BC Ferries Buckley Bay and Denman Island West Terminals

Transcription

January 18, 2011
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BC Ferries Buckley Bay and
Denman Island West Terminals Proposed Cable Ferry
Conducted in Compliance with the
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Prepared for:
British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.
REPORT
Prepared by:
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
Report Number:
09-1477-0029
Distribution:
2 Copies – British Columbia Ferry Services Inc
1 Copy – Fisheries and Oceans Canada
1 Copy – Transport Canada
1 Copy – Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
2 Copies – Golder Associates Ltd.
PROPOSED CABLE FERRY EA SCREENING REPORT
Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION............................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 CONTACTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT (S.5.(1)) ....................................................................................... 3 4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Nature of Project and Main Components ............................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Description of Project Activities ........................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Project Schedule.................................................................................................................................................. 7 4.4 Purpose of the Project – Justification / Need (s.16.(2)(a)) ................................................................................... 7 4.5 Alternatives to the Project (s.16.(2)(c)) ................................................................................................................ 8 4.6 Scope of Project (s.15) ........................................................................................................................................ 8 4.6.1 Project Components (s.15.(3)) ....................................................................................................................... 8 4.6.2 Scope of Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 10 4.6.3 Spatial Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 10 4.6.4 Temporal Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 10 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................. 13 5.1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................... 13 5.2 Background - Previous Investigations/Studies ................................................................................................... 14 5.3 Description of Physical Environment ................................................................................................................. 14 5.3.1 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 5.3.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 15 5.3.3 Ambient Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 15 5.3.4 Geology / Terrain ......................................................................................................................................... 15 5.3.5 Surface Water .............................................................................................................................................. 16 5.4 Description of Biological Environment ............................................................................................................... 16 5.4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 16 5.4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 17 5.4.3 Aquatic Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 17 5.4.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 19 January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
i
5.4.5 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................................. 20 5.4.6 Marine Mammals ......................................................................................................................................... 21 5.4.7 Rare and Endangered Species .................................................................................................................... 21 5.4.8 Resource Use .............................................................................................................................................. 22 5.4.9 Marine Biology Summary ............................................................................................................................. 26 5.4.10 Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC) ....................................................................................................... 28 6.0 SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................ 29 6.1 Human Health & Safety ..................................................................................................................................... 29 6.2 Navigation .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 6.3 First Nations ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 6.4 Archaeology ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 6.4.1 Buckley Bay Terminal .................................................................................................................................. 31 6.4.1.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................... 31 6.4.1.2 Heritage Wrecks ....................................................................................................................................... 32 6.4.1.3 Previous Archaeological Studies .............................................................................................................. 32 6.4.1.4 Archaeological Potential ........................................................................................................................... 33 6.4.2 Denman Island Terminal .............................................................................................................................. 34 6.4.2.1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites ............................................................................................... 34 6.4.2.2 Heritage Wrecks ....................................................................................................................................... 34 6.4.2.3 Previous Archaeological Studies .............................................................................................................. 35 6.4.2.4 Disturbance .............................................................................................................................................. 35 6.4.2.5 Archaeological Potential ........................................................................................................................... 35 7.0 COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 7.1 First Nations, Public, and Key Stakeholder Consultation (s.16.(1)(c); s.18.(3)) ................................................. 37 7.1.1 First Nations Consultation ............................................................................................................................ 37 7.1.2 Public Consultation ...................................................................................................................................... 43 7.1.3 Key Stakeholder Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 43 7.2 Provincial Agency Communications................................................................................................................... 44 7.3 Federal Coordination (s.12.(1)(3)) ..................................................................................................................... 44 8.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, SIGNIFICANCE AND MITIGATION (S.16.(1); S.20.(2)) ................. 46 8.1 Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project ........................................................................................... 46 January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
ii
8.1.1 8.2 Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 47 Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment ........................................................................................... 47 8.2.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 48 8.2.2 Ambient Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 48 8.2.3 Geology Terrain ........................................................................................................................................... 49 8.2.4 Surface Water .............................................................................................................................................. 50 8.2.5 Terrestrial Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 54 8.2.6 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 54 8.2.7 Aquatic Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 54 8.2.8 Fish and Fish Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 55 8.2.9 Migratory Birds ............................................................................................................................................. 58 8.2.10 Marine Mammals ......................................................................................................................................... 59 8.2.11 Resource Use .............................................................................................................................................. 60 8.2.12 First Nations ................................................................................................................................................. 61 8.2.13 Archaeology ................................................................................................................................................. 61 8.2.14 Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................................................ 62 8.2.15 Navigation .................................................................................................................................................... 63 8.3 Accidents and Malfunctions ............................................................................................................................... 64 8.4 Summary of Residual Adverse Effects (s.16.(1)(b))........................................................................................... 65 8.5 Cumulative Effects (s.16.(1)(a)) ......................................................................................................................... 65 8.5.1 Past Developments ...................................................................................................................................... 65 8.5.2 Proposed Future Developments .................................................................................................................. 65 8.6 Recommendations for Compensation to Address Potential HADD ................................................................... 66 8.6.1 Compensation Proposed at Buckley Bay Terminal ...................................................................................... 66 8.6.2 Compensation Proposed at Denman Island West Terminal......................................................................... 66 8.7 Follow-up (s.14.(c); s.16.(2)(c)) ......................................................................................................................... 66 8.8 Summary and Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 68 9.0 CEAA DETERMINATION (S.20.(1)) ............................................................................................................................... 69 10.0 CLOSURE....................................................................................................................................................................... 70 11.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................................ 71 January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
iii
TABLES
Table 1: Project Components / Activities .................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Potential Project-Environment Interaction Matrix........................................................................................................ 11 Table 3: Summary of Sensitive Ecosystem Features ............................................................................................................... 28 Table 4: Marine Habitat Balance Sheet .................................................................................................................................... 55 FIGURES
Figure 1: Buckley Bay and Denman Island West Ferry Terminals Cable Route
Figure 2: Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal – Site Plan and Approximate Locations of Intertidal Transects
Figure 3: Denman Island West Ferry Terminal – Site Plan and Approximate Locations of Intertidal Transects
Figure 4: Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal – Floating Pontoon and Ramp
Figure 5: Denman Island West Ferry Terminal – Floating Pontoon and Ramp
Figure 6: Denman West Terminal – Proposed Landing / Queue Area Upgrades
Figure 7: Cumulative Herring Spawn Map in Herring Section 142
Figure 8: Plot Showing Frequency of Herring Spawn Events at Km 0 to 100 in Herring Section 142
Figure 9: Plot Showing Frequency of Herring Spawn Events at Km 100 to 144 in Herring Section 142
Figure 10: Record of Catch and Spawners in Herring Section 142
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Marine Biophysical Inventories at Buckley Bay, Denman Island and Hornby Island Ferry Terminals (DVD).
APPENDIX II
Archaeological Overview Assessment for BC Ferries Terminal at Buckley Bay, Denman Island West, Denman Island East
and Hornby Island, BC.
APPENDIX III
Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Practices.
APPENDIX IV
Table A4 - 1 – Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project Analysis.
Table A4 - 2 – Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment Analysis.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
iv
1.0 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Environmental Assessment Report
Conducted in Compliance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Name of Project:
Proposed installation of a cable ferry system and supporting terminal structures
for services on Route 21 in Baynes Sound, between Buckley Bay terminal and
Denman Island West terminal (the Project).
Project Location:
Baynes Sound, an arm of Strait of Georgia, is located along the east coast of
Vancouver Island. The Project would be sited at the existing ferry facilities in
Buckley Bay (49º 31’ 33” N; 124º 50 52 W) and Denman Island (49º 32’ 06” N;
124º 49’ 24” W).
EA Type:
Screening Level EA
EA Trigger:
CEAA Section 5(1)d, Law List Trigger
EA Start Date:
Prepared For:
Nov 28, 2010
BC Ferry Services Inc. (BCFS)
Project No:
09-1477-0029
EA Trigger:
CEAA Section 5(1)d, Law List Trigger: CEAA is applicable to any project where
a federal authority “exercises a regulatory duty in relation to a project, such as
issuing a permit or license that is included in the Law List prescribed by the
regulations to the Act”. The federal permit required for the Project consists of a
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Fisheries Act Section 35(2) approval.
Lead Responsible
Authority (RA):
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Scott Northrup - Habitat Management
3225 Stephenson Point Road
Nanaimo, BC V9T 1K3
P: 250-756-7275
F: 250-756-7162
Scott.Northrup@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Other RA(s):
CEAR Reference No:
Transport Canada
10-01-59563
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
1
2.0
CONTACTS

Proponent: Kelly Wheeler
Senior Business Analyst, Treasury
Suite 500 - 1321 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC V8W 0B7
T: 250-978-1303
C: 250-516-1247
F: 250-388-0616
Kelly.Wheeler@bcferries.com

Consultant (Environmental & Permitting):
Dave Munday, R.P.Bio. and Philippe Rouget, R.P.Bio.
Golder Associates Ltd.
2640 Douglas Street.
Victoria, BC. V8T 4M1
P: 250-881-7372
C: 250-888-1100
F: 250-881-7470
prouget@golder.com; dmunday@golder.com
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
2
3.0
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT (S.5.(1))
The Federal government is required to undertake Environmental Screenings of projects in accordance with the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). CEAA states responsibilities and procedures for the
environmental assessment of projects involving the Federal government. The Act also establishes a process for
determining the environmental effects of projects. CEAA is applicable to any project where a federal authority
performs one or more of the following CEAA triggers in respect of a project:

Is the proponent of a project (Section 5.(1)(a));

Grants money or any other form of financial assistance to the project (Section 5.(1)(b));

Leases, sells or disposes of land to enable a project to be carried out (Section 5.(1)(c)); or,

Exercises a regulatory duty in relation to a project, such as issuing a permit or license that is included in the
Law List prescribed by the regulations to the Act (Section 5.1(d)).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
3
4.0
4.1
PROJECT INFORMATION
Nature of Project and Main Components
BC Ferriy Services Inc. (BCFS) is proposing to modify infrastructure to support a cable ferry service in
Baynes Sound that would replace the existing conventional diesel ferry service on Route 21 between Buckley
Bay terminal and Denman Island West terminal. Buckley Bay ferry terminal is located on the east coast of
Vancouver Island approximately 82 km north of Nanaimo and 22 km south of Courtenay. Denman Island West
ferry terminal is located approximately 2 km directly offshore from the Buckley Bay ferry terminal (Figure 1).
Modifications at both terminals will result in minor alterations to the existing footprints of these facilities in the
marine environment.
Cable ferry service has significant potential to provide socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable
water-based transportation, as part of BCFS’ commitment to green transport systems that meet the needs of
coastal communities. A cable ferry system offers the following advantages over the existing conventional ferry
system in Baynes Sound:

Reduced fuel consumption and reduced air emissions (CO2 footprint). BCFS estimates that the cable
ferry system will consume 122,000 liters less of fuel on an annual basis (equivalent to 332,596 kg of
CO2 emissions).

If the present ferry system is to be maintained, replacement of the existing Denman Island West
terminal will be required by 2014 due to current operational and vessel requirements. This would result
in a new footprint and physical impacts to previously undisturbed fish and fish habitat. A cable ferry
system could however be implemented with only minor alterations to the existing berth structure
footprints.

Elimination of propeller wash and associated bottom scour effects in the nearshore environment. This
will result in the recovery of benthic habitat presently disturbed in these areas.

Reduction in vessel noise and associated environmental / social impacts (in-air and underwater).

Reduction in operational and capital costs.

Retention of existing schedule frequency.

Increased mechanical reliability resulting in lower interruption of ferry services.

Excellent sea-keeping performance and reliability making the cable ferry system suitable for application
in Baynes Sound.

