PORT MOODY ARM - Vancouver Fraser Port Authority · Port Moody Arm Channel Dredge Project Environmental Review Document Page ii PCT Dredge Project Env Review Doc Sent May 12 2015.docx

PORT MOODY ARM

PROPOSED CHANNEL DREDGE

PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENT

Proposed by:

Mr. Andre Olivier, P.Eng.

Manager, Engineering

Pacific Coast Terminals Ltd.

2300 Columbia Street

Port Moody, BC

V3H 5J9

Prepared by:

Andrew MacKay, M.E.S., EP (EMSLA)

Suite 206 - 267 Esplanade West

North Vancouver, BC

V7M 1A5

www.envirochem.com

Mark Adams, B.Sc., R.P.Biol

Envirowest Consultants Inc.

Suite 101 – 1515 Broadway Street

Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 6M2

Version Date: May 12, 2015

Port Moody Arm Channel Dredge Project Environmental Review Document Page ii

PCT Dredge Project Env Review Doc Sent May 12 2015.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROPOSED DREDGE WORKS ....................................................................................... 2

2.1 DREDGE LOCATION ................................................................................................................ 2

2.2 PROJECT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 2

2.2.1 Environment Canada Requirements ...................................................................... 4

2.2.2 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Regulatory Requirements – Fisheries Act .. 5

2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 6

2.3.1 Dredge Material Properties ................................................................................... 6

2.3.2 Biota .................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.3 Local Marine Conditions ...................................................................................... 14

2.4 ALTERNATIVE DREDGE AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS CONSIDERED ....................................................... 15

2.4.1 Alternative Disposal Options ............................................................................... 15

2.4.2 Dredging Equipment Considered ......................................................................... 17

2.4.3 Detailed Dredge Option Evaluation ..................................................................... 18

3.0 OPERATIONS PLAN, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ......... 23

3.1 OPERATING PLAN ........................................................................................................... 23

3.1.1 Phase I: Containment Berm Construction ........................................................... 25

3.1.2 Phase II: Dredge and Placement ......................................................................... 29

3.2 OPERATING MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................. 31

3.3 POTENTIAL RESIDUAL PROJECT IMPACTS ....................................................................... 32

3.4 PROJECT MONITORING PLAN ......................................................................................... 33

3.4.1 Measured Parameters and Sampling Protocols .................................................. 33

3.4.2 Sample Locations ................................................................................................. 34

3.4.3 Sample Scheduling & Frequency ......................................................................... 35

3.4.4 Post Dredge Bathymetry ..................................................................................... 36

4.0 HABITAT RESTORATION ............................................................................................ 37

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 38

5.1 GENERAL CRITERIA .............................................................................................................. 38

5.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF CONTAINMENT AREA ......................................................................... 38

6.0 COMMUNITY AND FIRST NATIONS ............................................................................ 39

6.1 PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES.............................................................................. 39

6.2 PLANNING ALIGNMENT ......................................................................................................... 40

7.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 41

Port Moody Arm Channel Dredge Project Environmental Review Document Page iii


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sampling Summary ....................................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Comparative Cadmium Levels, At Depth and Surface.................................................. 9

Table 3: Summary of 2013 Sampling .......................................................................................... 9

Table 4: Individual Equipment for Disposal at Sea (Transit to Pt. Grey) .................................. 18

Table 5: Dredge Option Summary - Combined Equipment for Local Placement..................... 19

Table 6: Air Emission Summary ................................................................................................ 20

Table 7: Proposed Planning & Operations Schedule ................................................................ 23

Table 8: Proposed Sampling Frequency ................................................................................... 36

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Planned Dredge and Containment Berm Locations ..................................................... 3

Figure 2: Map Location of DAS Samples, Port Moody Arm ......................................................... 8

Figure 3: Map Location of Sediment Ponar Grab Samples, Port Moody Arm........................... 12

Figure 4: Map Location of Benthic Visual Survey Transects, Port Moody Arm ......................... 13

Figure 5: Dredge Equipment Operating Locations .................................................................... 16

Figure 6: Six Inch IOCO Pipeline Section* ................................................................................. 24

Figure 7: Twelve Inch Pipeline Cross Section ............................................................................ 24

Figure 8: Planned Placement Area Berm .................................................................................. 26

Figure 9: Planned Berm Construction Profile ........................................................................... 29

Figure 10: Proposed Shoreline Sample Locations ....................................................................... 34

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: 1995 Letter from EC to BERC

Appendix II: 2009 Sediment Sample Results

Appendix III: Professional Chemist Opinion on AVS-SEM

Appendix IV: 2012 Sediment Sample results (ponar grab)

Appendix V: 2012 Sediment Core Sample Results (3m core)

Appendix VI: Benthic Organism Summary Table

Appendix VII: 2012 Sediment Core Sample Logs

Appendix VIII: Columbia Noise Assessment – August 22, 2012

Port Moody Arm Channel Dredge Project Environmental Review Document Page iv


Appendix IX: An Island Complex: concepts for Habitat Creation / Restoration

Appendix X: Test Dredge Notification

Appendix XI: Proposed Project Letter of Advice, Brian Naito, February 26, 2014

Port Moody Arm Channel Dredge Project Environmental Review Document


Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The section of Port Moody Arm navigation channel in front of Reed Point Marina is a shipping

restriction for loaded vessels departing Pacific Coast Terminals (PCT). Vessels currently require

up to 4.0m of tidal assistance to navigate the channel posing a significant safety and economic

restriction for PCT and its shipping partners.

The proposed project involves capital dredging within the navigation channel to increase

channel depth from 10.5m to 13.5m. The added depth enable more ship schedule flexibility by

allowing loaded vessels to safely sail from PCT with less dependence on tides. The Port Moody

Arm was most recently dredged in 1995 with Vancouver Port Corporation as the proponent.

Including the approach channel and turning basin, approximately 280,000m3 was dredged and

placed behind a sub-tidal berm that was constructed adjacent to the turning basin as

e pe i e tal fish ha itat e ha e e t .

In 2009 at the request of PCT, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) initiated planning and designs to

deepen the navigation channel by further dredging westward from PCT. In the interim, PMV

deemed PCT as the sole beneficiary of the dredge. Consequently, PCT is now the project

proponent.

The revised dredge plan is to operate variable hours (including 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

for the navigation channel dredge only) to efficiently relocate approximately 550,000m3 of

sediment within an expanded area including the existing and an additional containment

perimeter berm in Port Moody Arm. Dredging is planned to involve an effective combination of

three equipment types:

1) Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge, with modified piping, for the navigation channel;

2) Clamshell for precision in the immediate vicinity of the submerged Ioco pipeline (located

within the dredge cut) and dockface; and,

3) Cutter dredge, with floating pipeline, for the turning basin.

The berm construction and dredge works are proposed to last for approximately seven (7) and

10 weeks respectively.

The creative project plan achieves a balanced approach that supports Port Metro Vancouver

initiatives for a sustainable enterprise. Expected benefits include vital business process

efficiency at PCT through more timely and safer shipping; temporary and minimal to no residual

environmental impact; restored historical fish habitats; new seabed elevations that will provide

the potential for future compensation works (outside the scope of this project); a dredge plan

that makes good financial sense; and potential opportunities to partner with local First Nations.



Page 2

2.0 PROPOSED DREDGE WORKS

Pacific Coast Terminals is planning a modified approach to the dredge that was conducted in

1995. After considerable research, PCT is proposing an innovative combination of hopper,

cutter suction and clamshell dredges with direct placement in an expanded version of the

containment basin established in 1995. Keeping the dredge spoils within Port Moody Arm will

achieve many advantages ranging from significantly reduced emissions and shorter work

duration to helping restore fish ha itat i p e iousl d edged a eas i a 96 ’s he the original site was developed). Provided below and in subsequent sections is the sustainable,

holistic decision-making framework used to achieve desired engineering objectives, optimize

cost effectiveness, minimize environmental impacts and restore historical fish habitats through

placement of dredged material.

The operations plan will involve sequential dredging from west to east at an average of

7,800 m3 / day using the three equipment types. The berm will be constructed of readily

available course granular fill and / or other material suitable for subsurface and subterranean

containment. Material to construct the berm will consist of a gula pit u o k sou ed f o nearby suppliers. Alternative sources including dredging within the harbour at first and / or

second narrows and clean concrete from demolition sites will also be considered if adequate

supplies can be secured on a timely basis. Free-draining imported material was selected instead

of using dredged sediment for berm construction to ensure stability of placement. The very

short interval between berm construction and sediment placement would not allow the

sediment berm enough time to consolidate. The excessive pore pressure during material

placement could therefore result in berm failure.

2.1 DREDGE LOCATION

The proposed dredge is located in Port Moody Arm from the west side of Reed Point Marina

progressing eastward to the PCT turning basin. The dredge channel is approximately 1000m

long by 150m wide before expanding into the semi-circular vessel turning basin at the east end



Page 3

of the dredge area (see

Figure 1). The proposed dredge area remains unchanged from the dimensions originally

designed by PMV in 2009.

2.2 PROJECT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The application and this document have been submitted to PMV as a e ui e e t of the Po t’s project review process. The PCT project team has separately consulted with DFO, Environment

Canada, Transport Canada and the City of Port Moody for respective permits and approvals.

Please see the section immediately below for more details.



Page 4

FIGURE 1: PLANNED DREDGE AND CONTAINMENT BERM LOCATIONS



Page 5

2.2.1 Environment Canada Requirements

In a letter dated January 11, 1995 from Adrian Duncan of Environment Canada to Nancy Yates

of BIEAP, the dredge and placement project completed in 1995 was deemed not a disposal

project under Environment Canada but a construction project accepted by DFO as an

experimental fish habitat enhancement (see Appendix I for a copy of the letter). Due to

changes in the Fisheries Act, DFO would not render an opinion on proposed fish habitat

enhancement. As a result, the proposed project has proceeded through Environ e t Ca ada’s Disposal at Sea permitting process.

