TSB 7 N/A 8 N/A 9 13.2 4.71 694 0.4 18 48.9 6.8 26 TSB 10 N/A 11 N/A 12 13.3 8.27 633 0.4 16 30.9 6.6 3 TSB 13 18.5 13.01 1905 1.2 89 51.4 7.0 220 TSB 14a 16.8 5.02 986 0.6 362 21.6 6.6 125 TSB


December 2004 2


Sampling Location

No.

Temp. (0C)


Conductivity (μS/cm)

Salinity (ppt)

Total Suspended

Solids (mg/L)


14b 16.6 8.55 773 0.5 19 25.3 7.0 60 TSB 16 17.6 10.25 976 0.3 43 20.3 7.2 140 TSB 17 15.6 6.72 328.1 0.2 108 36.5 7.1 NC4 18 15.8 6.44 458 0.3 11 9.8 6.3 11 TSB 19 17.1 8.37 41.6 0.0 22 5.2 6.4 1 TSB 20 N/A 21 14.4 8.5 54.3 0.0 26 12.5 6.6 50 TSB

22 17.7 8.67 164.4 0.1 33 15.7 6.6 30 TSB, 1 BULL5

23 16.5 11.53 48.5 0.0 40 9.1 6.6 35 TSB, 1 NWSAL6

24 16.0 12.95 122.5 0.1 16 9.3 6.6 31 TSB 25 18.4 9.45 66.7 0.0 7 7.9 6.4 NC 26 16.5 7.78 38.6 0.0 7 14.2 4.5 2 TSB 27 16.8 8.08 24.1 0.0 6 10.7 4.7 NC 28 16.5 7.66 27.0 0.0 7 14.8 4.8 1 mouse7

29 15.8 7.5 32.7 0.0 5 16.1 4.9 3 TSB 30 15.7 6.85 42.7 0.0 8 17.1 5.4 NC 31 N/A 32 28.9 1.18 7900 4.0 13 42.0 7.4 NC


3 December 2004


Sampling Location

No.

Temp. (0C)


Conductivity (μS/cm) Salinity (ppt)

Total Suspended

Solids (mg/L)


33 28.6 1.37 7910 4.1 13 39.2 7.5 1 TAD

34 28.2 1.27 7830 4.1 10 37.0 7.4 NC

35 16.1 8.93 54.9 0.0 7 8.6 7.6 6 snails8

36 29.3 0.95 8610 4.4 13 47.9 7.4 NC

37 29.3 0.67 8470 4.3 29 62.3 7.4 NC

38 18.3 8.68 156.1 0.1 13 9.5 7.3 NC

39 16.4 8.14 472 0.1 18 8.8 7.3 NC

40 N/A

41 N/A

42 N/A

43 N/A

1TSB = threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) 2N/A = not applicable; insufficient water depth for water quality and fish sampling 3 TAD = bullfrog tadpole 4 NC = no catch 5 BULL = bullfrog (Rana catesbieana) 6NWSAL = northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile) 7mouse = unidentified (Cricetidae)

8snails = unidentified (Mollusca)


5 December 2004

Figure B1


7 December 2004

Table 6-B2. Lulu Island Ditch Water Quality and Fish Sampling Results

Sampling Location

No.

Temp. (oC)


Conductivity (us/cm)

Salinity (ppt) Total

Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Turbidity (NTU)

pH Catch

1 6.4 20.3 2.94 84.6 0.0 12 10.0 NC1

2 6.4 20.2 2.31 73.5 0.0 11 8.8 NC 3 6.3 18.2 2.21 66.3 0.0 13 9.5 NC 4 6.4 17.1 1.04 133.1 0.1 7 6.8 NC 5 6.7 17.0 1.12 72.8 0.0 10 8.4 NC 6 7.0 19.3 4.57 40.0 0.0 10 6.2 NC 7 6.9 18.5 4.50 142.1 0.1 3 4.1 NC 8 6.9 19.0 3.53 124.7 -2 - 6.9 NC 9 6.9 18.2 5.87 75.6 0.0 9 6.9 NC 10 7.1 19.3 4.65 146.1 0.1 22 9.8 2 TSB3

11 7.1 16.7 1.2 1056 0.6 4 12.9 NC 1 NC = no catch 2 total suspended solids and turbidity sampling information not provided 3TSB = threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)


9 December 2004

Figure B2

(10) Section 6 - Dec 2004

Documents

Transcript of (10) Section 6 - Dec 2004