Increased navigational safety advantages with the ability to stop over a very short distance and travel in
reverse direction (critical in emergency situations).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
4
The proposed cable ferry service in Baynes Sound offers a direct opportunity to replace the existing berthing
facilities with the additional benefit of demonstrating environmentally acceptable and sustainable ferry service in
British Columbia. The Project would be sited at the existing ferry facilities in Buckley Bay (49º 31’ 33” N;
124º 50 52 W) and Denman Island (49º 32’ 06” N; 124º 49’ 24” W), and as currently designed would require
additional Crown land in the form of an expanded waterlot area to accommodate planned changes to the
Denman Island West ferry terminal. The Buckley Bay ferry terminal currently occupies District Lot (D.L.)
2051 and 2070, Nanaimo District (Ministry of Natural Resource Office (MNRO) File # 1413802) under a
Crown Provincial lease agreement. Denman Island West ferry terminal currently occupies D.L. 2053, Nanaimo
District (MNRO File # 1413802) under a Crown Provincial lease agreement. The proponent is in the process of
completing a crown land tenure lease application with MNRO to expand its current water lease lot at
Denman Island West (D.L. 2053) to allow for the proposed expanded ferry facility.
The proposed cable ferry will replace the existing ferry services, and will require additional infrastructure specific
to cable ferry operations. Project works will result in minor alterations to existing berthing structures and
associated footprints in the marine environment. The location of the new infrastructure relative to existing
terminal structures is illustrated in Figures 1 to 3. The Project has the potential to affect fish and fish habitat.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for the protection and management of fish and fish habitat
under the authority of the Fisheries Act (DFO 2010a). The Fisheries Act, Section 35(1), stipulates that no
“harmful, alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat” (HADD) is permitted without authorization by DFO.
Marine habitat compensation may be required if the works associated with the Project result in a harmful
alteration, disruption, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat1. The potential for a HADD in the proposed project
area and the requirement for authorization from DFO under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act trigger an
environmental screening under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The potential effects
associated with the Project as they relate to navigable waters include the interaction of Project works/operations
with local navigation. As such, the Project will require review and approval under the Navigable Waters
Protection Act (NWPA), as managed by Transport Canada.
The location of Project works, as well as the description of the Project design was extrapolated from figures
provided by WorleyParsons Westmar (Westmar). The set of figures used for the assessment are labelled as:

Cable Ferry Feasibility Study – Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal Floating Pontoon & Ramp – Option 1 – General
Arrangement; Drawing No: 08637-SK-010; dated September 10, 2010 (see Figure 4);

Cable Ferry Feasibility Study – Denman Island West Ferry Terminal Floating Pontoon & Ramp – Option 1 –
General Arrangement; Drawing No: 08637-SK-050; dated September 10, 2010 (see Figure 5); and,

Denman West Terminal - Proposed Landing / Queue area upgrades – Site Plan; dated September 10, 2010
(see Figure 6).
1
Fish are defined under the federal Fisheries Act as “shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of shellfish, crustaceans or marine
animals, and the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals”. Fish habitat is
defined under the federal Fisheries Act as “spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend
directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes”.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
5
4.2
Description of Project Activities
In-water works will include the following components:
Buckley Bay Terminal:


Installation of four (4) new steel vertical piles (914 mm Ø) to support abutment at ramp (See “A” Figure 2);


A vibro-hammer will be used to install all piles;


Expansion of existing fill area by approximately 240 m2 (See “E” Figure 2); and,
Installation of two (2) new dolphins to support floating concrete pontoon, each consisting of one (1) steel
vertical pile (1067 mm Ø) and two (2) steel batter piles (610 mm Ø) (See “B” Figure 2);
Installation of a concrete abutment, a floating concrete platform (approx. 23 m x 17 m) (See “C” Figure 2)
and a fabricated steel ramp with roadway grating (approx. 32 m x 8 m) (See “D” Figure 2);
Temporary use of a construction barge in the subtidal region.
Denman Island West Terminal:


Installation of four (4) new steel vertical piles (914 mm Ø) to support abutment at ramp (See “F” Figure 3);


A vibro-hammer will be used to install all piles;


Expansion of existing riprap apron by approximately 1785 m2 (compound expansion) (See “J” Figure 3);

Installation of a storm water outfall (150 Ø mm PVC encased in concrete combined with oil and grease
separator) on east side of existing terminal; terminate outfall at +4 m (chart datum) (See “L” Figure 3); and,

Temporary use of a construction barge in the subtidal region.
Installation of two (2) new dolphins to support floating concrete pontoon, each consisting of one (1) steel
vertical pile (1067 mm Ø) and two (2) steel batter piles (610 mm Ø) (See “G” Figure 3);
Installation of a concrete abutment, a floating concrete platform (approx. 23 m x 17 m) (See “H” Figure 3)
and a fabricated steel ramp with roadway grating (approx. 32 m x 8 m) (See “I” Figure 3);
Installation of a storm water outfall (150 Ø mm PVC encased in concrete combined with oil and grease
separator) on west side of existing terminal; terminate outfall at +1 m (chart datum) (See “K” Figure 3);
Cable Corridor - Baynes Sound:

Installation of three (3) 1-1/2” DIA SWR cables, one (1) traction, and two (2) cable guides at concrete
abutment;


Installation of a cable ferry with capacity for 150 PAX and 50 AEQ; and,
Temporary use of tug support during cable laying activities in the subtidal region.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
6
Cable Ferry Operations
The cable ferry will operate by pulling itself along a single drive cable running down the center of vessel.
Vessel orientation along cable is controlled using brakes applied to the drive cable. The vessel is guided by
guide cables located on either side of the vessel. The 3-cable system will be anchored to a shore-based
structure at both terminals. During crossings, the vessel will draw in the cable at the bow end, and release
(lower) the cable off the stern end, as the vessel makes way. A modeling study completed for the proposed
cable ferry operation (EYE 2010) indicated that the cable will not come into contact with the seafloor at any point
within 250 m of shore at either terminal (no cable scouring effects are anticipated in nearshore subtidal areas).
The design of the cable system is such that cable contact with the seafloor will be limited to the deepwater
segments of the seafloor (corresponding with water depths > 18 m (chart datum) in western Baynes Sound and
water depths > 25 m (chart datum) in eastern Baynes Sound) (EYE 2010).
Terrestrial works at both terminals will include:



Paving of existing and new fill areas;


Installation / replacement of new conduits / utilities; and,
4.3
Painting markings in new paved areas;
Placement of new fill within boundaries of existing compound to accommodate new ramp abutments and
expanded holding compound (Denman Island West only);
Installation of green space / bioswale adjacent to new rip rap apron.
Project Schedule
BCFS plans to have all required approvals in place prior to construction, which will commence in January 2012.
The anticipated date of completion for Project construction is scheduled for March 2013.
4.4
Purpose of the Project – Justification / Need (s.16.(2)(a))
A cable ferry will require less maintenance, and fewer crew members to operate safely. Reduced operational
and capital costs will result in economic and social benefits to ferry passengers. In addition, lower fuel
consumption will reduce the carbon footprint of the operation. Cable ferries also offer reduced air and water
pollution and decreased noise impacts. In addition, the cable ferry is anticipated to have excellent sea-keeping
performance and reliability in open water making it suitable for operations in Baynes Sound.
Safe, reliable, and low-impact waterborne transportation is an essential element in the move towards
environmental sustainability in coastal communities. For residents along the Pacific Coast, the need for
alternative transportation measures to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and reduce congestion on roadways is
a recurring and urgent theme. Cable ferry service has significant potential to provide socially, environmentally,
and economically sustainable ferry service with direct application to local commuters, transportation of goods,
and tourism. The project offers a direct opportunity to share and demonstrate an environmentally acceptable and
sustainable ferry service in British Columbia.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
7
4.5
Alternatives to the Project (s.16.(2)(c))
The alternative to the Project would be to maintain status quo (keeping the existing conventional ferry system)
which would necessitate building a new trestle and berth adjacent to the existing Denman Island West terminal
as the existing structures are due for replacement (no modifications would be immediately required at
Buckley Bay terminal). Maintaining the existing ferry system would thus involve increased construction,
operational and maintenance costs, and additional physical impacts to the marine environment in a new footprint
area. Additionally, higher fuel consumption would result in higher daily carbon emissions attributable to the ferry
route.
4.6
4.6.1
Scope of Project (s.15)
Project Components (s.15.(3))
Components of the project considered in this EA have been outlined in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Project Components / Activities
Project Components
Project Phase
Site Preparation
Principal Project Activities

Equipment Mobilization
BUCKLEY BAY

Installation of a floating concrete pontoon
(391 m2)

Installation of steel ramp with roadway grating
(256m2)

Installation of electrical service from new
pontoon to electrical room

Installation of two (2) new dolphins to support
floating concrete pontoon, each consisting of
one (1) steel vertical pile (1067 mm Ø) and
two (2) steel batter piles (610 mm Ø)
Construction
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
Description

Barge equipped with
construction equipment will be
mobilized on site

Existing berths / infrastructure
will remain in place.

New floating concrete pontoon
will be constructed offsite
floated to site, and connected to
ramp abutment

New ramp to be lifted into
position (connecting pontoon to
ramp abutment)

Concrete will be poured on site
as required for piling

A barge-mounted vibro-hammer
will be used to install all new
piles

Installation of four (4) new steel vertical piles
(914 mm Ø) to support abutment at ramp

Expansion of existing riprap apron by
approximately 240 m2


Temporary use of a construction barge in the
subtidal region.
New fill material will be sourced
off-site.

No blasting or dredging
activities required
8
Project Components
Project Phase
DENMAN ISLAND

Installation of a floating concrete pontoon
(391 m2)

Installation of steel ramp with roadway grating
(256m2)

Installing electrical services from new
pontoon to electrical room

Installation of two (2) new dolphins to support
floating concrete pontoon, each consisting of
one (1) steel vertical pile (1067 mm Ø) and
two (2) steel batter piles (610 mm Ø)

Existing berths / infrastructure
will remain in place

New floating concrete pontoon
will be constructed offsite
floated to site, and connected to
ramp abutment

New ramp to be lifted into
position (connecting pontoon to
ramp abutment)

Concrete will be poured on site
as required for piling

A barge-mounted vibro-hammer
will be used to install all new
piles

Installation of four (4) new steel vertical piles
(914 mm Ø) to support abutment at ramp

Expansion of existing riprap apron by
approximately 1785 m2


Installation of two (2) storm water outfalls with
oil and grease separators
New fill material will be sourced
off-site.






Installation of new conduits in new fill area
Storm water outfalls will be
located on east (+4 m) and
west side of existing terminal
(+1 m) - outfall consisting of
150 Ø mm PVC encased in
concrete

No
blasting
or
activities required

Temporary use of a construction barge in the
subtidal region.

Cable ferry will operate by
pulling itself along a single drive
cable running down the center
of vessel.

Vessel orientation along cable
is controlled using brakes
applied to the drive cable.

Vessel is guided by guide
cables located on either side of
the vessel. The 3-cable system
will be anchored to a shorebased structure at both
terminals.

Cables will come into contact
with the seafloor at varying
points in the deepwater
Installation of new utilities in new fill area
Paving expanded/new fill areas with asphalt
Painting road markings on new paved areas
Landscaping new green space areas on
uplands site
CABLE CORRIDOR
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
Description

Installation of three (3) 1-1/2” DIA SWR
cables, one (1) traction, and two (2) cable
guides at concrete abutment;

Temporary use of tug support during cable
laying activities in the subtidal region.
9
dredging
Project Components
Project Phase
Description
sections of Baynes Sound as it
traverses.
Operation

Operation of a cable ferry with capacity for
150 PAX and 50 AEQ.
Decommissioning
/ Abandonment

None anticipated at this time
4.6.2

Cable system is designed such
that the cable will avoid contact
with the seafloor at any point
within 250 m of shore at either
terminal (corresponding with
the ~18 m depth contour off
Buckley Bay terminal and the
~25 m depth contour off
Denman West terminal). No
cable scouring effects are
anticipated in nearshore
subtidal areas.

Ferry schedule is to remain the
same as current operations
(approx. 17 departures from
each terminal per day).