Dredge material will be carefully placed behind an existing and new berm (adjacent to the

Pacific Coast Terminals turning basin). Placement will restore the historical bathymetry of the

sea bottom at this location. Ecological services, including those benefiting fishery species, will

also be restored. The planned outcome, through restoration of the sea bottom, is to enhance

production of fishery species. See Section 4.0, Habitat Creation for full details.

There must be evidence that the placement can be done so it does not result in deleterious

effects to the marine environment or conflict with other legitimate uses of the sea. The

proponent should provide additional detail substantiating how this criterion is met.

The proponent plans to employ a holistic approach that will prevent deleterious marine

effects and not obstruct other uses of the sea. Additional factors considered include

minimizing air pollution, noise and minimizing turbidity. Controls for protection of

marine habitat (namely water column turbidity) will include use of customized silt

curtains; operational modifications including installation and placement of a diffuser

close to the seabed; minimizing dredge pressure that will lower the velocity at the

diffuser; and placing material that meets Environment Canada Disposal at Sea (DAS)

criteria. Please see Section 3.0 for additional details on operations and mitigation

measures.

The material must be clean and the proponent should provide additional detail substantiating

how this criterion is met. For example, material destined for the marine environment must

be below the lower action levels as set out in the Disposal at Sea Regulations under CEPA

1999.

Since 2009, 82 surface and sub-surface sediment samples from the planned dredge and

placement areas have been analyzed as per Disposal at Sea requirement for chemistry

and biological testing. The 20 surficial samples analyzed in 2009 (PMV) and 10 surficial

samples in 2012 (PCT) respectively indicated compliance with DAS requirements. The

most recent and extensive round of sampling in 2013 indicated conformance with DAS

criteria as supported by biological test results and supplemental analysis. See sections

2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2 for additional details.



Page 6

2.2.2 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Regulatory Requirements –

Fisheries Act

The Fisheries Act is the prevailing legislation administered by DFO for this project. In late June,

2012, Omnibus Bill C-38 received Senate approval, thereby introducing several changes to the

Act. Under the new legal framework, the project will not involve the release of deleterious

substances (Section 34.1) as defined by the Act.

As previously mentioned potential turbidity generated by dredging and placement activities

will be effectively controlled using several mitigation measures including sediment curtains,

containment berms (including extra height to accommodations for sediment bulking factors),

use of a discharge diffuser, regular monitoring and possible operational adjustments to further

reduce discharge velocity.

In the context of the Fisheries Act, with the application of appropriate mitigation measures

noted above, DFO has determined in their letter of advice dated February 26, 2014 (Brian

Naito) that the project will not result in serious harm to fish. Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act

states that No perso shall arry o ork, u dertaki g or a ti ity that results i serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that

support such a fishery . The A t defi es serious har to fish as the death of fish or a y per a e t alteratio to, or destru tio of, fish ha itat .

DFO interprets a permanent alteration to fish ha itat to e of a spatial s ale, du atio o intensity that limits or diminishes the ability of fish to use such habitats as spawning grounds, or

as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order

to carry out o e o o e of thei life histo p o esses . DFO i te p ets the dest u tio of fish ha itat to e of a spatial s ale, du atio , o i te sit that fish a o lo ge el upo su h habitats for use as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a

ig atio o ido , o a othe a ea i o de to a out o e o o e of thei life p o esses .

Temporary impacts resulting from the dredge are not a HADD. The guild of organisms

represented within sediment samples and observed during underwater camera surveys

(conducted in September, 2012) is dominated by polychaetes. These worms readily

recolonize disturbed sediments. The community structure represented this winter,

when dredging is to occur, will be replicated by the structure of the bottom community

for the following winter. From a fish habitat perspective, this dredging program is akin

to transfer pit dredging that occurs within the Fraser River. The invertebrates of the

river bottom readily colonize disturbed areas. An Authorization is not issued for transfer

pit dredging within the Fraser River.

The bottom sediments are composed predominantly of mud and clay, with some fine

sand. The sediments are anoxic, with the odour of hydrogen sulfide otte eggs evident when brought to the surface during sampling. The thin top layer of sediments is

poorly consolidated.



Page 7

Eelgrass was not observed or captured during sampling. Macroalgae, less than 150mm

in length, occurred on the surface of the 1995 gravel retention berm. Macroalgae were

not observed on the soft bottom of the disposal area. Plumose anemones occurred

sporadically through the disposal area, wherever debris allowed attachment and

adequate anchorage.

Fish were not observed during the underwater camera surveys. Dungeness crabs were

observed along the landward margin of the proposed disposal area. The crabs occurred

upon the face of the transitory slope between the bottom of the disposal area and the

sea bottom outside of the disposal area, in proximity to the eastern margin of land

based activities of Pacific Coast Terminals.

Please see more details in Section 3.0 of this document regarding potential operational

environmental impacts.

2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.3.1 Dredge Material Properties

Dredge materials within the defined project area were examined by PMV in 2009 and by PCT in

2012 and 2013. As shown in the Table 1 below, sampling methods resulted in obtaining

material from the sediment surface and depths of 0.5m, 2.0m and planned channel depths

(e.g., 4.0m or more). Material properties (predominantly fine sediment) and chemistry were

largely homogenous.

TABLE 1: SAMPLING SUMMARY

Year Method Depth Location # of

Samples Analysis Results

2009 Divers Surface Load Channel 20 DAS Chemistry exceedances

AVS-SEM passed DAS

2012 Ponar Surface Load Channel /

Reference

10 DAS Chemistry exceedances

Passed DAS Biological

2012 Vibracore 3m Load Channel 3 DAS Chemistry exceedances

2013 Ponar Surface Load Channel,

Receiving and

Reference Sites


2013 Vibracore 0.5m, 2.0m and

channel depth

Load Channel,

Receiving and

Reference Sites


17/18 passed biological

testing; one failure

attributed to high

background H2S



Page 8

2.3.1.1 PMV Sampling Results

When the dredging project was originally conceived by PMV in 2009, Mr. Dave Hart, Operations

Dredging Specialist, defined the dredge area by conducting surficial seabed sampling using

divers. A total of 20 composite samples were submitted for analysis. The approach taken and

results were reported as follows:

Twenty (20) sites within Port Moody Arm were sampled on July 21, 2009.

Samples were collected at about 20cm below the surface using divers.

Two (2) samples were taken at each site ranging between 5 to 10m apart.

Samples were submitted for analysis of PAH’s, PCB’s, full etal suite plus load dete tio for Cadmium.

Numerical values for Cadmium were exceeded on all samples. To further explore the

elevated Cadmium levels we carried out an AVS-SEM test (measure of the biological

availability). See Appendix II for analytical results.

Based on the results from all the tests conducted, Environment Canada advised the

results support disposal at sea.

Since the 2009 sampling program, Environment Canada has modified DAS requirements,

substituting biological testing (Microtox Solid Phase, Amphipod Survival, Echinoid

Fertilization) for AVS-SEM. Envirochem, supported by the opinion of a professional

chemist, believe that the AVS-SEM test remains a credible predictor of contaminant

(metals) bioavailability. Please see Appendix III for professional opinion rendered by Mr.

Jamie Downie, P.Chem.

2.3.1.2 PCT 2012 Sampling Results

In advance of conducting the channel dredge, PCT had planned in 2012 to undertake a small

scale (4000m3) trial using the FRPD hopper dredge. In support of the trial, ponar (surface) and

vibracore (sub-surface depth) sampling was conducted to:

Assess compliance with Environment Canada Disposal at Sea criteria; and,

Examine particle size to determine hopper dredge effectiveness.

Regarding DAS compliance assessment, a total of 10 discrete samples for chemical analysis and

four composite samples (including a reference point) for biological testing was collected using

ponar grab. DAS sampling was done by Envirochem in the presence of Roanna Leung of

Environment Canada. Figure 2 below shows DAS sample locations.



Page 9

Summary DAS results for regulated chemical requirements were as follows:

Cadmium: all sites, including reference, exceeded the limit.

Mercury: no exceedances.

Lead: eight sample points, including reference, exceeded the limit.

PCB: no exceedances.

PAHs: two exceedances.

Othe etals of i te est , spe ifi all a se i , oppe a d zi , also e eeded the DAS criteria

at various sample locations.

Biological tests conducted were Microtox, Amphipod Survival, and Echinoid Fertilization as per

Environment Canada DAS requirements. Testing was initiated on January 12 and 13, 2012.

Maxxam Analytical reported that all samples passed each biological test – none were

considered toxic according to the Ocean Disposal Guidelines. Please see Appendix IV for

chemical and biological test results.

Core sampling was conducted in three locations within the defined dredge area. Sampling sites

were proximal to ST1A (west side of Reed Point Marina); ST1C (mid Marina); and on the east

side of ST2B opposite Reed Point (see Figure 2 above). Cores varied in depth, from 1.5m to

2.1m. Within each core, three discrete samples were collected to form a single composite. All

three composites were analyzed for DAS chemistry - all regulated parameters met DAS criteria

with the exception of cadmium as expected (high background levels). As seen in Table 2 below,

the at depth o e sa ple eadi gs fo ad iu e e eithe elo o odestl highe that surface (ponar grab) samples collected in the near vicinity on January 6, 2012. Furthermore, all

results are well below conservative BC Contaminated Site Regulation sediment quality limits of

2.6 mg/kg (SedQCscs) and 5.0 mg/kg (SedQCtcs) respectively (see Appendix V for analytical

results).