N/A
Scope of Assessment
The Scope of this Assessment includes the environmental components identified in Table 2.
4.6.3
Spatial Scope
Spatially, this assessment includes the areas within the lands and water lots that comprise the existing Buckley
Bay and Denman Island West terminals; and includes the area proposed for the cable corridor in Baynes Sound.
DFO will also consider, for a Fisheries Act Section 35(2) Authorization, the potential area for the placement of
compensatory habitat if applicable.
4.6.4
Temporal Scope
The temporal scope of this Project includes the site preparation/construction and the operational/maintenance
phases of the Project. No abandonment or decommissioning for this Project is anticipated as continued public
demand for ferry services is expected. Site preparation and construction will occur in January 2012 and is
expected to be completed by March 2013. Ferry operations will continue operating on current ferry schedules.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
10
Table 2: Potential Project-Environment Interaction Matrix
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Vibration
Acoustic environment
X
X
X
Historical / Archaeological
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cultural
Aboriginal Use
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other:
X
X
X
X
X
X
Land Use
X
Navigation Related
X
Human Health / Safety
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Resource Use
X
X
X
X
X
Marine Vegetation
X
Fish and Fish Habitat
X
Wildlife / Wildlife Habitat
X
X
Migratory Birds
Wetlands
Terrestrial Vegetation
X
X
X
SocioEconomic
Natural Systems
Other
Climate Change
Air Quality
Wind/Wave Regime
Air
Groundwater Quantity
Groundwater Quality
Surface Water Quantity
Surface Water Quality
Other
Erosion / Slope Stability
Soil Quality
Water
Species at Risk
Site Preparation:
Equipment Mobilization
Construction:
Installation of piles (vibrohammer)
Expansion of riprap apron
Installation of concrete pontoon
Installation of ferry cable
Installation of grated steel ramp
Installation of storm water outfalls
Installation of new conduit/utilities
Paving new fill areas
Painting markings - paved areas
Installation of bioswale/green space
Operation:
Operation of cable ferry
Decommissioning:
NA
Abandonment:
NA
Accident / Malfunctions
Terrain and Topography
List each project phase and
project components described
in the proponent’s project
description.
Sediments
Land
PROJECT PHASES /
COMPONENTS
Indirect Env. Effects1
Physical / Cultural heritage
Direct Environmental Effect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
X X
X X
X
X X
- - X
X
-
-
This environmental assessment considers changes to the biophysical environment caused by the project, as well
as any resultant effects on the socio-economic environment by scoping for appropriate Valued Ecosystem
Components (VECs) and Valued Social Components (VSCs). For this project, VECs were selected based on
ecological importance and/or value to the existing environment, the relative sensitivity of environmental
components to project influences and their relative social, cultural, or economic importance. VSCs include
components of the socio-economic environment that may be affected by a change in the environment as a result
of the project. VECs and VSCs for this project were chosen using the checklist in Table 2. Only those linkages
considered to be valid have been carried forward in the impact assessment. Some effects may be linked to
multiple VECs/VSCs, but are only discussed in the VEC for which they are most relevant to avoid repetition. For
example, the effects of the Project on the local herring fishery have been assessed under Resource Use, even
though this interaction is inherently linked to other components (local economy, employment, and First Nations).
Consideration was made for all aspects of the project life cycle identified in the Scope of Project.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
12
5.0
5.1
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Literature Review
Information describing the existing environment in, and adjacent to, the site was compiled from a review of
relevant on-line resource databases, reports made available by BCFS, available maps and site plans, published
and unpublished literature specific to marine resources in the Project area, and consultation with local
stakeholders and regulatory agencies. For all components, this included one or more of the following sources:

DFO maintained online databases, including Mapster (DFO 2010c) and herring spawn records
(DFO 2010d);

Ministry of Environment (MOE) BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer – Species and Ecosystems Search
(MOE 2010a) - includes records on rare and endangered species that have been identified or may
potentially occur within the vicinity of the Project.

Ministry of Environment (MOE) Coastal Resource Management Information System (CRIS) database
(MOE 2010b).


The Georgia Strait Alliance (GSA) database (GSA 2010).


Scientific literature on local and regional species.
Sensitive Habitat Inventory Mapping (SHIM 2010) database and associated databases and atlases such as
the Pacific Coastal Resources Atlas (PCRA 2010).
Government publications and reports.
A review of previous investigations conducted in the Project areas was also conducted to gather background
information specific to these areas.
Information presented in the Biophysical section (Section 5.3 and Section 5.4), First Nations section
(Section 6.3), and Archaeological section (Section 6.4) was based on data collected as part of the following
investigations:

2005 Marine Environmental Assessment Report for Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal Expansion (Archipelago
2005).

2005 Screening Level Environmental Assessment for Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal Berth Replacement
(SEACOR 2005);

2006 Environmental Monitoring and As-built Habitat Compensation Report for Buckley Bay Terminal
(Archipelago 2006).

2008 Marine Biophysical Inventories Report for Buckley Bay, Denman Island and Hornby Island Ferry
Terminals (Archipelago 2009).

2010 Archaeological Overview Assessment Report conducted for Buckley Bay, Denman Island and Hornby
Island Ferry Terminals (Golder 2010a; Appendix II).

2010 Project Description and Marine Biophysical Assessment for Proposed Modifications at BCFS Buckley
Bay and Denman Island West Terminals, BC (Golder 2010b).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
13
5.2
Background - Previous Investigations/Studies
In 2006, BC Ferries realigned and replaced the berth at the Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal. The project was subject
to a CEAA Screening Environmental Assessment (Registry number 05-01-16144) completed by SEACOR
(2005). The SEACOR report was supported by a marine environmental assessment conducted by Archipelago
Marine Research Ltd. (Archipelago 2005). Archipelago (2005) identified that construction of the new berth would
result in a net loss of 673m2. In accordance with the DFO objective of “No Net Loss” of fish habitat, Archipelago
(2005) recommended that the net habitat loss be compensated for by constructing a set of conical rock-reef
structures placed along the southeast side of the terminal. DFO issued Authorization 05-HPAC-PAC-000-000169
for the HADD associated with the project, and approved the compensation works recommended by Archipelago
(Archipelago 2005). An additional 200 m2 of eelgrass beds were subsequently planted in 2006 by Sea Change
Marine Conservation Society (Archipelago 2006). Compensatory habitat was subsequently constructed under
terms of a Fisheries Act Authorization and resulted in a positive habitat balance of 61 m2.
In 2008, Archipelago completed marine biophysical inventories at Buckley Bay and Denman Island West
terminals, and along the proposed cable ferry alignment in support of the BCFS feasibility study for cable ferry
service. Archipelago’s biophysical report (Archipelago 2009) has been included with this assessment
(Appendix I).
Information in the Archaeological section was based on the Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) report
prepared for the Project area by Golder in 2008 in support of the berth realignment and replacement at
Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal. The AOA report was subsequently updated by Golder in 2010 to include an
assessment of the proposed cable ferry installation and terminal modifications at Buckley Bay and
Denman Island West ferry terminals (Golder 2010a; Appendix II).
5.3
Description of Physical Environment
The purpose of this section is to describe the natural surroundings in which the project will be implemented, with
a focus on sensitive environment components that could be affected. A desktop review of online databases and
a review of field surveys previously completed in the Project areas (Archipelago 2009) was conducted to acquire
background information on natural surroundings at the Buckley Bay and Denman Island West terminals and the
proposed cable corridor.
5.3.1
Climate
Buckley Bay Terminal is situated in the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) Biogeoclimatic Zone, which includes a
broad area extending along coastal BC (MOF 1999a). The zone encompasses lower elevation areas west of the
Coast Mountains, and is characterized by exposed / high rainfall conditions on the outer coast and sheltered /
low precipitation conditions inland. The Coast Mountains and Pacific Ocean influence the coastal climate and
ecology of the CWH Zone. The coastal mountain range obstructs both the warm air flowing in from the Pacific
and the continental air masses of interior. As Pacific air is driven aloft, it drops much of its moisture as rain or
snow, producing one of the wettest climates in Canada. The moderating effect of the ocean results in cool
summers and mild winters. From coastal margins, wetlands, and estuaries, through to extensive upland forests,
the CWH Zone represents some of the most diverse and abundant wildlife habitat of any ecological zone in BC.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
14
Denman Island West Terminal is situated in the Coastal Douglas-fir (CDF) Biogeoclimatic Zone, which includes
a small area of the BC south coast (MOF 1999b). This zone comprises a low-elevation band along southeastern
Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and a fringe of mainland along Georgia Strait. Local climate within the CDF
Zone is influenced by the rain shadow of the Vancouver Island and Olympic mountains and warmed by air from
the Pacific, resulting in Mediterranean conditions with warm, sunny summers and mild, wet winters. The typical
long, dry summer is a major ecological factor in forests dominated by the Douglas-fir, which grows on a wide
range of sites from dry rock outcrops to moist valley bottoms. The geographically restricted CDF Zone harbours
a relatively high incidence of rare plant species and ecosystems, many unique within Canada, as they reach the
northern limits of their distribution within the zone.
5.3.2
Air Quality
The main sources of air emissions (chemical or particulate input) in the Project areas are limited to highway
vehicle traffic, existing ferry operations, and other marine vessel operations. No industrial facilities are currently
located near either ferry terminal.
5.3.3
Ambient Noise
Ambient noise near the Buckley Bay terminal consists mainly of daily ferry operations and associated passenger
traffic. Ferry services at Buckley Bay terminal include up to 17 ferry daily crossings to Denman Island with
operating hours occurring from 7 am to midnight. Other local sources of noise include traffic noise associated
with Highway 19A and the intersection with Buckley Bay Road, which provides access to Highway 19.
Operational noise from the Petro-Canada service station and adjoining convenience store located adjacent to
the Buckley Bay ferry terminal may also contribute to ambient noise in the area. Ambient noise near
Denman Island West terminal is mostly restricted to ferry operations and associated passenger traffic. Ferry
service schedules are similar to Buckley Bay terminal.
5.3.4
Geology / Terrain
The shorelines at Buckley Bay and Denman West terminals have been significantly impacted by previous
development and anthropogenic modifications. Previous development activity at both sites include machine
excavation of soils and sediments, dredging, paving, laying down of riprap fill, and other activities associated
with construction of buildings, wharves and other facilities. Anthropogenic debris consisting of metal, brick, glass,
and wood were commonly observed throughout the area. Terrain at both ferry terminals consists of flat jetties
extending into subtidal waters from adjacent foreshore areas of moderate slope. Riprap fill forms the parking and
loading areas resulting in a modified shoreline morphology and substrate composition within the terminal
footprint itself. Footings and pilings of former ramps, docks, and other marine infrastructure are present.
The intertidal habitat on both sides of Buckley Bay terminal has been modified by shellfish aquaculture facilities.
At Buckley Bay terminal, the intertidal substrate on the west of the existing berth predominantly consists of sand,
pebble and cobble, with fine material in the lower intertidal and coarse material characterizing the beach furthest
to the west. The intertidal substrate on the south side of the terminal consists mainly of pebble and cobble over
sand with scattered boulders (Archipelago 2009). Subtidal substrate transitioned from cobbly-pebble sand with
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
15
occasional boulders in shallow waters to mud in deeper waters. Existing habitat compensation reef mounds
(composed of boulder) are located east of the ferry terminal (Archipelago 2009), outside of the physical footprint
of the proposed cable ferry and associated structures.
At Denman Island West terminal, the intertidal substrate on the north of the existing berth predominantly consists
of a bedrock platform overlaid with a mixture of sand, pebble, cobble and boulder. The intertidal area
immediately south of the terminal consists predominantly of sand, pebble and shell. Further south, intertidal
substrate was a mixture of bedrock platform with cobble and boulder (Archipelago 2009). Subtidal substrate was
predominantly sediment transitioning from various mixtures of cobble, boulder, pebble and sand in shallow
waters to various mixtures of mud, sand and gravel in deeper waters. Substrate further offshore was
characterized by cobble overlaid by a thick layer of mud/fines (Archipelago 2009).
5.3.5
Surface Water
Both the Buckley Bay and Denman Island West Side terminals consist of jetties that extend into the subtidalmarine waters of Baynes Sound. As no freshwater bodies are located in proximity to either terminal, the only
fresh surface water consists of runoff during and immediately following precipitation. Water seepage was
observed draining from under the riprap into the mid- and lower intertidal areas at Buckley Bay terminal
(Archipelago 2009).
5.4
Description of Biological Environment
Biophysical surveys were conducted by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. (Archipelago) at Buckley Bay and
Denman Island West terminals in 2008 to identify key biological and physical features in the Project area relative
to the proposed cable ferry infrastructure (Archipelago 2009). The location of Archipelago’s intertidal and
subtidal (underwater towed video and ROV) surveys are depicted in relation to the proposed terminal facility
modifications shown in Figures 1 to 3. A detailed description of the survey methodology is available in
Archipelago’s Marine Biophysical Inventories Report (Archipelago 2009).
5.4.1
Vegetation at both ferry terminals consists of low vegetation in the limited landscaped areas, and some weedy
shrubs and forbs that colonize riprap structures along the edges of the terminals. Backshore vegetation at
Buckley Bay includes: crab apples (Malus fusca), nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), blackberry (Rubus sp.), gumweed
(Grindelia integrifolia), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), young alder (Alnus rubra), cottonwood (Populus sp.),
Queen Anne’s lace/wild carrot (Daucus carota), common burdock (Articum minus), Canadian thistle (Cirsium
arvense) and dunegrass (Elymus mollis) (Archipelago 2009).
Backshore vegetation at Denman West includes: red alder (Alnus rubra), Gary oak (Quercus garryana), Douglas
fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), shrubs including willow (Salix sp.), Nootka rose
(Rosa nutkana), blackberry (Rubus sp.), snow berry (Symphoricarpos albus), blackberry (Rubus sp.), sand bur
(Ambrosia chamissonis), gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia), and terrestrial grasses. A fringing salt marsh
composed of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), sedge (Carex sp.), and other salt tolerant herbs and grasses such
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
16
as dune grass (Elymus mollis), alkali grass (Puccinella sp.), maritime plantain (Plantago maritima), arrow grass
(Triglochin sp.) and other species is located on a bedrock platform located in the upper intertidal zone on the
north side of the ferry terminal parking/loading area (Archipelago 2009).
The BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) website identified no known occurrences of listed plants or
ecosystems near the Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal. However, the rare coastal wood fern (Dryopteris arguta) has
been documented at the Denman Island West ferry landing (MoE 2010a). The coastal wood fern is blue-listed
(vulnerable) by the Province of British Columbia and listed under SARA Schedule 1 as a species of special
concern and thereby protected under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). This terrestrial plant species
occurs along North America’s West Coast from British Columbia to Mexico. The eighteen Canadian populations
are limited to 16 different sites on southeastern Vancouver Island, and on several islands of the Gulf of Georgia.
The coastal wood fern population at the Denman Island west ferry landing is composed of more than 67 plants in
seven clumps including at least nine juveniles over 100 sq. m on a steep slope in shade and filtered sun on fine
sandy soil (SRLG 2010). No other occurrences of at-risk plants or ecosystems were identified.
5.4.2
Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat
The terrestrial environments at Buckley Bay and Denman Island West are highly altered. Based on the desktop
review, no wildlife or sensitive terrestrial animals are documented at, or near, the existing terminals. A variety of
birds and small mammals potentially use both terminals and surroundings areas for foraging purposes. The only
notable habitat feature is the presence of nest boxes that have been installed on old pilings near the south side
of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal. Both terminals have very small areas landscaped with low vegetation, and
portions of the foreshore slopes are vegetated with shrubs and mixed evergreen and deciduous trees. Adjacent
residential and commercial properties are landscaped with occasional trees, shrubs and lawns.
An April 2009 search of the BC online database (CDC 2010) yielded no known occurrences of listed terrestrial
animals in the vicinity of either ferry terminal.
5.4.3
Aquatic Vegetation
The following is a summary of aquatic vegetation based on field surveys conducted at both terminals:
Buckley Bay Terminal:

The predominant intertidal feature at Buckley Bay terminal is a fringing salt marsh located northwest of the
existing berth. The salt marsh is dominated by patches of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica),
tall sedges (Carex sp.) and other salt tolerant grasses. The salt marsh is located outside of the proposed
physical footprint of the Project (Archipelago 2009).

Rockweed (Fucus sp.), green algae (Enteromorpha sp.) and red algae are present in the mid- to lower
intertidal. Japanese wireweed (Sargassum sp.) and soft brown kelps were present near the waterline on
riprap fill areas (Archipelago 2009).

An eelgrass bed (Zostera marina) of moderate coverage (<25%) was recorded south of the existing berth,
extending a distance of approximately 35 m perpendicular to shore, in water depths 0 to -5 m relative to
chart datum (Archipelago 2009). This bed is located outside of the proposed physical footprint of the
Project.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
17

Vegetation including large bladed kelps (mainly Saccharina latissima), foliose and filamentous red algae,
and Japanese wireweed were observed in the shallow subtidal zone up to -10 m water depth (chart datum),
and were closely associated with hard bottom habitat including existing habitat compensation reef mounds
(boulder) located east of the ferry terminal. Macroalgae was generally absent in waters exceeding -10 m
depth (chart datum) (Archipelago 2009).

Extensive diatom mats covered sandy substrate present between -5 m to -10 m (chart datum) (Archipelago
2009).
Denman Island:

The predominant intertidal feature at Denman Island West terminal is a fringing salt marsh dominated by
patches of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and tall sedges (Carex sp.) south of the existing berth
(Archipelago 2009). This salt marsh is located outside of the proposed physical footprint of the Project;.

Vegetation in the mid to low intertidal includes rockweed (<5-100% cover), foliose and filamentous red
algae (<25% cover), and green algae (Enteromorpha sp.) (<5% cover). A continuous band of filamentous
green algae (<5-100% cover), rockweed, several species of red algae (Chondracanthus sp., Mazzealla sp.,
Gracilaria sp.) (up to 25% cover for each species), and Japanese wireweed (50-75% cover) were observed
in the low intertidal near the waterline (Archipelago 2009).

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) was observed south of the existing berth at the waterline (along Transect 4 at
+0.44 m relative to chart datum extending offshore to an unknown depth and extending north parallel to
shore for approximately 60 m) (Archipelago 2009). Eelgrass in this area was located outside of the
proposed physical footprint of the Project.

An eelgrass bed of moderate (26-75%) to high density (>75%) was recorded south of the existing berth in
water depths 0 to -2 m (chart datum), covering an area of approximately 600 m2 (Archipelago 2009). This
bed was located outside of the proposed physical footprint of the Project.

Large bladed kelps (mainly Saccharina latissima) were the dominant vegetation type (26-100% cover)
between 0 to -10 m (chart datum). Foliose green algae (Ulva sp.) (<25% cover), red algae (<25% cover)
and scattered occurrences of Japanese wireweed were observed between 0 to -10 m (chart datum).
Foliose red algae (<25% cover), sieve kelp (Agarum sp.) (<25-75% cover) and diatom mats were observed
in the subtidal environment at depths greater than -10 m (Archipelago 2009).
Cable corridor

Substrate type in the survey area offshore of Buckley Bay and Denman Island West was predominantly
mud and sand with coarse substrate (gravel, cobble, and trace boulder). Macroalgae were not observed
along ROV track lines as the survey took place between -30 and -60 m depth (chart datum), deeper depths
than algae typically grow.
Refer to sections 3.1, Section 3.2, and Appendix I of the Marine Biophysical Inventories Report (Archipelago
2009) for further information regarding vegetation types, location, and abundance/density within the Project area.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
18
5.4.4
The Project footprint overlaps with the ranges of chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), chum (Oncorhynchus
keta), coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka), coastal
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and within the introduced
range of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (DFO 2010c). Fish bearing streams are located in the vicinity of the
project area include Hindoo Creek, Tsable River and Cowie Creek. Chum distribution overlaps with the
Tsable River and Cowie Creek (GSA 2010). Coho and Cutthroat trout distribution overlaps with Hindoo Creek,
Tsable River, and Cowie Creek. Pink salmon and steelhead distribution includes Tsable River and Cowie Creek.
Tsable River and Cowie Creek are classified as salmon escapement streams. Clam beds have been
documented in Baynes Sound (DFO 2010c). A continuous band of oysters was documented along the shoreline
of the Denman Island West terminal (MOE 2010b).
The following is a summary of fish and fish habitat based on field surveys conducted at both terminals:
Buckley Bay:

Intertidal epifauna observed at Buckley Bay terminal included barnacles, oysters (Crassostrea gigas), shore
crabs (Hemigrapsus nudus), purple seastars (Pisaster ochraceus), red rock crabs (Cancer productus),
periwinkles (Littorina spp.), limpets (Tectura sp. / Lottia sp.), and mud snails (Battilaria sp.) (Archipelago
2009).

Siphon holes likely belonging to clams (species undetermined) were observed northwest of the existing
berth (Transect 1). Manila/Japanese littleneck clams and extensive areas of shellfish aquaculture were
present southeast of the existing berth (Transect 3) (Archipelago 2009).

Geoduck, a commercially valuable species, was present in the Project area but outside of the proposed
physical footprint of the Project.

Subtidal epifauna observed at Buckley Bay terminal included barnacles, geoducks sea cucumbers
(Parastichopus californicus), purple sea stars, sunflower stars (Pycnopodia helianthoides), spiny pink stars
(Pisaster brevispinus), tube dwelling anemones (Pachycerianthes fimbriatus), orange sea pens (Ptilosarcus
gurneyi), white sea pens (Verirgularia sp.), plumose anemones (Metridium sp.), crabs (Cancer sp.), spot
prawns (Pandalus platyceros) and nudibranchs (Archipelago 2009).

Prickleback species (Family: Stichaeidae) and dogfish (Squalus acanthias) were observed in the subtidal
environment at Buckley Bay terminal. A relatively high concentration of rockfish [mainly copper rockfish
(Sebastes caurinus)] and kelp greenlings (Hexagrammos stelleri) were observed in association with
existing habitat compensation reef mounds east of the existing berth (Archipelago 2009).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
19
Denman Island:

Intertidal epifauna observed at Denman West terminal included barnacles, shore crabs, periwinkles, mud
snails, limpets, blue mussels (Mytilus trossolus), and purple seastars (Archipelago 2009).

The presence of clam siphons (species undetermined) in the lower intertidal were indicated by expulsion of
water from siphon holes as the tide receded. A distinct band of oysters (Crassostrea gigas) (75-100%
cover), was observed between the mid- to lower intertidal near the northern extent of the survey area
(Archipelago 2009).

Subtidal epifauna observed at Denman West terminal included tube dwelling anemones, red rock crabs,
tube worms, sea cucumbers, plumose anemones, hydroids, spot prawns, purple sea stars, sunflower stars,
spiny pink sea stars, and leather stars (Dermasterias imbricata). A continuous area of patchy horse clams
(Tresus sp.) was observed in the shallow (above -5 m) sandy region near the eastern extent of the survey
area. Orange sea pens, possibly forming a sea pen bed, were observed around -20 m depth at the
northwest edge of the survey area (Archipelago 2009).