FIGURE 2: MAP LOCATION OF DAS SAMPLES, PORT MOODY ARM



Page 10

TABLE 2: COMPARATIVE CADMIUM LEVELS, AT DEPTH AND SURFACE

Type Sample Locations

West / ST 1A Central / ST 1C East / ST2B

Depth Samples (mg / kg) 0.883 1.34 1.28

Surface Samples (mg / kg) 1.11 1.07 1.52

In December 2012, Environment Canada determined that the 30 samples collected and

analyzed to date did not fully characterize the planned dredge volume (530,000m3). PCT was

subsequently instructed to conduct further sediment testing.

2.3.1.3 PCT 2013 Sampling Results

A sampling plan was submitted to and subsequently approved by Environment Canada in April

2013. Please see the 2013 sediment sampling compendium (separate report) for details.

During the week of May 6, 2013, a total of 49 discrete samples were acquired in the presence

of Sean Standing of Environment Canada and submitted to ALS Environmental for DAS

chemistry analysis. The samples acquired are presented in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF 2013 SAMPLING

Location Depths Method # of

Samples

Reference Site Surface; 0.5m, 2.0m, channel depth Ponar, vibracore 4

Load Site Surface; 0.5m, 2.0m, channel depth Ponar, vibracore 37

Receiving Site Surface Ponar 8

General conclusions derived from the DAS chemical analysis:

Historical (e.g., 2012) and most current (2013) surface sample results were very similar

Organic contamination (total PAHs and total PCBs) were non-detect below 0.5m

There were no PCB exceedances at any station

Metal concentrations declined with depth

The e e e o e ide t o ta i a t hot spots

DAS exceedances in reference, load and placement stations < typical CSR SedQ.

Please see the 2013 sediment sampling compendium (separate report) for details on sediment

chemistry interpretation and core logs.

Due to the DAS sediment chemistry exceedances, PCT was instructed to conduct biological tests

(Microtox, Amphiod Survival and Echinoid Fertilization) on the sediment originally acquired

during the week of May 6, 2013. Biological tests were done by Maaxam Analytical. A total of

six samples were assembled as follows:



Page 11

One discrete at Reference Station surface

Two composites each of four load stations at surface

One discrete at 0.5m depth of Load Station #12

Two composites each of four receiving stations at surface.

A total of 18 tests were conducted (i.e., the six samples were subject to each of the three

biological tests). Summary results were as follows:

17 of the 18 samples met DAS biological test criteria (i.e., not toxic);

One sample, from Load Station #12 at 0.5m depth, failed the Amphipod Survival test.

The low level of contaminants identified during chemical analysis did not cause the

dramatic drop in survival to 11%. As verified by third party opinion rendered by

Integrated Resource Consultants (see letter in the separate sediment compendium

report), sample failure was caused by highly elevated pore water H2S, calculated to be

669 times the CCME probable effects level (PEL).

Based on these data, PCT concluded that no additional sediment characterization was required.

Environment Canada subsequently concurred with this statement

Risk to marine organisms from the temporary release of H2S entering the water column during

operations (sediment disturbance during berm construction and dredging) is low based on the

following:

Potentially high H2S containing sediment from load station #12 at 0.5m depth

represents less than 10% of the total dredge volume

The material with an elevated H2S level will not be suspended all at once

Mitigation controls (diffuser and silt curtains) will help contain material

No fish kills were reported in previous 1995 dredge.

During a September 13, 2013 meeting between PCT, PMV, Environment Canada and

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a former PMV Environment Department Director (J.

Bauman) stated that the H2S should not be a concern during project operations.

2.3.2 Biota

2.3.2.1 Benthic Organisms

The design footprints of the proposed navigation channel, turning basin, and placement area

are characterized by soft bottom benthic communities. Mud typically comprises greater than

90 percent of bottom sediments (Burd and Brinkhurst 19901) and subsequently verified during

the January, 2012 core sampling event described above.

1 Burd, B.J., and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1990. Vancouver Harbour and Burrard Inlet benthic infaunal sampling program, October 1987.

Canadian Technical Report of Hydrography and Ocean Sciences No.122. 49p.



Page 12

Burd and Brinkhurst (1990) present data, for the portion of the project that interfaces the

terminal, revealed that a benthic invertebrate community of low diversity and abundance.

Member species included the deposit feeders Capitella capitata (oligochaete-like polychaete),

Pectinaria californiensis (tube-dwelling polychaete) and Macoma calcarea (clam), and predators

Nephtys cornuta franciscanum (errantiate polychaete) and Philine polaris (sea slug). The

presence of Capitella capitata is notable as it often occurs in areas characterized by organic

pollution (Tsutsumi 19872, Dean 20083).

That portion of the project seaward of the terminal is described by Swanston (20114). He

des i ed the su st ate as e soft, a o i ud o e lai a thi la e of o sedi e t . Little visible marine life was apparent. Several Clevlandia ios, a small goby, were noted.

Plumose anemones (Metridium farcimen) were attached to debris.

Adams et al. (20125) provide a contemporary description of the benthic environment similar to

that of Swanston (2011). Adams et al. (2012) sampled the benthos of the proposed dredge

material disposal area and adjacent areas outside of both the proposed disposal area and the

1995 dredged material disposal area. These adjacent areas are characterized by depths

shallower than that of the proposed disposal area. Benthic sampling was conducted utilizing a

Ponar Grab sampler. Visual surveys of the sea bottom, utilizing an underwater camera, were

also conducted.

Benthos sampling locations are presented by Figure 3. In general, bottom sediments were

predominantly comprised of fines and clays; fines were typically dark grey to black; clays were

typically light grey, and occurred as colloidal clumps. The smell of hydrogen sulfide was evident

during processing. Shell fragments and small fibrous wood debris were conspicuous but never

dominant within any of the samples. Fine sand occurred infrequently, and when it did, it was a

very small component of the overall mass of sediments. As for Swanston (2011), the surface of

the benthic samples was characterized by a thin layer of brown sediment.

2 Tsutsumi, H. 1987. Population dynamics of Capitella capitata (Polychaeta; Capitellidae) in an organically polluted cove. Marine

Ecology – Progress Series Vol. 36 pp.139-149.

3 Dean, H.K. 2008. The use of polychaetes (Annelida) as indicator species of marine pollution: a review. Rev.Biol.Trop

(Int.J.Trop.Biol.ISSN-0034-7744) Vol.56 (Suppl.4): 11-38.

4 Swanston, D. 2011. Subtidal Biophysical Inventory East of a Proposed Marine Expansion Reed Point Marina, Port Moody. BC.

Seacology, North Vancouver, BC. 17p.

5 Adams, M.A., C. Gibson and C. Dillman. 2012. Pacific Coast Terminals -Subtidal Benthic Survey of Proposed Dredged Material

Disposal Area. Letter Report addressed to Andrew Mackay, Envirochem Services Inc., North Vancouver, BC. Envirowest

Consultants Inc., Burnaby, BC.



Page 13

Soft sediments did not characterize all of the samples. Samples 1-1 and 2-5 were characterized

by sands and gravels with some fines. The sample locations correspond to the location of the

1995 dredged material retention berm.

The guild of benthic organisms is representative of the soft sediments observed (see Appendix

VI). Predaceous errantiate (i.e., wandering, motile) polychaetes (e.g., Sigalionidae, Glyceridae

and Nereidae) are numerically dominant. Sedentary (e.g. Terebellidae and Pectinariidae),

oligochaete-like burrowing polychaetes (e.g., Capitellidae) and tubificid oligochaetes occur

scattered throughout the samples. In terms of clams, very small soft shell clams (Macoma sp.)

and cockles (Clinocardium nuttallii) were numerically dominant, while the numerically

dominant snail was Nassarius mendicus.

Interestingly, arthropods are poorly represented within the proposed dredged material disposal

area. Nearshore shallow subtidal samples (in particular samples 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6), less than 4.5

metres below chart datum were characterized by relatively high numbers of Corophium sp., a

tube dwelling amphipod of soft sediments. This amphipod is accompanied within the samples

by cumaceans, another arthropod. The nearshore shallow subtidal samples are characterized

by the highest number of species and highest number of individuals of all the samples collected.

The visual surveys were conducted along two transects ( Figure 4).These transects traverse

the general areas sampled for benthic organisms. The surveys were conducted with an

underwater camera tethered to a boat; a cable transmitted images from the camera to a

monitor onboard the boat. The camera was equipped with lights.

FIGURE 3: MAP LOCATION OF SEDIMENT PONAR GRAB SAMPLES, PORT MOODY ARM



Page 14

FIGURE 4: MAP LOCATION OF BENTHIC VISUAL SURVEY TRANSECTS, PORT MOODY ARM

The sea bottom was flat and homogenous. Observed structural complexity was poor. Where

the occasional boulder or piece of wood debris occurred, it typically functioned as an anchoring

point for plumose anemones. The brown surficial sediments were readily disturbed and

suspended when the camera touched the bottom.

Relatively high structural complexity was limited to the face of the 1995 retention berm. The

berm was characterized by large gravels and small cobble. The berm displayed the highest

density of plumose anemones. A single adult Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) was observed

on the berm along Transect 2.

Numerous (>20 adults) Dungeness crabs were observed at the inflection point (220m) of

Transect 1, along the slope that marks the transition between the 1995 dredged material

disposal area to the nearshore shallow subtidal environment not affected by 1995 material

placement. The crabs were observed moving across and buried within soft sediments. The

location of the crabs is outside of the proposed dredged material disposal area.

Fish were not observed along either transect. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) was not observed.

Macroinvertebrates, other than Dungeness crab, observed along the transects on the sea

bottom were comprised entirely of errantiate polychaetes. The polychaetes were very

conspicuous and active.