Pricklebacks and a single dogfish were observed in the subtidal survey area at Denman Island West
(Archipelago 2009).
Cable corridor

Tube-dwelling anemones, tube worms, pandalid shrimp (Pandalus sp.), white sea pens, plumose
anemones, spiny pink stars, eelpouts (family Zoarcidae), spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), and codfish
(family Gadidae) were observed along the proposed cable corridor between Buckley Bay and Denman
Island West.
Refer to sections 3.1, Section 3.2, and Appendix I of the Marine Biophysical Inventories Report (Archipelago
2009) for further information regarding vegetation types, location, and abundance/density within the Project area.
5.4.5
Migratory Birds
Baynes Sound is a critical staging, breeding, and wintering area for migratory birds and considered one of the
more important waterfowl habitat in British Columbia after the Fraser River estuary (Booth 2001). Over a typical
year, more than 176 bird species use the area (MSRM 2002), including Pacific loons (Gavia pacifica),
western grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis), brant (Branta berniclas), black turnstones (Arenaria
melanocephala), mew gull (Larus canus), Thayer’s gull (Larus thayeri), glaucous-winged gull (Larus
hyperboreus), great blue herons (Ardea Herodias), cormorants (Phalacrocorax sp.), bald eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinators), surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata), and in spring and
summer, common murres (Uria aalge) and marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (Dawe et al. 1998,
SHIM 2010). Both terminals are within the range of alcids, bald eagles, black oyster catchers, blue herons,
cormorants, dabbling ducks, diving ducks, fulmars, shearwaters, petrels, geese, swans, loons, grebes and gulls.
SARA-listed species potentially occurring in the Project area include great blue herons, peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus pealei), western screech-owls (Megascops kennicottii) and marbled murrelet. Purple martins, a
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
20
provincially blue-listed species, were observed at the nest boxes on pilings near the south side of the Buckley
Bay ferry terminal parking/loading area during Archipelago’s July 2008 intertidal surveys (Archipelago 2009). A
gull colony has been identified at the Denman Island West terminal (MOE 2010b).
5.4.6
Marine Mammals
The corridor between Buckley Bay and Denman Island overlaps with the habitat ranges of harbour seals (Phoca
vitulina), harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), resident killer whales (Orcinus orca), transient killer whales
(Orcinus orca), Stellar sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), and grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus) (MOE 2010b).
The latter five marine mammal species are considered listed species (specific status provided in Golder 2010b).
No marine mammals were observed at Buckley Bay or Denman West terminals during time of field surveys.
5.4.7
Rare and Endangered Species
A rare and endangered species search was conducted using the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre’s
(CDC) BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer for listed species with ranges overlapping with the Project area
(Golder 2010a). Twelve bird species, two fish species, five marine mammal species, one marine invertebrate
species (northern abalone), four insect species, two amphibian species, and five plant species were identified
as “listed” species with overlapping ranges with the study area (MOE 2010a) (see Appendix I of Golder 2010b).
The habitat requirements for each species were compared to the habitat types available in the Project areas to
determine which species have the potential to occur in the Project areas. A total of five bird species (purple
martin, peregrine falcon, great blue heron, western screech-owl and marbled murrelet), five marine mammal
species (resident killer whale, transient killer whale, harbour porpoise, stellar sea lion, and grey whale), one plant
species (coastal wood fern) and the northern abalone are considered to have a possible likelihood of occurrence
within the Project areas. Western screech-owls have been documented in Fanny Bay adjacent to the
Buckley Bay terminal site. Purple martins, a provincially blue listed species, were observed at the nest boxes on
pilings near the south side of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal parking/loading area during Archipelago’s July 2008
intertidal surveys (Archipelago 2009). Bird, fish and marine mammal species are highly mobile and are not
considered resident within the planned Project area. Considering the current use of the site, potential presence
by marine mammals and birds would likely be limited (e.g., transitory).
The northern abalone is the only at-risk, marine species potentially present in the immediate vicinity of the
Buckley Bay and Denman Island West terminals that could potentially be impacted by the proposed project
through the removal/relocation of existing habitat substrate. The northern abalone, known to inhabit bedrock
and boulder coasts along exposed to semi-exposed shorelines, is legally listed and protected as threatened
under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), with all removals of northern abalone considered a severe conservation
risk. However, no northern abalone were identified during surveys conducted at Buckley Bay terminal in 2005
(Archipelago 2005), nor during surveys conducted at both terminals in 2008 (Archipelago 2009). The survey
methodology employed (underwater towed video) may have missed detecting abalone due to the cryptic nature
of this species and their tendency to inhabit crevices and overhangs. However, the coastline at both terminals
are considered low exposure (protected to semi-protected) and as such, do not offer ideal habitat for abalone.
Abalone presence in the Project area is thought to be limited due to the lack of rocky hard substrate in the water
lot which is the preferred habitat type for this species.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
21
5.4.8
Resource Use
Pacific Herring Fishery
Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) in the Strait of Georgia (SOG) represent one of five major
geographically distinct populations in BC managed and fished independently. A commercial seine and gill net
roe herring fishery takes place in the SOG over a 1 to 2 day period in late February / early March as the herring
gather to spawn, with 2010 catches amounting to approximately 5,004 short tons for the seine fleet and
3,576 tons for the gillnet fishery.
Herring populations are assessed by DFO each year using biological data, dive, and hydroacoustic survey
information. The herring fishery in BC uses a conservative and adaptive management approach to ensure that
this industry is conducted in a sustainable and economically viable manner. Fishing does not occur if the stock
size is below pre-determined cut off thresholds.
Herring Fishery Management Information - Record of Herring Spawn Areas in Baynes Sound
Detailed records of Pacific herring spawning sites in British Columbia have been collected annually by fishery
officers and diver teams since 1928 (Hay and Kronlund 1987). The total cumulative herring deposition from
1928 to 2010 has been mapped and organized into 6 geographical regions, 30 statistical areas and 101 herring
sections (sub-areas) throughout BC, and are compatible with the stock assessment regions defined by Fisheries
and Oceans, Canada (Haist and Rosenfeld 1988, Midgley 2003). DFO have calculated a cumulative spawn
habitat index (SHI) to represent the combined, long-term frequency and magnitude of spawns along each
kilometre of coastline over time within each of the 101 herring sections. The index represents a measure of
shoreline utilization by spawning herring and should be interpreted as a measure of "habitat sensitivity" as the
index incorporates both the long-term frequency and magnitude of herring spawning events along each kilometre
of BC shoreline. The index is calculated by the sum of the product of each measured spawn length (m) and the
median of the product of spawn width (m) and egg layers (or egg density) adjusted by percent cover. SHI digital
mapping is provided by chronologically overlaying of annual, spawning beds which rank and classify each
kilometre of herring spawning habitat. The polygons are coloured and proportionally sized to represent six
classifications of long-term cumulative spawn. Cumulative spawn analysis was conducted annually and coastwide so that any km on the BC shoreline can be compared with another.
Baynes Sound is located within Herring Section 142 (SHI Area). A cumulative herring spawn map for Section
142 is presented in Figure 7, showing shoreline reference points (km positions) which are geographically
separated into 3 pools (#1-3). Historically, Section 142 has been a critically important area for herring spawning,
although it is not possible to predict exactly where or when herring will spawn from one year to the next. While
most areas in Section 142 are considered to have good spawning potential, some areas are more important than
others. Pool 1 (Lambert Channel) is the most productive area within Section 142 and is categorized as a major
spawning area. Pool 2 (Baynes Sound2) is the least productive pool in Section 142, categorized as an
intermediate spawning area with a record of spawning that varies in time. SHI records indicate spawning has
2
Note that Herring Section 142 is referred to as Baynes Sound, although encompasses several bodies of water of Southern Strait of
Georgia, including Lambert Channel, Baynes Sound, and Comox Harbour. Baynes Sound proper is geographically limited to Pool B of
Section 142.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
22
historically occurred in Pool 2 near both terminals (DFO 2010d), although spawning events are infrequent and
less representative than adjacent areas (Figures 7). Only 2 spawning events have been recorded at Buckley
Bay terminal since 1928, which corresponds with km 42 in Pool B of Section 142 (Figure 8). Eleven spawning
events have been recorded at Denman Island West terminal since 1928, which corresponds with km 131 in
Pool B of Section 142 (Figure 9). Pool 3 (waters north of Baynes Sound including Comox Harbour and
Cape Lazo) is categorized as a major spawning area (DFO 2010d, Figure 7).
Figure 7: Cumulative herring spawn map of Herring Section 142 showing shoreline reference points or kilometre (km)
positions (DFO 2010b).3
3
Long-term cumulative spawn (from 1928 to the present year) is depicted along each km of coastline by the proportional size of each
polygon. Polygons are coloured to represent six classifications of cumulative spawn. Red indicates the top 5%, brown the next 10%, yellow
the next 15%, green the next 20%, blue the next 25% and violet the last 25% of ranked shoreline km segments. Green star icons indicate the
locations of Buckley Bay terminal and Denman Island West terminal. Green dotted line indicates the location of the proposed cable corridor
in Baynes Sound.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
23
Figure 8: Plot showing the frequency of herring spawning events at each shoreline kilometre (km) position (km 0 to 100) in
BC Herring Section 142 since 1928. 4
Figure 9: Plot showing the frequency of herring spawning events at each shoreline kilometre (km) position (km 100 to 144) in
BC Herring Section 142 since 1928. 5
4
BCFS Buckley Bay terminal, corresponding with shoreline position km 42, is shaded in grey. Since herring schools may spawn in "waves"
over the same km of shoreline in the same year, the frequency of spawning events may sometimes exceed the number of years in the timeseries.
5
BCFS Denman Island West terminal, corresponding with shoreline position km 131, is shaded in grey.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
24
Herring Fishery Management Information - Catch Records for Herring Roe Fishery in Baynes Sound
BC’s roe herring fishery is managed federally by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Baynes Sound and
adjacent waters fall within DFO’s Pacific Fisheries Management Area 14 (PFMA-14). Individual licences are
assigned a quota based on a coast wide annual total allowable catch (TAC). The TAC is set within the
20 percent harvest rate recommended by the Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC). The herring
roe fishery has adopted a pooled fishing strategy where a small group of boats fish alternately until the quota is
harvested. This ensures that the quota is not exceeded and all catch is fully accounted for. Allocation by gear is
set on a 55:45 coastwide basis for seine and gill nets respectively. Seine licences are required to organize into a
minimum pool of 8 licences, and gillnets are required to organize into minimum pools of 4 licences. In the
southern Strait of Georgia, the herring roe fishery takes place as the herring gather to spawn in late February to
early March. Opening dates and times for the commercial fishery are announced on the fishing grounds by DFO
once the roe has matured to optimum quality although it is not possible to predict exactly where or when the
commercial herring spawn fishery openings will take place.
The geographical boundary of Section 142 (SHI Area) corresponds with PFMA-14. Baynes Sound is located
within PFMA sub-area 14-08 (Ship Point). Herring roe catch data in Section 142 are extremely variable between
1950 and 2010, as depicted in Figure 10. Based on catch information provided by DFO pelagic resource
managers for PFMA-14 (DFO 2011), the roe herring seine fishery opened within the vicinity of the Buckley Bay /
Denman Island West ferry crossing (Route 21) on five separate occasions from 2000 to 2010, with the longest
event lasting < 15 h in 2005 (corresponding with ~6000 tons hailed), and the shortest event lasting ~10 h in 2003
(~11,000 tons hailed).
Figure 10: Record of Catch and Spawners in Herring Section 142. 6
6
Herring spawners (red dash line) were estimated by apportioning spawner biomass (SB) as determined for each region and year in Cleary
et al. (2009) in each assessed herring section using an area-specific, spawn habitat index (SHI) (DFO 2010b). Only herring catches landed
during the spawning season (Jan 1 - Apr 30) are plotted (blue dash line).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
25
Herring Fishery Management Information – Current BCFS Ferry Operations and Herring Vessels
Based on interviews with long-term operational staff and a review of BCFS log records for this route, there has
been no historical interference recorded between BCFS vessels and herring fishery vessels in Baynes Sound,
and specifically no record of BCFS vessels taking action to avoid herring fishing vessels on Route 21. (K.
Wheeler - BCFS, pers. comm. 26 Nov 2010).
Shellfish Fishery
Baynes Sound produces approximately 50% of the Province of BC’s cultured shellfish (MSRM 2002). The major
commercial bivalves cultured are Pacific oysters and Manila clams with some Japanese scallops.
Baynes Sound accounts for 35% of the oyster and 50% of the clam total-landed values in BC (MSRM 2002).
Currently, mussels, geoduck clams, sea cucumbers, and green sea urchin are being cultured experimentally in
small quantities (Shellfish Aquaculture 2003). Commercial concentrations of varnish clam (Nuttallia obscurata),
an introduced species from Japan, have been reported on clam tenures in Baynes Sound. Shellfish aquaculture
farms are located along the coastline near the existing Buckley Bay terminal (tenure doc. number 111419) (MOE
2010b). The shoreline south of Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal is a significant shellfish harvesting area. The BC
Shellfish Growers Association (BCSGA) and Malaspina University College have proposed research and
demonstration culture facilities in the southern part of Baynes Sound for environmental and developmental
studies.
Other Commercial Fisheries
The Project area is located within the range of chinook, chum, coho, pink, sockeye, and steelhead; and within
the introduced range of Atlantic salmon (DFO 2010c). Commercial (net) and recreational fisheries exist in
Baynes Sound for both Chinook and chum salmon, as well as prawn, shrimp, sea urchin, crab, and groundfish
(DFO 2010c).
5.4.9
Marine Biology Summary
Buckley Bay

Moderate to high vegetation cover; rockfish, and kelp greenlings are associated with existing habitat
compensation reef mound.

A single eelgrass bed with moderate coverage (<25%) was observed south of the existing ferry terminal,
extending offshore between the 0 and -5 m depth contours (chart datum) and laterally along the beach for a
distance of approximately 35 m. This bed was located outside of the proposed physical footprint of the
Project.

Geoduck, a commercially valuable species, was present in the Project area but outside of the proposed
physical footprint of the Project.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
26

A fringing salt marsh was located in the upper intertidal zone of Buckley Bay terminal, northwest of the
existing berth and outside of the proposed physical footprint of the Project.

Bladed kelps, Japanese wireweed, red algae, and eelgrass may provide spawning habitat for Pacific
herring near the terminal. Eelgrass may also provide an important rearing habitat for juvenile herring.

Historical records indicate that Pacific herring do occasionally spawn along the shoreline at Buckley Bay
terminal, although spawning events are infrequent and less representative than adjacent areas within
Herring Section 142 (DFO 2010d).
The roe herring fishery in PFMA-14 consists of both gill net and seine net harvesting. Roe herring catch data in
PFMA-14 are extremely variable between 1950 and 2010. The roe herring seine fishery occurred in the
immediate area of Buckley Bay terminal on five occasions between 2000 and 2010, based on available catch
records over the last decade in PFMA-14 (DFO 2011).
Denman Island West

Eelgrass was observed south of the existing berth (Transect 4) at the waterline (+0.44m chart datum).
Eelgrass in this area was located outside of the proposed physical footprint of the Project.

An eelgrass bed of moderate (26-75%) to high density (>75%) was recorded south of the existing berth in
water depths 0 to -2 m, covering an area of approximately 600m2 (Archipelago 2009). This bed was located
outside of the proposed physical footprint of the Project.

A continuous area of patchy horseclams was observed in the shallow (above -5 m) sandy region near the
eastern extent of the survey area.

Orange sea pens, possibly forming a sea pen bed, were observed around -20 m depth (chart datum) at the
northwest edge of the survey area.

Bladed kelps, Japanese wireweed, red algae, and eelgrass may provide spawning habitat for Pacific
Herring near the terminal. Eelgrass may also provide an important rearing habitat for juvenile herring.

Historical records indicate that Pacific herring do occasionally spawn along the shoreline at Denman Island
West terminal, although spawning events are infrequent and less representative than adjacent areas within
Herring Section 142. (DFO 2010d).

The roe herring fishery in PFMA-14 consists of both gill net and seine net harvesting. Roe herring catch
data in PFMA-14 are extremely variable between 1950 and 2010. The roe herring seine fishery occurred in
the immediate area of Denman Island West terminal on five occasions between 2000 and 2010, based on
available catch records over the last decade in PFMA-14 (DFO 2011).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
27
Cable Corridor
Soft substrate was shown to be the dominant substrate along the proposed cable corridor between Buckley Bay
and Denman Island West. Macroalgae was generally absent at depths exceeding -20 m (chart datum). Based on
modeling studies conducted for the proposed cable ferry operation (EYE 2010), the cable system is designed
such that the cable will avoid all contact with the seafloor up to a minimum of 250 m offshore of both terminals
(measured from concrete pontoon), corresponding with the ~18 m depth contour offshore of Buckley Bay
terminal and the ~25 m depth contour offshore of Denman West terminal. Cable scour will therefore be limited to
deepwater segments of the channel where marine vegetation is absent and fish and fish habitat is limited.
5.4.10
Valued Ecosystem Components (VEC)
A summary of valued ecosystem components (VEC) observed in the intertidal and subtidal environment at
Buckley Bay terminal, Denman Island West terminal, and the proposed cable corridor is provided in Table 3.
Certain VEC identified do not fall within the Project’s physical footprint although are discussed due to their
proximity to proposed in-water works. Table 3 provides a description of the Project VECs in relation to the
existing terminal infrastructure and the proposed terminal infrastructure. No VECs were identified within the
ROV survey area, as the majority of biological features observed in this area were either mobile or short-lived
species where the localized change in community structure is not anticipated to impact ecosystem function.
Table 3: Summary of Sensitive Ecosystem Features
Project
Location
Survey
Zone
Terrestrial
Intertidal
Buckley Bay
Subtidal
Terrestrial
Denman
Island West
Intertidal
Subtidal
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
Feature
Location
Within
Project
Footprint
Coastal Fern
Fringing salt marsh
S of Terminal
N of Terminal
No
No
Bladed kelp, foliose and filamentous red
algae, and soft brown kelp
Along riprap fill on S,
E, and N sides of
terminal
Yes
Rocky reef mounds installed as habitat
compensation
S of Terminal
No
Eelgrass bed
S of Terminal
No
Geoducks
S of Terminal
No
-
-
Fringing salt marsh and dense oyster
band
Dense oyster band
Low-density bed of horse clams
Eelgrass bed
28
-
N of Terminal
No
S of Terminal
SE of Terminal
SE of Terminal
No
No
No
6.0
SOCIO-CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
Socio-economic and socio-cultural environmental components that may interact with the project include human
health & safety, navigation, First Nations, archaeology, and accidents / malfunctions.
6.1
Human Health & Safety
Construction activities have inherent health and safety risks that must be effectively managed through best
environmental management practices and health and safety plans.
6.2
Navigation
The cable system has the potential to interfere with local navigation in the immediate vicinity of Buckley Bay and
Denman Island West terminals at locations where cables rise to the surface in order to tie in to shore-based
anchor points. For the purpose of this assessment and mitigation planning, all areas within the cable footprint
without adequate vessel draft clearance of at least 5 m (cable-to-surface) have been identified as potential
navigational hazard areas.
Representatives of the HIAB have expressed concerns that the proposed cable ferry could interfere with seine
vessels during the active herring fishery due to potential interaction between the cable and deeply-set seine
nets, particularly during periods of limited vessel manoeuvrability when nets were fully laden. For the purpose of
this assessment, we have assessed this potential interaction under Section 5.4.8 (Resource Use), and not under
navigation based on clarification received from NWPA that concerns raised by HIAB are a resource issue, and
not a navigational issue (as fishing is considered an activity) (R. Greville – NWPA, pers. comm. 31 March 2010).
6.3
First Nations
Based on publicly available information, BCFS understands that the Project falls within the traditional territories
of the following First Nations:

Homalco;

K’ómoks;

Qualicum;

Sliammon;

Snaw-Naw-As (Nanoose);

Wei Wai Kai (Cape Mudge); and,

Wei Wai Kum (Campbell River).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
29
These First Nations are affiliated with the following First Nations organizations:

Kwakiutl District Council (K’omoks, Wei Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum);

Laich-Kwil-Tach (formerly Hamatla) Treaty Society (Wei Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum);

Naut’sa mawt Tribal Council (Homalco, Sliammon, Snaw-Naw-As); and,

Te’Mexw Treaty Association (Snaw-Naw-As).
BCFS has learned that the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (MNRO) (formerly called the Integrated
Land Management Bureau or ILMB), in reviewing an application for the Project, has identified six additional
First Nations that collectively assert interests over a marine territory in which the Project lies. These six
First Nations, all members of the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, are as follows:

Chemainus;

Cowichan Tribes;

Halalt;

Lake Cowichan;