Page 15

2.3.2.2 Fish

From a fisheries perspective, species of note within Port Moody Arm include salmon and

flatfishes.

The City of Port Moody (20116) states:

Two local hatcheries on Noons and Mossom Creeks release tens of thousands of salmon

fry and smolts into local streams and into the Arm annually.

Juvenile salmonids are known to use the foreshore areas of Burrard Inlet as rearing

grounds (Naito and Kwang, 20007).

Salmonids captured included coho salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, chinook salmon,

and cutthroat trout.

Use of marine and estuarine environments by juvenile salmonids is focused within nearshore

areas, in particular intertidal mudflats and marshes, and the immediate nearshore subtidal

environment. The project engages the bottom of Port Moody Arm substantively below local

low water, below intertidal and shallow subtidal (<4 m below local low water) environments.

The project will not directly affect these environments, thereby mitigating interactions with

juvenile salmonids and their habitats.

Commercial flatfishes occur throughout Burrard Inlet (Levings and Ong 20048). English sole is

the most common bottom fish species in Port Moody Arm. Although fish were not observed

during the visual surveys, it is anticipated dredging activities will engage bottom fish species

within the navigation channel and within the placement area.

2.3.3 Local Marine Conditions

Burrard Inlet has been described as narrow deep water fjord in which tides transport silt into

the Port Moody Arm to be deposited on the mudflats located at the east end of the Arm (Eikos

Consultants, 1972). It is therefore expected that this eastward deposition pattern will favour

containment of suspended sediment generated by the project within the Arm.

Overall, marine conditions in the Arm are expected to have minimal effect (e.g., sediment

transport) on the proposed dredge. Modest tidal currents (e.g., 10-20 cm. /s; Jiang et al., 2002)

and low fetch resulting in minimal to low erosion characteristics of the area will enhance

turbidity control and enable dredged material to settle within the containment berms.

6 City of Port Moody. 2011. What Swims Beneath: A Fish Survey of Port Moody Arm. City of Port Moody, British

Columbia. 40p.

7 Naito, B. and J. Hwang. 2000. Timing and distribution of juvenile salmonids in Burrard Inlet, British Columbia:

February to August 1992. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1069. 74p. cited in: City of Port

Moody 2011.

8 Levings, C., and S. Ong. 2004. Fish communities and life history attributes of English sole (Pleuronectes vetulus) in

Vancouver Harbour. Marine Environmental Research 57(1-2): 103-120.



Page 16

2.4 ALTERNATIVE DREDGE AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Clamshell, Hopper and Cutter-Suction dredging options were evaluated against relevant

environmental and economic factors.

2.4.1 Alternative Disposal Options

2.4.1.1 Upland Disposal

Upland disposal was immediately eliminated due to prohibitive cost, impractical logistics

including barge to land transfer and traffic generated by thousands of dump truck trips,

prolonged duration for construction, excessive air emissions, and no prospect for improving the

marine habitat (i.e., wasted resource).

2.4.1.2 Disposal at Sea (DAS)

Sediment sampling results ultimately indicated conformance with DAS criteria. Disposal at Sea

would only be feasible if the material were to remain in Port Moody Arm at a newly designated

disposal site, ot essels t a siti g Bu a d I let a d disposi g at E i o e t Ca ada’s approved site (e.g., Pt. Grey). To prove the point, only a far less efficient combination of

clamshell / barge and closed hopper dredger could be used in the scenario for disposing at Pt.

Grey (i.e., cutter suction is not mobile). The consequences of the transit option would include:

Increased navigational traffic in the harbour;

Elevated air emissions of either option for tug assist for scows or transit of the hopper

vessel;

Vastly extended project duration (potential noise and visual impacts);

No potential for marine habitat improvement using dredge material in Port Moody Arm;

and,

Unwarranted and unacceptable costs.

For these reasons, Disposal at Sea, with distant transit to Pt. Grey, is NOT a viable option for

this project.

The viable option for this project is to follow a similar approach used in 1995. The process will

involve relocating dredge spoils to defined areas behind the existing berm and a newly

constructed berm for containment. With knowledge accumulated since the 1995 dredge, the

proponent will employ additional planning and operational mitigation measures including the

key objective to minimize turbidity. Benefits of keeping the material in Port Moody Arm under a

Disposal at Sea permit will include reduced harbour traffic, vastly reduced air emissions, much

shorter project schedule (reduced potential for noise and visual obstruction) while using the

material to improve current marine habitat conditions (instead of treating the material as a

waste with no value).

Details of each option, including dredgers, are discussed below. Figure 5 shows the planned

equipment operating locations.



Page 17

FIGURE 5: DREDGE EQUIPMENT OPERATING LOCATIONS



Page 18

2.4.2 Dredging Equipment Considered

2.4.2.1 Clam Shell Dredge

A clamshell dredge, (e.g., FRPD McKenzie), located on a

barge, would collect material in an approximately 5m3-

bucket, then place on a bottom dumping scow. The full

scow would then be towed by tug to the disposal site

where the dredge material would be released.

Multiple scows (e.g., two or three) would be anchored in proximity to the clamshell to enable

continuous loading. The process would require up to 212 days to complete the entire dredge

for the disposal at sea scenario. Under the local placement approach, it would be used for up to

approximately 10 days for precision dredging in the vicinity of the Ioco pipeline and dock face

and to shape the new containment berm.

2.4.2.2 Hopper Dredge

The FRPD 309 is 124m long sea-going, self-propelled vessel

equipped with two suction pipes designed to trail along the

side of the vessel. At the lower end of the suction pipe is a

drag head which will contact the sea bed exhuming

sediments through the combined process of erosion and

excavation. Loosened sediments are transported from the

drag head through the suction pipe to the vessel by sucking

water through the drag head inlets forming a slurry

mixture. Suction is provided by pumps inboard the vessel, which discharges the mixture of

sediment and water into the hopper. The vessel will transport the slurry to the disposal area

and discharge through a pipe connected to a diffuser located at or near the seabed. There will

not be bottom discharging from the bottom gates through the water column to the seabed.

Dredging occurs with the vessel on the move at approximately 1.5 to 2.0 knots. The hopper

dredge has a capacity of approximately 4900m3 (rounded).

Results from the 2012 sediment sampling episode (see section 2.3.1.2) near Reed Point Marina

indicated largely fine particle sized silts and clay (see core logs in Appendix VI). Based on this

knowledge, the expected load within the FRPD 309 vessel hold would be comprised of

approximately 20% sediment and 80% water (e.g., 980m3 of sediment). Considering this

relative operational inefficiency combined with long transit distance to the (Point Grey) disposal

site and operating cost ($20 million), the hopper dredge was not considered viable for disposal

at sea to Point Grey. However, with much shorter transit distances between one to three

kilometres in the local placement scenario, the hopper dredge would only be needed for

approximately 42 days instead of 225 days in the disposal at sea scenario. Overall, the FRPD

309 is only viable for local dredging and disposal within Port Moody Arm.



Page 19

2.4.2.3 Cutter-Suction Dredge

The FRPD Columbia cutter suction dredge operates a

suction tube with a cutting mechanism at the suction

inlet. The cutting mechanism loosens the bed material

and transports it to the suction mouth. The dredged

material is subsequently sucked up by a wear-resistant

centrifugal pump and will then be discharged through a

pipe line and diffuser at the designated placement site.

The material is fine enough that a booster pump will

likely not be required for moving the sediment. A

number of operational modifications will be attempted (e.g., lower pressure; diffuser at

discharge point) to reduce dredge and placement turbidity respectively. The Columbia would

be used to dredge the turning basin, requiring approximately 21 days.

2.4.3 Detailed Dredge Option Evaluation

The table and text below summarizes the key variables in selecting the most appropriate

dredge option. Environmental, economic and social factors were considered. Table 4 shows

conditions and costs for the disposal at sea option using clamshell or hopper dredge.

TABLE 4: INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT FOR DISPOSAL AT SEA (TRANSIT TO PT. GREY)

*Sediment recovered per bucket (clamshell) or hopper.

Table 5, shows applicable conditions and costs associated with local placement using a

combination of hopper, clamshell and hopper dredges.

Dredge Option

Comparison Variables

Dredge

Turbidity

Limit

Dredge

Duration

(days)

Air

Emissions

tCO2e

Material

Recovery

/ Load*

Economic:

Dredge Only

Economic:

DAS Fee

($0.47 /t)

Total

Economic / Cost

Clamshell Complies 212 5,910 80-85% $8 million $250,000 $8.3 million

Closed Hopper Complies 265 15,050 20-25% >>$19.8 million $250,000 >>$20 million



Page 20

TABLE 5: DREDGE OPTION SUMMARY - COMBINED EQUIPMENT FOR LOCAL PLACEMENT

*includes overdredge, engineering and mobilization

2.4.3.1 Turbidity

All dredge options are expected to remain in compliance with typical turbidity restrictions (e.g.,

75 NTU above background set in the 1995 dredge).

The fine particulate sediment will remain predominantly as a solid mass in the water column

when dredged by the clamshell bucket and when released into the placement area from a

bottom dumping scow. The FRPD 309 will discharge at a depth in the designated disposal areas

via floating pipeline connected to a diffuser for discharging near the seabed and bottom of the

water column.

With respect to the cutter-suction method, turbidity generated at the cutter-head is expected

to remain at depth. The majority of sediment will be collected by suction and the cutter head

and placed via surface pipeline with a diffuser at depth in the placement area.

2.4.3.2 Dredge Duration

Under the disposal at sea option requiring transit to Pt. Grey, clamshell and hopper dredges are

expected to require 212 and 225 days, respectively. These are reduced to 10 and 42 days,

respectively, with the cutter suction dredge requiring 21 days under the local disposal option.

Similarly operating efficiency for the hopper dredge is expected to increase from 2900m3/day

(disposal to Pt. Grey- only three trips) to at least 8800m3/day (local disposal– up to nine trips).

The significantly shortened duration for works will result in lower emissions and a decreased

potential for noise disturbance and visual impacts.

2.4.3.3 Air Emissions

Under the disposal requiring transit option, the clamshell and hopper dredge will generate

5,910 and 15,050 of CO2 equivalents (GHG) respectively. The total air emissions estimate for

local disposal, including berm construction, using the combined equipment option is projected

Dredge

Option


Dredge

Turbidity

Dredge

Duration

(days)

Air

Emissions

tCO2e

Placement

Logistics

Material

Recovery

Economic:

Dredge Only

Economic:

Berm

Construction

Total

Economic / Cost

Clamshell Comply 10 280 Good 80-85% $100,000

Closed

Hopper Comply 42 2,810 Good 20-25% $5.0 million

Cutter-

Suction Comply 21 880 Best 80-90% $670,000

Totals Comply 73 3,970 Good - $5.8 million $2.3 million *$8.1 million



Page 21

at 3,970 tonnes of CO2 equivalents. This option will reduce air emissions between 33% and 74%

from the same operating equipment.

As indicated in Table 6 below, other contaminants including particulate matter (PM), Carbon

Monoxide (CO), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Sulphur Oxides (SOx) and Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOCs) will also be substantially lower (e.g., 50%-75% less) in the combined

equipment / local placement option than the disposal at sea option. These potential emission

savings are clearly aligned with PMV air quality conservation initiatives.

TABLE 6: AIR EMISSION SUMMARY

Dredge

Option


Dredge

Duration

(days)

GHGs

(t CO2e) PM (t) CO (t) NOx (t) SOx (t) VOCs (t)

Individual Equipment for Disposal at Sea – Transit to Pt. Grey

Clamshell 212 5,910 3.4 28.9 64.7 51.6 2.9

Closed

Hopper 265 15,050 8.8 54.3 121.3 96.7 5.4

Combined Equipment for Local Disposal – Port Moody Arm

Clamshell 10 280 0.2 1.4 3.1 2.5 0.1

Closed

Hopper 42 2,810 1.6 13.4 31.1 24.8 1.3

Cutter-

Suction 21 880 0.5 4.3 9.7 7.7 0.4

Totals 73 3970 2.3 19.7 43.9 35.0 1.8

2.4.3.4 Economic Considerations

Including berm construction, the local disposal approach cost is estimated as low as $7.5 million

(with potential overdredge adjustments) to $8.1 million. Disposal at sea with transit estimates

are $8.3 million to over $20 million. As such, savings for the local disposal option are significant

(e.g., between $800,000 to nearly $12 million).

2.4.3.5 Local Disposal Logistics

Under the local disposal option, the cutter suction dredge fitted with floating pipeline and

mobile diffuser head will be very efficient means to distribute sediment within the planned

containment areas. The FRPD 309, with careful navigation within the placement area can

achieve very similar results, including prevention of voids progressing from higher to lower

elevations on the sea bed.



Page 22

2.4.3.6 Lighting

Dredge vessel lighting is required for safe operation and navigation. Operations will require

predominantly spot rather than flood lighting (i.e., used to illuminate large areas). The cutter

suction (Columbia) uses lights from the gantry (pointed downward to a ladder), deck and spud

lights and navigation lights. The FRPD 309 uses lights on deck, in the hopper well and

navigation lights. Similarly, lighting on the clamshell will remain localized, including deck, crane

and navigation lights. Lighting systems on cranes are mounted to minimize light throw during

the raising and lowering of the equipment (keep the lights pointed down), no matter what the

position of the gantry arm.

Potentially sensitive receptors (e.g., Pleasantside waterfront homes) will be at least 400m from

any dredge vessel during the project, a distance that should reduce light intensity to tolerable

non-intrusive levels. Additionally, light cast from any of the dredgers is not expected to affect

marine life or birds.

The dredge contractor, FRPD, has not received a light-related complaint on any project to date.

As a result, light-related impacts are expected to be low to negligible.

2.4.3.7 Noise

Peak noise levels from operations are most likely to remain at or below background in nearby

residential locations on the north side of Port Moody Arm.

With engines located on deck, the Columbia cutter-suction dredge may generate more noise

than the hopper and clamshell dredges. A noise survey of Columbia operations was conducted

by FRPD staff on August 22, 2012 (see Appendix VIII). Results showed that noise level readings

declined from a high of 90 dBA adjacent to the Columbia to an average of 61 dBA located 122

metres (400 ft.) from the Columbia. Given that the closest residential community will be

located in excess of 400m from the Columbia at any time, noise levels from operations should

approximate should conform to the City of Port Moody Sound Level By-law for activity zones

during daytime hours. Additionally, the Columbia will be operated only within the Sound Level

By-law construction hour period between 7:00 am to 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday.

Engines on the FRPD 309 are enclosed below deck. A recent noise survey (February 2015)

conducted by FRPD indicated that the 309 will operate largely within or very close to City of

Port Moody Sound Bylaw activity zone criteria (continuous or non-continuous day and

nighttime sound levels). The survey was conducted on the Fraser River where conditions are

not the same as Port Moody Arm, however, they provide a reasonable basis for project

planning. The 64dBA, 67dBA and 58dBA readings represent dredging, transit (sailing) and

sediment discharging sounds at 500m from the vessel. The closest residence from the channel

dredge work area is approximately 520m (Google Earth). It is proposed that the FRPD operate

24 hours and day, 7 days a week for maximum operational efficiency which, in turn, reduces

project duration and probability for community disturbance at expect sound levels.



Page 23

Furthermore, dredging operations are planned during seasonally poor weather (e.g., October

through January-February), when most people are inclined to insulate themselves indoors from

precipitation and, therefore, possible noise from the project.

2.4.3.8 Dredge Material Recovery

Bathymetric analysis suggests that upwards of 83% of the material dredged in 1995 (using the

Columbia) remained in place behind the constructed berm located east of the turning basin

(see Section 3.0 for details). Over 90% containment is expected using the Fraser FRPD 309 and

Columbia combined with silt curtains and expanded berms.

2.4.3.9 Summary Conclusion for Dredge Type

After comparing dredge types under disposal at sea with transit versus local disposal options,

the combined equipment approach with local disposal in Port Moody Arm was clearly the

preferred option. Through operating efficiencies, it has:

The lowest environmental impact, including shortest duration to minimize potential

community disturbances;

The best value (lowest cost) to achieve the desired outcome (13.5m channel depth); and

Potential for sediment to be used as a valued resource to help improve marine habitat

instead of an opportunity lost as a waste.



Page 24

3.0 OPERATIONS PLAN, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

3.1 OPERATIONS PLAN

The estimated planning and operations schedule is shown in Table 7, which includes the

elapsed period from PMV project review to completion of berm construction and dredging.

TABLE 7: PROPOSED PLANNING & OPERATIONS SCHEDULE

Approximate Timeframe

March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

2016 Feb

Mar -

July

PMV Application Review

Fis

he

rie

s W

ind

ow

First Nation Consultation

PMV, TC & EC - DAS

Permits

x

PCT Detailed Planning /

FRPD Mobilization

PCT Berm Construction

PCT Dredge

Notes: PMV = Port Metro Vancouver; TC = Transport Canada; EC -DAS = Environment Canada Disposal at Sea;

DFO Letter of Advice for construction was obtained February 26, 2014 – no approval / authorization required

In addition to environmental, community and cost considerations, operations planning has also

accounted for navigational safety and coordinating with a separate project to remove

decommissioned pipelines that are currently located within the dredge cut. With respect to

navigational safety and related logistics:

Marine construction and dredging equipment will be stored within the new

containment berm. A laydown area outside the project footprint will not be required.

During dredging, the FRPD 309 and Columbia will temporarily mobilize outside the

active dredging areas while vessels transit to and from PCT docks. With approximately

30 vessels calling over the dredge period duration, extensive communications between

the contractor, Pilots, Harbour Master, etc., will ensure equipment is moved well in

advance of vessel traffic in Port Moody Arm. Contingencies have been inserted into the

p oje t s hedule fo these sta d pe iods. A Noti e of Wo ks u de T a spo t Ca ada’s Navigation Protection Program has been

submitted to the Pacific Region office.

The FRPD ill efuel as pe PMV’s u ke i g p o edu e at a desig ated lo atio to e confirmed (e.g., Lynnterm). All other equipment will be fueled using the FRPD Fred

Barber fuel barge which is being retrofitted to Transport Canada requirements including

secondary containment.



Page 25

Among the earliest stages of the dredging project will be the removal of two decommissioned

pipelines owned by Imperial Oil Corporation (IOCO). The six and twelve in pipelines are located

south of and adjacent to Reed Point Marina (see Figure 5 above for pipeline easement).

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the parallel six and twelve inch pipeline cross sections within the

planned dredge cut.

FIGURE 6: SIX INCH IOCO PIPELINE SECTION*

FIGURE 7: TWELVE INCH PIPELINE CROSS SECTION

(*Note: these images were derived from the Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application –

Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal report prepared by Golder Associates, December 18, 2013.)

6 Pipeli e Ele atio

Sediment Surface Elevation

Sediment Surface Elevation

12 Pipeli e Ele atio



Page 26

The pipelines were cleared of contents and idled since 1995. In 2013, the pipeline was cleaned

pigged and elevations surveyed. As a result, each of the six and twelve inch pipeline

segments located within the dredge channel will be safely cut and capped through a separate

project permitted by PMV. The PCT project team will coordinate with PMV, IOCO and its

contractor to ensure that dredging is only initiated subsequent to pipeline removal.