Lyackson; and,

Penelakut Tribe.
The closest Indian Reserves to the Project area belong to the K’ómoks, approximately 20 km to the north of
Buckley Bay, and the Qualicum, approximately 20 km to the south. There are no Indian Reserves on Denman or
Hornby Island.
6.4
Archaeology
A search of the Provincial Heritage Registry on August 3, 2010 indicates that no previously recorded
archaeological sites are located within the Project area. However, there are four previously recorded
archaeological sites located within one kilometre of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal and three previously recorded
archaeological sites located within one kilometre of the Denman Island West ferry terminal. Of these, the most
common site type is the shell midden. Additionally, historic wharf structures are known to have existed in the
vicinity of Buckley Bay and Denman West terminals.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
30
6.4.1
6.4.1.1
Buckley Bay Terminal
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites
Four previously recorded archaeological sites are located in the vicinity of Buckley Bay ferry terminal: DjSe-19,
DjSf-6, DjSf-13, and DjSf-30.
Of greatest significance and closest proximity to the Project area is DjSf-13, which is located less than 90 m
southeast of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal. DjSf-13 is situated between 0 m and 8 m above sea level (asl) on a
low terrace adjacent to the shore of Buckley Bay. A small, unnamed stream runs through the site. DjSf-13 is a
shell midden with associated human remains and extends 650 m southeast along the shoreline and
approximately 120 m inland. Murton and Foster (1975) estimated that the site was originally 500 m by 200 m in
size. However, only a portion of the site remains intact (Golder 1998).
DjSf-6 is a shell midden and habitation feature located approximately 570 m southeast of the Buckley Bay ferry
terminal on a gravel bluff located at 20 m asl. The site was recorded in 1975 by Murton and Foster (1975) during
the East Coast Vancouver Island Survey from Nanaimo to Courtenay. The site encompasses a 30 m by 23 m
area and consists of a shell midden and possible house features. In 1997 during an overview of the Buckley Bay
Turnaround for Vancouver Island Highway Project, Alexander (1997) reported that while the majority of DjSf-6
had been previously disturbed, a small portion of the site may contain intact archaeological deposits.
DjSf-30 is a shell midden site that is located approximately 895 m northwest of the Buckley Bay terminal at an
elevation of 1.5 m asl. The site was recorded in 1975 by Murton and Foster (1975) during the East Coast
Vancouver Island Survey from Nanaimo to Courtenay. The site encompasses 300 m by 25 m on the shoreline
of Lambert Channel. The site contains ground stone artifacts such as a knife, and a mortar and pestle (Murton
and Foster 1975).
DjSe-19 is a shell midden site that is located approximately 1,000 m southeast of the Buckley Bay terminal at the
eastern extremity of Base Flat, near the mouth of the Tsable River. The site was first recorded in 1987 by an
independent researcher. The site encompasses 110 m by 10 m and includes an intertidal component manifest
as a thin cultural deposit approximately 10 m long and located between 5 and 10 cm below surface
(Arcas 2007).
Several inter-tidal archaeological sites are also known in the region, including DkSf-43 and DkSf-44
(Greene 2003). DkSf-43 and DkSf-44 are located on the Vancouver Island side of Baynes Sound in Comox
harbour and are amongst the largest inter-tidal sites (5 km2 and 1 km2, respectively) that have been recorded in
BC (Greene 2003).
A review of aerial photographs of the Buckley Bay terminal area shows a clearing in the beach rocks located
about 100 m north of the terminal that runs perpendicular to the shoreline (Figure 3). While there is no
archaeological site recorded at this location either in the intertidal zone or on adjacent land, this feature is
characteristic of canoe runs, stone alignments that are protected under the HCA. However, the feature
continues to be maintained suggesting that it is probably the result of recent improvements by a local property
owner.
All project works will occur within previously disturbed areas (filled foreshore areas) and therefore no impacts to
existing archaeological sites are expected.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
31
6.4.1.2
Heritage Wrecks
Heritage wrecks, including ship wrecks, older than two years are protected under Section 13 of the HCA.
No historical shipwrecks have been previously documented within 2 nautical miles (3.7 km) of the Buckley Bay
ferry terminal. However, the fishing boat Kristiejanter sank at an unknown location in Baynes Sound
(Northern Maritime Research 2002). More specific information on the location of this vessel and whether or not
it was salvaged was not found in the documentation reviewed.
The 1,015 ton Prince Albert grounded at an unspecified location in Baynes Sound in 1914. Built in 1892 in Hull,
UK, the Prince Albert had a very long career and was active on the BC coast before sinking in 1950 in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca under the name J.R. Morgan (Northern Maritime Research 2002; Transport Canada 1981).
This vessel was eventually salvaged.
Three occurrences in the vicinity of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal were recorded by the Joint Rescue
Coordination Centre between 2003 and 2006. Only one of these would result in material remaining on the
seabed: a 28-foot aluminum “oyster skiff” was reported “lost” on September 14th 2006 at coordinates (4931.5 N
12450.4 W). This places it within 350 m east of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal (Mitch Leenders pers. comm.
August 19, 2008).
Anomalies observed in air photos were noted in the intertidal zone within 50 m both north and south of the
Buckley Bay ferry terminal. These anomalies are probably manmade, but it is unlikely that they pre-date 1846.
However, there are numerous examples of vessels being abandoned or used as breakwaters in nearby intertidal areas. For example, the S.S. Grey and the Alumna are found in Fanny Bay about 2.75 km to the south of
the Project area, and several breakwater vessels are situated at Royston, 15 km north of the Project area
(Jacques Marc [Underwater Archaeology Society of BC], pers. comm. August 19, 2008; James 2004; 2006).
6.4.1.3
Previous Archaeological Studies
Numerous archaeological studies have taken place in the vicinity of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal. Bussey
(1987) and Alexander (1997) conducted archaeological overview assessments for the Inland Island Highway
Project. Additionally, archaeological inventory and impact assessments were also undertaken as part of the
Inland Island Highway Project that include the following: Kennedy and Bouchard (1983); Bussey (1990) and I.R.
Wilson Consultants Ltd. (I.R. Wilson) (1991, 1994). Simonson (1993) conducted an inventory and impact
assessment of potential impacts to DjSf-13 (Buckley Bay site) that had resulted from commercial development.
Golder (1998) followed with an archaeological mitigation of DjSf-13 that was conducted for the Ministry of
Transportation and Highways as part of the Vancouver Island Highway Project.
Archaeological monitoring was conducted for a BC Hydro cable trench 1 km southeast of the Buckley Bay ferry
terminal in 2007 (Arcas 2007). Cultural deposits from DjSe-19 were observed in the intertidal zone
(Arcas 2007).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
32
6.4.1.4
Archaeological Potential
The Buckley Bay Project area has been significantly impacted by previous development. These developments
include machine excavation of soils and sediments, dredging, paving, lying down of rip rap and other related
activities associated with the construction of buildings, wharf and other facilities (Golder 2010a).
Terrestrial
Due to its proximity to significant archaeological site DjSf-13 and freshwater (Tsable River) and saltwater
(Baynes Sound) hydrological features, the Buckley Bay Project area is situated in a location considered to have
high potential to contain undocumented archaeological sites. Upland areas that have not been significantly
disturbed by past development within and immediately adjacent to the existing Buckley Bay ferry terminal are
also considered to have high archaeological potential for archaeological sites that may include culturally modified
trees (CMTs). Areas where soils and sediments have been previously impacted by land altering activities are
considered to have low archaeological potential.
Marine
DjSf-13 consists of large portions of intact shell midden that could extend below areas of fill within the Project
area, including into the intertidal and subtidal areas. In 2005, Millennia Research undertook an archaeological
overview study in advance of ferry terminal improvements proposed for Buckley Bay. Millennia (2005) assigned
a low archaeological potential to areas where specific berth realignments activities were proposed. Potential
was determined in part from information obtained during core log drilling undertaken by C.N. Ryzuk and
Associates Ltd. A review of these core logs indicated that naturally occurring seashells, wood, gravel and sand
was identified from -5m to -7m (chart datum) which is described as the lower low water level (Millennia 2005:3).
Although the core log data does not strongly suggest that human habitation occurred in this area, the gravel
stratum may have been exposed when sea levels were lower and as such could have been used by people in
the past (Millennia 2005).
A sunken “oyster skiff” is located approximately 350 m east of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal (Mitch Leenders
pers. comm. August 19, 2008). The remains of this vessel, if they have not already been removed, are protected
under the HCA; a Section 12 Site Alteration Permit would be required before the vessel remains can be removed
or in any other way impacted.
The intertidal and subtidal deposits at Buckley Bay are considered to have moderate archaeological potential to
a depth of 15 m below chart datum. The results in the core samples reported by Millennia (2005) are offset
somewhat by the potential these same cores reveal for preserved organic material in the area, along with the
more recent discovery of intertidal cultural deposits at nearby site DjSe-19. The potential for encountering a
shipwreck if any terminal development extends to the east into subtidal waters is considered high. The potential
for encountering vessel remains in the intertidal zone is considered moderate.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
33
6.4.2
6.4.2.1
Denman Island Terminal
Three recorded archaeological sites are located in the vicinity of the Denman Island West Project area: DjSe-8,
DjSe-9 and DjSe-17.
DjSe-8 is a shell midden site recorded 34 m northwest of the Denman Island West ferry terminal. Exposed
cultural deposits measure 500 m by 15 m; however, the site has not been tested to confirm dimensions or
assess integrity and could extend beyond the recorded location into the Project footprint. The site was first
recorded in 1975 (Murton and Foster 1975) and revisited in 1986 (Kapes). Murton and Foster (1975) observed
midden deposits ranging in depth from 20 cm to 1 m below surface. Erosion of the site from tidal action was also
observed by Murton and Foster (1975).
DjSe-9 is a shell midden site recorded 1 km northwest of the Denman Island West Terminal. DjSe-9 was first
recorded by Murton and Foster (1975) and later revisited by Kapes in 1986. The exposed site measures 110 m
by 20 m and midden deposits reportedly ranged in from 30 cm to 1 m in depth; however, the site has not been
tested to confirm dimensions or assess integrity.
DjSe-17 is a shell midden site recorded 30 m southeast of the Denman Island West Terminal (Golder 2010a).
The site measures 50 m by 10 m and has shell midden deposits that are up to 40 cm in depth. The site
dimensions and depth of deposits are estimated (Murton and Foster 1975). Since it was first recorded, the site
has been revisited (e.g., Grant 2006). Based on observations made by Pratt (2005), the site contains sporadic
shell midden deposits that stretch along the shoreline of Baynes Sound.
All project works will occur within previously disturbed areas (filled foreshore areas) and therefore no impacts to
existing archaeological sites are expected
6.4.2.2
Heritage Wrecks
No historic shipwrecks have been reported within the Project area. However, the reef extending from
Denman Point (previously known as Village Point) located 2 nautical miles (3.7 km) north of the Denman Island
West Ferry terminal is the site of several shipping incidences.
In 1901, the 1,695-ton iron steam schooner Willamette out of San Francisco grounded on the reef on her way in
to Union Bay (Rogers 1973:39). In 1903 the 337 ton steamer Barbara Boscowitz was stranded there. It was
recovered, although declared a partial loss. This Victoria-built vessel played an important role in the early
settlement up and down the coast between 1883 and the last of her numerous accidents led to her scrapping in
1904 (Northern Maritime Research 2002). In this same year the naval vessel HMS Flora grounded on the same
reef (Rogers 1973:39). The 52 ton steam tug Vulcan caught fire as a result of a deck-load of fuel oil the night of
January 28, 1925 (Rogers 1973:38-39). The remains of the Vulcan are apparently still visible on the beach near
Denman Point today.
A more recent tragedy was the loss of two CF 101 Voodoo aircraft which collided in flight over Denman Island in
1969. Both pilots successfully ejected from the aircraft but both navigators were unable to free themselves from
the wreckage and were killed. The reported location of the collision is within 2 nautical miles (3.7 km) of the
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
34
Denman Island ferry terminal, but there is no indication that any of the wreckage fell into the water in the
immediate vicinity (Mitch Leenders pers. comm. August 19, 2008).
At least until 1977, a government wharf was located immediately to the east of the current ferry terminal
(Public Works Canada 1977, file 7955). The wharf structure has been removed. A breakwater located to the
east of the wharf remains, although it is in ruins, and closer to the ferry terminal are concrete blocks, dolphins
and an intertidal ramp associated with the former ferry landing site.
6.4.2.3
Previous Archaeological Studies
The East Coast Vancouver Island Survey resulted in the identification of shoreline archaeological sites DjSe-8,
DjSe-9 and DjSe-17, located in the vicinity of the Denman Island West ferry terminal (Murton and Foster 1975).
In 2006, Baseline Archaeological Services monitored the installation of a submarine hydro cable at DjSe-17,
located 30 m southeast of the Denman Island West ferry terminal and observed that the archaeological deposits
may extend uphill, as no deposits were observed in the trench excavated for the hydro cable (Grant 2006; Arcas
2007). Most recently, Golder (2008) completed an archaeological impact assessment (AIA) in advance of the
construction of a queuing lane adjacent to the northeast margin of Denman Road. Subsurface testing did not
result in the identification of archaeological sites or features (Golder 2008).
6.4.2.4
Disturbance
Similar to the Buckley Bay Project area, the Denman Island West Project area has been significantly disturbed
by previous construction activities that include, but are not limited to outbuildings, excavation, infilling, roadways,
utility installation and erosion control mechanisms. Specific developments that were once located within the
southeast marine portion of the Denman Island West ferry terminal Project area include a launch ramp and pier
(Public Works Canada 1977, file 7955). Currently all that remains of the structures is concrete associated with
the old ramp and the foundations of the old pier (Golder 2010a). Undisturbed terrain may be present within the
upland portion of the Denman Island West Project area and within the intertidal zone adjacent to the existing
septic field.
6.4.2.5
Terrestrial
The Denman Island West ferry terminal is located between two previously recorded archaeological sites, DjSe-8
and DjSe-17. These sites stretch along Baynes Sound, separated only by the ferry terminal. During the 2008
archaeological impact assessment (AIA) conducted in advance of developments for an additional queuing lane
along the northeast side of Denman Road, no archaeological sites, materials or features were located (Golder
2008). Given the results of the 2008 AIA, upland areas northeast of Denman Road, but within BCFS property,
that are steep and rocky are considered to have a low archaeological potential. Level upland areas are
considered to have a moderate to high archaeological potential. In addition, terrain along the shoreline
immediately adjacent to previously recorded archaeological sites DjSe-8 and DjSe-17 have high archaeological
potential.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
35
Marine
No previously recorded archaeological sites exist within the intertidal zone adjacent to the Denman Island West
ferry terminal. No features of interest are evident in the intertidal area in the available aerial photograph of this
Project area.
The intertidal and subtidal deposits at the Denman Island West ferry terminal are considered to have moderate
potential to a depth of 15 m below chart datum for the areas offshore from DjSe-8 where the ferry slip is located
and to the southeast of the terminal offshore from DjSe-17.
The only historical shipwreck known to rest within 2 nm (3.7 km) of the terminal is the Vulcan (Rogers
1973:38-39), and potentially the Kristiejanter. The potential for encountering a ship or aircraft wreck in the area
is considered low, presuming that the wreck of the Kristiejanter is located elsewhere in Baynes Sound.
Protected waters near wharves, including area to the west of the abandoned breakwater within which an historic
wharf and the existing ferry terminal were and are located, have an elevated potential for vessel abandonment,
typically within the intertidal or shallow sub tidal areas. No vessel remains were noted in the upper intertidal area
in 2008. However, because of the location, there is potential for encountering abandoned vessel remains in the
lower intertidal and shallow sub tidal waters.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
36
7.0 COMMUNICATIONS
7.1 First Nations, Public, and Key Stakeholder Consultation (s.16.(1)(c);
s.18.(3))
In advance of submission of applications for Crown approvals in relation to the Project, BCFS inaugurated a
program of engagement on the Project in June-July 2009 with key stakeholders and First Nations, and in August
2009 with the public. A review of the activities undertaken by BCFS in relation to each of these groups is
presented below.
This description of consultation activities largely documents efforts through the fall of 2009, when BCFS
submitted a Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) application with Transport Canada in late September 2009
and filed a Licence of Occupation (LO) application with the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations (MNRO) in
November 2009. Exceptions to these activities include a meeting with the Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society in
February 2010, which had been postponed from August 2009.
7.1.1
First Nations Consultation
By letter dated July 6, 2009, BCFS provided First Nations with a description of the Project, supported by a
location map, a point-to-point preliminary plan for the cable orientation, and preliminary drawings depicting the
planned adjustments for the Buckley Bay and Denman Island West terminals. The letter and enclosures were
couriered on July 7, 2010 to the attention of Chief and Council of the following First Nations:

Homalco;

K’ómoks;

Qualicum;

Sliammon;

Snaw-Naw-As (Nanoose);