More details for berm construction and dredging are provided below.

3.1.1 Phase I: Containment Berm Construction

An evaluation of recent bathymetric data furnished by Department of Fisheries and Oceans

(2012) indicated that available volume for placement behind (east of) the existing berm is

limited to approximately 55,000m3. With a total dredge volume estimated at 550,000m3,

building a second berm is required to accommodate the remaining volume. Design and

construction concepts are summarized below.

3.1.1.1 Berm Design Concepts

The new berm will be located west of the existing berm, adjacent and no closer than

31m to the turning basin. The structure will proceed linearly to a 6.5m contour north of

the turning basin and make a right angle until it intersects with the existing berm at

4.5m chart datum. This triangular alignment creates a full enclosure at depth (see

Figure 8).

Combined with the existing berm, there will be total containment of 655,000m3. This

volume was selected for two reasons:



Page 27

FIGURE 8: PLANNED PLACEMENT AREA BERM



Page 28

To accommodate the planned load site volume (550,000m3); and,

To accommodate sediment bulking factor demonstrated by Tarbotton et al. (19999,

using a US Army Corp of Engineers method - sediment column test). The factor indicates

volumetric consolidation of suspended sediment over time (see Section 3.1.2.1 for

additional details). Using a final bulking factor of 1.2 times the planned sediment

volume, including a conservatively high 95% retention, results in a final volume of

627,000m3.

The berm will be built with 2.5:1 side slope and 4.5m chart datum, an elevation that will

not cause a navigable water obstruction. This was confirmed with the PMV dredge

specialist (D. Hart).

Up to 33,000m3 of material (including 5% contingency for settling into the soft bottom

seabed) is required to build the berm.

Pit run angular aggregate from local suppliers (e.g., Mainland or Pitt Rive Quarries) will

be the most likely source for berm construction material. Alternative sources for clean,

eusa le ate ial ill also e o side ed e.g., lea e-purposed concrete from

demolition sites or dredged aggregates from First or Second Narrows should they be

available on a timely basis).

3.1.1.2 Berm Construction

Berm construction will take place exclusively waterside. Clean material will be towed to the

designated site and released from the surface via bottom-dumping scows. One or two derricks

will be used to shape (trim) the berms to the specified side slopes and cap. Final elevations will

be confirmed to ensure compliance with the planned 6.0m and subsequent 4.5m chart datum

heights along the length of the berm. Construction will require approximately thirty days

including material transport, dumping and trimming. The preferred option for berm

construction scheduling is to begin late August / early September 2015, followed immediately

by dredging and disposal in late October, early November 2015 through February 2016 (shown

in Table 7 above).

The retention berms in the planned configuration would have a slope of 2.5: 1 (H: V) and a

minimum crest width of 1.0m. The berm would be placed directly on the ocean floor. The

purpose of the berm is two-fold:

Short-term containment of the bulk of the dredged material as it is being placed. Finer

sediments would most likely be hydrodynamically suspended in the water column and be

controlled more with silt curtains.

9 Tarbotton, M., M. Mattila, and J. Jordan. 1999. Underwater Containment of Hydraulic Dredge Material Pacific

Coast Terminals, Vancouver Harbour British Columbia. In Proceedings of the 1999 Canadian Coastal Conference.

May 19-22 Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia. pp. 531-542.



Page 29

Long-term containment of all settled materials as consolidation takes place and pore

pressures within the dredge fill are reduced. Although the consolidated fill would

strengthen, the berm would serve as a slope stabilizer and thus eliminate any subterranean

slides within the fill to the west. This design concept is based on keying in the berm fill

materials into the ocean sediment with coarse materials and a presumption that no lateral

failures would occur under the disposal area, including the berm –i.e., o eak ho izontal

layer in the ocean floor subgrade that could fail laterally under load.

Note: the berm is being placed per the 1995 experience and there are no specific static or

seismic design criteria for stability. The presumption is that localized failure of the berm and/or

liquefaction of the dredge fill would be of negligible consequence.

The berm volume is approximately 33,000m3 in place and would be free-draining; in 1995,

a i e g a els e e used. Ideall , the e ate ials ould e ho oge eous, ut variances

in gradation and material type would be allowed to maximize use of readily available materials.

There would be two main soil profiles in the berm:

Base: the layer placed directly over the ocean floor sediments.

Berm Fill: the import material that would form the berm.

The Base should comprise a well-graded 500mm minus blast rock (min fine gravel/coarse sand

size, less than 1% fines) that would be placed in a single layer directly on the ocean floor to a

nominal thickness of 0.5m above the sea bed. The angular rock would settle into the sediments

and the finer fill fractions would serve to contain sediment loss in the Base structure.

The Berm Fill would typically comprise the flowing:

Core to comprise 150mm – 200mm minus, well-graded, min particle size of medium gravel,

less than 5% fines.

Coarser material, up to 900mm minus (same gradation) to be placed on the outer slope and

est o l , as e ui ale t a ou .

The conceptual design will use suitable and readily available coarse granular material. Actual

berm material and final design may vary. As noted above, materials may include blast rock,

bank run (oversize and blends with granular rejects), crushed concrete etc. Coarse refuse (un-

crushed concrete, old shoreline armour, timber cribs) may also be selectively considered, but in

the shallower areas of the berm. Asphalt particulate, fine soils, rail ballast, waste ore, ceramics,

contaminated fill, organics, plastics, general domestic or industrial refuse etc. would not be

acceptable. The trend to fill placement would be coarser from the inner fill slope to the exposed

outer slope. The generalized berm profile is illustrated in Figure 9 below:



Page 30

It would not be our intent to limit any particular fill material, but the selection process would be

such to control the overall level of heterogeneity, drainage performance and stability at the

design slopes within the context of supply and placement cost and project sustainability.

3.1.2 Phase II: Dredge and Placement

3.1.2.1 Historical Perspective

The proposed dredge and placement plan builds on the 1995 program. At that time,

approximately 280,000m3 of marine sediments were dredged to create a new turning basin at

Pacific Coast Terminals (Tarbotton et al. 19997). A berm was constructed at the opening of the

basin to retain dredged material. The berm was successful in retaining material, creating

130,000m2 of seabed at an elevation of 4.5m (local chart datum) (Tarbotton et al. 19997).

The 1995 dredging program tested the sediments to be dredged to identify physical properties.

The properties of the sediments strongly influenced the methodology employed for removal

and placement. These properties included:

higher than anticipated dredged material production or bulking factor;

a high degree of sediment bulking; and,

difficulty with dredge positioning and anchoring as the soft sediments had poor holding

ability (Tarbotton et al. 19997).

Upon discharge, sediments comprised a slurry that flocculates and settles rapidly as

demonstrated by settling column tests (Tarbotton et al. 19997). Three types of settlement

behaviour were observed:

150-200mm minus 900mm minus

500mm minus base

Coarser

Dredge

Fill Ocean

FIGURE 9: PLANNED BERM CONSTRUCTION PROFILE



Page 31

Zone settling (0 to about 8 hours): zone settling is the initial rapid and linear settling of

the slurry/supernatant liquid interface. The mean rate of settling of the interface during

zone settling was 0.11m per hour.

Consolidation settling (8 hours to about 150 hours): consolidation settling is the non-

linear settling that occurs after the initial zone settling. During this settlement water is

being squeezed out of lower layers of sediment as the weight of the overlying layers

bear down. The bulking factor decreases with increasing settlement.

Consolidation (150 hours onward): consolidation is the final stage of settlement during

which the settling essentially stops.

The settling column test results displayed a bulking factor of approximately 2 at 150 hours. In

essence, for every cubic metre of sediment excavated, 2m3 of material would prevail (settle)

after 150 hours. Over time, settlement would proceed, with the bulking factor decreasing, and

the volume of material placed at the disposal site approaching that initially dredged.

The material was placed within the basin in April, 1995 to an elevation of 4.5m. The material

was surveyed in April 2012. Intuitively, after 17 years, it is expected that settlement would

have resulted in a lower elevation, whereby the sea bottom is deeper than what was

determined in 1995. Indeed, the 2012 survey data reveals that this has occurred, with a typical

bed elevation of approximately 6.0m. Settlement has apparently manifested a decrease in the

height of placed material of approximately 1.5m.

The dredging program comprising Phase 1 would be similar to that employed in 1995 including

new and existing placement areas previously described. Disposal would consider the initial

bulking factor of eight (8) associated with settling column test results of Tarbotton et al.

(19997). The bulking factor decreases dramatically to approximately 3.5 after 10 hours. The

operations work plan will modify the rate of dredged material disposal to ensure that the new

retention berm is not overtopped by the unconsolidated slurry.

3.1.2.2 Dredge and Disposal Operations Plan

Dredging will require approximately 70 days. Sequenced activities are generally planned as

follows (and subject to change pending equipment performance):

Begin with the Fraser FRPD 309 to dredge the navigation channel operating 24 hours per

day and 7 days per week (24/7). The overflow chute will be closed. The FRPD 309 will

take on approximately 980m3 of sediment and 3820m3 of water, then transit to the new

contained disposal area to discharge the hopper contents then return to the dredge

channel work area. It is expected to make approximately 9 to 10 sailings per day and

complete this section of the dredge in approximately 42 days.

The next major step is to dredge turning basin using the Columbia cutter dredge. It will

take an estimated 21 days to dredge and dispose via the floating pipeline and diffuser.

Plans are to operate from 7am to 8pm, Monday through Friday, with the occasional

Saturday if needed to keep on schedule.



Page 32

The clamshell may operate concurrently with the cutter-suction dredges for seven days

to dredge the dockface. It will otherwise add approximately three days duration to

complete precision dredging near the Ioco pipelines. PCT is regular communication with

Imperial Oil for safe operations in this area. The pipeline has not been used for over 25

years, but the pipeline has been cleaned of all contents.

The average dredging rate using all three dredgers will be approximately 7800m3 / day.

Dredge spoils will be placed in multiple locations within each containment area. The

new containment area will be used as the primary placement site. The area behind the

existing berm will be used for contingency, most likely for short durations (e.g., <24

hours) to allow settling in the main (new) containment area. This may change pending

operational conditions (i.e., this is an adaptive plan).

The operators will attempt placement of material from higher to lower elevations to

encourage more even settling and minimize voids.

3.2 OPERATING MITIGATION MEASURES

Building on the knowledge obtained from the 1995 dredge, several planning and operational

controls will be implemented to minimize and / or prevent environmental and social impacts

resulting from the project.

The project will be timed to occur:

Within a fisheries window so as to not interfere with sensitive juvenile salmonid

development stages.

During the early to mid-fall season where most residents will be indoors due to typically

poor weather. This will help reduce visual obtrusion and potential noise disturbance.

Within the City of Port Moody Sound Level By-law construction hours limits as much as

possible. Berm construction, dock face dredging (clamshell) and turning basin dredging

(cutter suction) will take place between 7am and 8pm. PCT has request from the City to

operate the FRPD 309 on a 24/7 basis for up to 10 weeks.

Multiple turbidity control measures:

While maintaining operational efficiency, pump velocity rates may be adjusted to help

minimize potential turbidity (1995).

Diffuser installation to reduce discharge velocity (verified by Tarbotton et al. (19997) to

reduce turbidity).

Deployment of silts screens (geotextile, sisal, etc.) to a depth of 6m (20ft) near the

diffuser to trap sediments in the water column that may otherwise escape from the

placement area.

Berm design that accommodates time required for suspended volumes to settle within

the planned containment area.

Allow for temporary shutdowns if indicated by monitoring, although none where

necessary during the 1995 dredge.



Page 33

Potential to further reduce dredge pump rates to, in turn, reduce discharge velocity if

and when necessary when using the cutter suction.

Timely Project Notification:

PCT will work with PMV to ensure that First Nations and stakeholders, including local

residents and water based businesses and interest groups are informed of project

timing and potential short-term impacts (noise, turbidity). Project notification will

follow previous project communications undertaken by PCT and PMV (see Section 6.1,

Preliminary Communication Activities) for additional detail.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Construction Assessment

On February 26, 2014, Mr. Brian Naito of DFO issued a letter of advice indicating that

the proposed works (berm construction and dredging) will not create serious harm to

fish if prescribed mitigation measures are implemented. No fo al app o al is e ui ed from the Program under the Fisheries Act in order to p o eed ith ou p oposal. See

Appendix XI for a copy of the letter.

3.3 POTENTIAL RESIDUAL PROJECT IMPACTS

There are no long-term residual negative impacts expected as a result of the proposed dredge

and placement activities. This is supported by available historical information and related

interpretations as follows:

Recent bathymetric analysis confirmed that 83% of the planned dredge volume

(231,000m3 out of 280,000m3) was successfully deposited behind the berm. It is

otherwise assumed that the remaining 17% entered the water column and was

subsequently deposited elsewhere in the Arm and Burrard Inlet. Consequences of a

likely sediment rain were likely positive in a short-term nutrient distribution followed by

rapid recovery of the benthic community through colonization and reproduction.

Post 1995 dredge monitoring conducted by Tarbotton et al. (19997 stated that ongoing

site e i o e tal o ito i g i di ates a full e o e of the lo al ha itat . Material properties led to rapid settlement as demonstrated by monitoring data

accumulated during dredging. Data indicated quick settling within 100m of the

discharge point and that material largely remained near the seabed after discharge from

the diffuser.

F o a positi e i pa t pe spe ti e, the p oje t offe s se e al lo g-term environmental

benefits:

As a result of an elevated sea bottom (to 4.5m chart datum) achieved through material

placement, the duration and intensity of light reaching the sea bottom is enhanced,

increasing primary productivity (likely through green algae) and hence, foraging

opportunities for benthic invertebrates. Further, as demonstrated by the Ponar Grab

sample data of Adams et al. (2012), there appears to be a relationship between the

abundance of both number and species of invertebrates and subtidal bottom elevations;



Page 34

samples collected at elevations less than 4.5 m chart datum displayed the highest

number of individuals and species.

Many of the benthic invertebrates documented at the shallow elevations are common

prey for commercial fishery species, including flatfishes and Dungeness crab (see Adams

201310). As such, an increase in bottom elevation may result in an increase in the

number of food organisms available to fishery species. Increased prey availability will

likely result in an increase the consumption of prey, and an increase in growth, vigour

and survivorship of fishery species.

An opportunity to reuse clean construction material and aggregates for developing

habitat instead of losing the material as waste to landfills or disposal at a distant

Environment Canada disposal site (e.g., Pt. Grey).

Protecting air quality by selecting the most efficient approach of dredging and direct

placement within the Arm. This approach also offers the shortest duration of potential

noise and visual disturbances to local citizens.

3.4 PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

The proposed monitoring plan significantly expands the geographical and technical scope

undertaken in 1995. Changes include increasing the number of on-shore sampling locations

from two to eight in order to get a more accurate indication of turbidity within the Arm; and

biophysical parameters to assess potential changes caused by sedimentation. The approach

includes logic and correction for natural seasonal events (e.g., avoid algal bloom) and

anthropogenic sources (e.g., tracking in water works). The monitoring program scope will cover

the pre-dredge, dredge and post-dredge periods.

3.4.1 Measured Parameters and Sampling Protocols

Total Suspended Solids

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) provides a measure of the loading of solids within the marine

environment; it will provide an indication of the: potential of sedimentation of intertidal

habitats; fouling of the gills of marine organisms; and the attenuation of light throughout the

water column.

Nephelometric Turbidity Units

Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) provides of measure of the attenuation of light

throughout the water column which, if it persists over an extended duration, can have an effect

on the vigor of benthic algae, kelp and eelgrass.

10

Adams, M.A. 2013. Enhancement of Habitat for Fishery Species. Port Moody Arm – Placement of Dredged

Material. Letter Report addressed to Brian Naito, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, BC. Envirowest

Consultants Inc. Port Coquitlam, BC. 5p.



Page 35

Particle Size Distribution

The distribution of particle sizes of TSS and of sediments will indicate what portion of the initial

TSS readily settles within the immediate zone of influence and what portion may be

transported outside the immediate zone of influence.

Sedimentation

Sediment plates will be utilized to measure sedimentation within the intertidal zone;

sedimentation provides a measure of the prospective impact on benthic/epibenthic/encrusting

invertebrates and algae.

Areal Cover/Abundance of Intertidal Benthic/Epibenthic/Encrusting Invertebrates and Algae

The measure of areal cover and abundance of invertebrates and algae provide an indication of

the response of the biological component of the environment to TSS, NTU and sedimentation.

Note that only CAEAL certified laboratories such as ALS Environmental and Maxaam will be

used for sediment quality analyses.

3.4.2 Sample Locations

Proposed open water and shoreline sample locations are outlined below and shown in

Figure 10. Shoreline locations are situated to monitor the primary zone of influence in Port

Moody Arm. Monitoring stations are not located within Indian Arm as factors extrinsic to

project (e.g., currents, fetch, water uses, fluvial discharge) would confound monitoring data

obtained from such stations.

Open Water Sample Locations

One-hundred (100) and two-hundred (200) metres (to be confirmed) from dredge scow in

aligned in direction of tide, both upstream and downstream (daily NTU during operations).

Similar to the 1995 monitoring program, samples would be taken at one (1) metre gradations to

FIGURE 10: PROPOSED SHORELINE SAMPLE LOCATIONS



Page 36

a depth of 5m. Turbidity limits utilized in 1995 will again be used as criterion for operational

adjustments during dredging. Those limits were: 75 NTU above background, 5m depth and

50m from the vessel.

Shoreline Sample Locations

North Side Port Moody Arm:

Point of Headland at western margin of Burrard Thermal Plant

Sunnyside Beach

Pleasantside Point

Old Mill Park

South Side of Port Moody Arm:

Rocky Point Park

Schoolhouse Creek

Reed Point

Barnet Marine Park

3.4.3 Sample Scheduling & Frequency

Sampling will be done over three (3) distinct phases:

Pre-Dredge: to establish a baseline for measured parameters, representing the pre-

effect condition.

Dredging: to represent the effects condition (during operations, including placement).

Post-Dredge: to represent the recovery phase, which, depending upon extent of

recovery, will provide an indication of the severity of effects.

An initial sampling schedule is shown below in Table 8, Proposed Sampling Frequency, expands

on the 1995 monitoring approach using criteria derived from the BC Water Quality Guidelines.

Frequencies and parameters may be adjusted (with prior consultation and approval with DFO)

pending field sampling results. It is proposed that field sampling teams will consist of approved

monitors with professional credentials and experience and potentially interested members of

local First Nations (e.g., Tsleil Waututh, Squamish and / or Musqueam) for capacity building.



Page 37

TABLE 8: PROPOSED SAMPLING FREQUENCY

3.4.4 Post Dredge Bathymetry

Post dredge soundings will be taken in two locations:

Channel, in order to verify depth achieved; and,

Placement Area, to verify sediment volume relocated.

Initial soundings for the channel and placement area will be done four weeks post dredge.

Soundings will be obtained a second time in the placement area one year post dredge to assess

further settlement (i.e., more accuracy in sediment volume placed).

PARAMETER

DREDGE PHASE & SAMPLING FREQUENCY

PR

E -D

RE

DG

E

July 1

, 20

15

July 1

5, 2

01

5

DR

ED

GE

& P

LAC

EM

EN

T

We

ek 1

(Octo

be

r 15

, 20

15

)

We

ek 2

(Octo

be

r 22

, 20

15

)

We

ek 3

(Octo

be

r 29

, 20

15

)

We

ek 4

(No

vem

be

r 5, 2

01

5)

We

ek 5

(No

vem

be

r 12

,20

15

)

We

ek 6

(No

vem

be

r 19

,20

15

)

We

ek 7

(No

vem

be

r 26

, 20

15

)

We

ek 8

(De

cem

be

r 2, 2

01

5)

We

ek 9

(De

cem

be

r 9, 2

01

5)

We

ek 1

0 (D

ece

mb

er 1

6, 2

01

5)

PO

ST

-DR

ED

GE

We

ek 1

(Jan

ua

ry 25

, 20

16

)

We

ek 2

(Feb

rua

ry 1, 2

01

6)

We

ek 3

(Feb

rua

ry 8, 2

01

6)

We

ek 4

(Feb

rua

ry 15

, 20

16

)

We

ek 3

8 (O

ctob

er 1

0, 2

01

6)

We

ek 4

0 (O

ctob

er 2

4, 2

01

6)

We

ek 4

2 (N

ove

mb

er 7

, 20

16

)

We

ek 4

4 (N

ove

mb

er 2

1, 2

01

6)

We

ek 4

6 (D

ece

mb

er 5

, 20

16

)

We

ek 4

8 (D

ece

mb

er 1

9, 2

01

6)

We

ek 5

2 (Ja

nu

ary 1

6, 2

01

7)

Total Suspended

Solids

NTU

Particle Size

Distribution

Sedimentation

Areal Cover and

Abundance



Page 38

4.0 HABITAT RESTORATION

The placement of dredged material within the new and historic placement areas is compatible

with the work plan to improve marine fish and wildlife habitats at these locations. The plan

defines an optional two-phased approach that includes the opportunity for habitat creation,

whereby material is placed in the designated disposal area to achieve a construction milestone

that produces an intermediary habitat that is more productive and supportive of local fish. This

milestone may subsequently facilitate future development of an island complex (i.e., Phase 2)

that creates upland, intertidal and sub-tidal features characteristic of estuarine environments of

Port Moody and Indian arms. The proponent may seek approval for the island complex under a

separate application process. General concepts for the island complex are provided in

Appendix IX, Habitat Creation / Restoration.

Phase 1 of the work plan would create approximately 230,000m2 of seabed at an elevation of

4.5m chart datum. A similar area of seabed predominantly within the elevation range of

approximately 5.0m to 12.0m chart datum would be impacted by the placement of dredged

material.

The bed elevation of 4.5m set for material placement during the 1995 work program was

sele ted ith the goal of increasing the area of biologically productive shallow sub-tidal

sea ed Ta otte et al. 1999). Regulatory agencies accepted the premise of enhanced benthic

productivity through approval of the work program. It is interpreted that the premise for

enhanced benthic productivity is founded upon the increase in irradiance of the seabed, in

terms of both intensity and duration, thereby increasing primary productivity (predominantly

by benthic mats of algae) of the bottom of Port Moody Arm. Light attenuation through the

water column decreases with decreasing depth.

The majority of the 1995 placement area sea bed rests at 6.0m chart datum. Typically, within

waters of coastal British Columbia not unduly affected by suspended solids, green algae

typically do not occur below 6.0m chart elevation. The lower limit for green algae within Port

Moody Arm is likely considerably less than 6.0m elevation. Port Moody Arm receives

considerable loading of suspended solids from stormwater sewers and creeks. The catchment

areas of these drainages are highly urbanized. As such, current benthic productivity, based

upon the premise of increased irradiance and the subsequent increase in primary productivity

attributable to algae, is likely only marginally greater than the pre-1995 condition.

The increased irradiance of the sea bottom under the current design scenario will manifest an

increase in primary productivity within the benthic environment. This increase in primary

productivity is anticipated to result in an increase in the production of benthic invertebrates

that are common prey for fishery species that occur within Port Moody Arm. Increased prey

availability is anticipated to translate into increased prey consumption resulting in the increase

in the production of fishery species.



Page 39

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 GENERAL CRITERIA

The geotechnical behaviour of hydraulically-placed fill in a marine environment is different from

that experienced on terrestrial land. The density, gradation and plasticity of the fill significantly

influence the strength of the material through shear. As consolidation and settlement take

place, induced pore pressures in the fill dissipate and shear strength increases; the rate of

consolidation is important in this regard and thus the method and rate of fill placement may

need to be controlled. The fill thickness itself results in additional load on the native sub-base

and thus bearing capacity and stability of the marine sediments must be addressed in terms of

providing overall support for an earth structure such as that contemplated in Phase 2. Lastly, in

BC, the potential for liquefaction and seismic failure is also a design issue; however,

consequences of such an event are negligible for the containment berm or future uninhabited

islands.

5.2 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF CONTAINMENT AREA

The conceptual design at present presumes containment of the fill with toe berms to local low

water chart datum. As previously described (Section 3.1.2.1), the berms would provide for

635,00m3 of containment to local low water chart datum.

This design minimizes geotechnical concerns significantly in that containment is provided, thus

controlling the dispersion of the hydraulically-placed fill and ensuring minimal scour velocities

as the water in the fill is displaced.



Page 40

6.0 COMMUNITY AND FIRST NATIONS

6.1 PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES

Building on a history of open communication, PCT has taken several steps to date to inform and

engage stakeholders. These communications were initiated to help foster long-term positive

and productive relationships well beyond the immediate project horizon. These

communications are not a substitute in any way for the PMV duty to consult. A summary of key

activities to date include:

Preliminary and interim project disclosure to City of Port Moody council and mayor

(beginning 2012). Members of council have toured the site and have received three

formal presentations that included information on the project. More recently in 2015,

the City was requested to consider a request to dredge 24/7 with supporting

information to minimize and / or avoid community disturbance.

Preliminary project notification and meeting requests to Musqueam, Squamish and

Tsleil-Waututh Nations (letter issued December 2011 - see Appendix X for copy of

letter).

Interim project Information sharing meetings with Tselil-Waututh Nation (TWN) and

Squamish Nation to 2013. Among the potential outcomes discussed was capacity

building for with respect to project monitoring activities.

Circulation of key project milestones (e.g., sediment characterization results) to the

Musqueam, Squamish, Stó:lō and TWN. (Note: A record of all communications with

these First Nations has been compiled and maintained as part of project records).

Detailed information on the project, reference documents and public communications

has ee kept u e t o a dedi ated e site se tio e titled G o i g Ou Busi ess at www.pct.ca/growing-our-business. Community Open Houses hosted by PCT were

held on several occasions at the Rocky Point Sailing Club to discuss expansion plans

including the dredge project (e.g., , June 2013, September 2013, September 2014).

Multiple meetings with industrial neighbors including Mill & Timber and to ensure

project awareness and minimize potential disruption to waterfront operations.

Dialogue with the Port Moody Ecological Society, Mossom Creek Hatchery and Burke

Mountain Naturalists regarding habitat enhancement.

Ongoing community notification and engagement activities include:

Pu lishi g Channels , PCT’s o u it newsletter every 4 months, available online

from our website and in hard copy. Information on the expansion project, including

dredge information on occasion, has been included in every newsletter since July 2012.

The May 2012 and May 2015 issues include community surveys that gauge and

e h a k the eside t’s a a e ess of PCT ope ations and performance and allow for

public feedback.

PCT’s e site, Fa e ook page, T itte a ou t a d YouTu e ha el a e updated ith new information and details of project work as appropriate.

http://www.pct.ca/growing-our-business



Page 41

Communications with First Nations has also generated potential interest in partnership and

capacity building. Key activities may include water quality and on-shore monitoring and on-

board observations during dredge and placement operations.

6.2 PLANNING ALIGNMENT

Through ongoing communications and project planning, PCT has designed the dredge and

placement activities intended to align with numerous local and regional plans and initiatives

represented by a wide variety of stakeholders as follows:

PMV Project Application Process

Tsleil-Waututh Nation Stewardship Policy, Marine (and Salmon) Stewardship

City of Port Moody

Port Moody Ecological Society.



Page 42

7.0 CONCLUSION

The PCT proposal to deepen the navigation channel is critical to long-term viability of our

business and the safety of marine vessels that transit the Arm to and from our site. We have

assembled the most logical approach that meets environmental, social and economic

objectives. In summary, our approach:

Improves on proven 1995 approach with even higher anticipated material placement

rate efficiency (e.g., 90% plus).

Will effectively control and limit turbidity to short duration and remain predominantly

within the immediate project area.

Is not expected to cause serious harm to fish. The dredge cut will cause a temporary

disturbance of the local seabed community that is expected to recover in a short period.

Will help restore historical fish habitats instead losi g ate ial as aste disposi g at the distance Pt. Grey disposal site. Furthermore, it may become foundation for an

innovative island complex for additional habitat enhancement.

Creates the shortest operational duration to limit potential noise and visual disturbance.

Is the lowest of all options for generating GHGs (lowest CO2e profile including berm

placement).

Provides the basis of anticipated partnership with First Nation(s) for environmental

monitoring (e.g. water quality).



Page Left Blank Intentionally.

Documents

PORT MOODY ARM - Vancouver Fraser Port Authority · Port Moody Arm Channel Dredge Project Environmental Review Document Page ii PCT Dredge Project Env Review Doc Sent May 12 2015.docx