Wei Wai Kai (Cape Mudge); and,

Wei Wai Kum (Campbell River).
The letters and enclosures were also couriered to the following First Nations organizations, representing one or
more of the above First Nations:

Kwakiutl District Council (K’omoks, Wei Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum);

Laich-Kwil-Tach (formerly Hamatla) Treaty Society (Wei Wai Kai, Wei Wai Kum);

Naut’sa mawt Tribal Council (Homalco, Sliammon, Snaw-Naw-As); and,

Te’Mexw Treaty Association (Snaw-Naw-As).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
37
The four First Nations organizations named above were contacted by phone in July 2009 to establish whether
and how they wished to be kept apprised of discussions with their member Nations. The Kwakiutl District
Council, Naut’sa mawt Tribal Council, and Te’Mexw Treaty Association advised that BCFS should deal directly
with their respective member Nations. In addition, the KDC and Te’Mexw Treaty Association advised that they
could simply be copied on any further correspondence; the Naut’sa mawt advised that it took a neutral position
on referrals to its members and that no further information needed to be provided to the organization with
respect to the Project. The Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society (LKTS) indicated a desire to be consulted directly as
representative of the Wei Wai Kai and Wei Wai Kum First Nations. Further information on engagement with
LKTS is presented below, following a summary, of consultation activities with each of the individual First Nations
named above.
In addition to the July communications, all of the First Nations received faxed notice on August 4, 2009 of the
open house and public meeting scheduled for August 20, 2009, discussed further in Section 7.1.2.
Homalco
Follow up to the Project introduction letter of July 6, 2009, which included a meeting request, was initiated on
July 20, 2009. On that date, BCFS was advised of the appropriate contact for referrals. Voice mails were left for
this contact on July 20 and August 19, 2009, but no return phone calls or other communications were received.
On October 15, 2009, the Homalco contact was successfully reached by phone; BCFS was advised that another
individual was handling referrals. A voice mail was left for that contact.
No response has been received from Homalco to any of BCFS’s communication attempts to date.
K’ómoks
July 20, 2009. BCFS was advised that the letter had been passed to Chief and Council to review at their next
meeting, which was held on August 28, 2009. On that date, BCFS was advised by phone that K’ómoks did not
require a meeting to discuss the Project further, as the K’ómoks had no concerns with the Project at this time.
BCFS was further advised that a letter to this effect would be forwarded. The K’ómoks confirmed this
information by letter dated October 9, 2009, stating as follows:
“At this time we have no concerns on the proposed cable ferry. However, we may choose in the future to
address issues of infringement and compensation with respect to this project through the treaty process,
the courts or other dispute resolution process. We also reserve the right to raise objections if any cultural
use or archaeological sites are identified or if we discover impacts on our rights or interests we had not
foreseen.”
BCFS acknowledged receipt of this correspondence by return letter, dated November 23, 2009, advising that
K’ómoks would be kept apprised of the Project. To that end, BCFS advised that an application for an LO had
been submitted to the MNRO and that the K’ómoks should expect to receive a referral from that agency.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
38
Qualicum
July 20, 2009. On that date, BCFS was advised that the letter had been forwarded to the Chief for response,
and that BCFS should expect a reply shortly. Follow up calls and messages were left for the Chief on August
19, September 23, and October 15, 2009. On October 16, 2009, BCFS requested the Chief’s e-mail address,
and an e-mail was transmitted, requesting feedback on the July 6, 2009 letter. Another e-mail was sent on
November 13, 2009.
No response has been received from Qualicum to any of BCFS’s communication attempts to date.
Sliammon
In response to the Project introduction letter of July 6, 2009, Sliammon advised BCFS by letter dated
July 10, 2009, and forwarded by e-mail of the same date, that Sliammon “hereby defers the responsibility of
responding to, identifying and resolving issues (including archaeological) related to the referral noted above [the
Project], to the Comox [K’ómoks] First Nation.” This letter also referred to a “four nations process,” about which
BCFS asked the Sliammon for further information. BCFS was referred to the Sliammon Treaty Society, which
advised that this was an understanding between Sliammon, Homalco, Klahoose, and Sechelt First Nations and
the Sunshine Coast Forest District regarding specific areas for which approvals trigger an enhanced consultation
process. The Buckley Bay-Denman Island area is outside of these areas, but is subject to a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Sliammon and K’ómoks. This MOU triggered the deferral to K’ómoks.
Snaw-Naw-As
July 20, 2009. On that date, BCFS was advised of the appropriate contact for referrals. Voice mails were left for
this contact on July 20 and August 19, 2009, but no return phone calls or other communications were received.
Another phone call was placed October 15, 2009, but the contact’s voice mail was full. On October 16, 2009,
BCFS obtained the e-mail for the contact, and copied the Chief on the transmission. That same day, in
response to BCFS’s e-mail, the Chief directed the contact to follow up on BCFS’s request for response. As of
November 13, 2009, no response had been received, prompting a follow up e-mail to the contact, with copy to
the Chief.
No response has been received from Snaw-Naw-As to any of BCFS’s communication attempts date.
Wei Wai Kai
July 20, 2009. The Wei Wai Kai contact could not recall seeing the letter but indicated that he would look for it.
On July 21, 2009, BCFS advised the contact that the courier had been unsuccessful on the first delivery attempt,
and that a second attempt would be made that day or the following day. The courier company advised that the
package had been received on July 22, 2009.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
39
On July 28, 2009, BCFS contacted Wei Wai Kai to follow up on the receipt of a letter from LKTS, dated
July 23, 2009, which suggested that this organization would be representing Wei Wai Kai on consultation relating
to the Project. A voice mail was left with the Wei Wai Kai contact on this date and another on July 31, 2009. On
August 5, 2009, BCFS were informed that the Wei Wai Kai would proceed through the LKTS for the purposes of
consultation on the Project, but wished to be copied on any further correspondence.
For more information on consultation activities with Wei Wai Kai, please see the section on LKTS, below.
Wei Wai Kum
July 20, 2009. BCFS was advised that the letter was forwarded to the Chief; subsequently, a voice mail was left
with the Chief requesting a return call.
On July 28, 2009, BCFS contacted Wei Wai Kum to follow up on the receipt of a letter from LKTS, dated
July 23, 2009, which suggested that this organization would be representing Wei Wai Kum on consultation
relating to the Project. A voice mail to this effect was left for the Chief on this date and on July 31, 2009. On
August 4, 2009, the Chief informed BCFS by phone that the Wei Wai Kum would proceed through the LKTS for
the purposes of consultation on the Project. The Chief confirmed this information by e-mail of the same date,
and further indicated that he wished to be kept informed on the Project and copied on any further
correspondence.
For more information on consultation activities with Wei Wai Kai, please see the section on LKTS, below.
Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society
July 20, 2009. The LKTS contact indicated that the area was well-utilized by First Nations represented by the
LKTS and that the LKTS would like further information on any studies that had been undertaken in relation to the
Project. BCFS supplied LKTS with a list of these studies by fax on July 22, 2009. On July 23, 2009, LKTS faxed
a letter to BCFS, acknowledging BCFS’s correspondence of July 6, 2009, and requesting that BCFS contact
LKTS to arrange a meeting.
BCFS began attempts to arrange a meeting began on July 24, 2009. On July 27, 2009, BCFS inquired whether
a letter to Kwiakah, a member of the LKTS, should also be sent a Project information letter, as per those
forwarded to Wei Wai Kai and Wei Wai Kum on July 6, 2009. LKTS indicated that a letter to Kwiakah would not
be necessary, but advised that the Chief of Kwiakah would be at the meeting by virtue of Kwiakah’s membership
in LKTS.
A meeting with LKTS was arranged for August 19, 2009 at LKTS offices in Campbell River. On
August 17, 2009, LKTS advised that it had to cancel the meeting, provided alternative dates, and asked for
details again on the open house and public meeting scheduled for August 20, 2009. On August 18, 2009, BCFS
retransmitted the news release dated August 4, 2009 detailing the public events, and followed up again on
August 28, 2009, advising that BCFS would be available for a rescheduled meeting on September 28, 2009. On
September 14, 2009, LKTS advised that they would no longer be available for a September 28, 2009 meeting
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
40
and indicated that it would provide an alternative schedule at a later date. BCFS made three further attempts to
solidify a date with LKTS over the months of September, October, and November 2009.
On January 8, 2010, LKTS contacted BCFS with proposed meeting dates for early February, and a meeting was
held between representatives of BCFS and LKTS, including the Chiefs of the Wei Wai Kai and Wei Wai Kum, on
February 3, 2010. BCFS presented further information on the Project, which included the following:

an overview of the rationale for a cable ferry on the Buckley Bay-Denman Island West route, including the
results of wind/wave analysis that indicated such a ferry could be operated in Baynes Sound safely and
reliably;


the benefits of a cable ferry over a conventional vessel;



mitigation strategies in relation to identified risks – i.e., service reliability (cable monitoring/replacement
programs), cable scour on sea bed (environmental assessment, sea bed survey, and consultation), and
impact on vessel traffic (consultation and navigational aids);
the unfeasibility of a cable ferry on the Denman Island East-Hornby Island route;
drawings illustrating terminal adjustments and vessel design and path; and,
next steps, including BCFS’s final “go” or “no go” decision on the Project.
The LKTS raised the following issues to BCFS with regard to the Project during the meeting:


the LKTS First Nations claim aboriginal rights and title to the waters off Denman Island; and,
there are potential safety concerns with respect to the Baynes Sound herring fishery, in which LKTS
First Nations participate.
Elaboration on the first point was not provided in the context of the meeting. However, with regard to the herring
fishery, LKTS indicated that this fishery, which occurs every March for a duration of one to two days, was one of
the largest on the BC coast, with loads valued at approximately $1 million annually. The LKTS further indicated
that that First Nations have priority access to this fishery. In terms of the safety concerns, LKTS advised that
seine nets from this fishery, especially when full, can take hours to pull and can compromise the navigability of
the boats. With full nets and/or rough weather, LKTS was concerned that these boats could conceivably be
dragged into the path of the ferry. As such, to the LKTS, the cable ferry poses a potential safety hazard to this
fishery. LKTS recommended that BCFS speak to the captain of the current ferry and contact the commercial
fishing industry to further discuss the issue. LKTS provided BCFS with the contact name and number for the
Herring Industry Advisory Board (HIAB), which the LKTS felt could represent their interests to BCFS and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO).
On March 31, 2010, BCFS advised LKTS by e-mail that it had corresponded with HIAB and DFO and was
forwarding the results of that communication to LKTS. In summary, pending further consultation, HIAB and DFO
stated their respective opposition to the Project for safety reasons related to the annual herring fishery. Further
details of BCFS correspondence with HIAB and DFO is presented in Sections 7.1.3 and 7.3. BCFS requested
that LKTS advise BCFS of any questions or concerns as a result of this HIAB and DFO correspondence. To the
date of this report, no further concerns or questions have been received by BCFS from LKTS.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
41
Additional First Nations Consultation Activities
In November 2009, BCFS submitted an application to the MNRO (through FrontCounter BC) for a Licence of
Occupation (LO) in relation to the Project. As a result of that application, BCFS was advised that a “notification
package” first had to be sent to the Nanwakolas Council (NC), a single-window clearinghouse with which the
Province of BC has an agreement, dated July 25, 2008, to coordinate the response of First Nations on referrals
falling within a specified geographic area on the southern BC coast, as per a map appended to the agreement.
The Project is situated at the most southern extent of that territory. BCFS followed MNRO’s direction and
advised the NC, by letter dated November 20, 2009, of the First Nations with whom it had been in contact to
date, along with the requisite notification package.
In May 2010, in contacting MNRO for an update on the status of the LO application, BCFS was advised that the
only First Nation from whom concerns were received as a result of MNRO’s initial referral letter in November
2009 and 60-day follow up letter in January 2010, was the LKTS, who had advised MNRO that it had requested
a meeting with BCFS, but that one had not taken place. As discussed above, a meeting with LKTS was held on
February 3, 2010, after several attempts to reschedule the meeting originally slated for August 19, 2009, which
had been postponed by LKTS.
In making further inquiries with MNRO on the details of its consultation with First Nations on the Project, BCFS
learned from MNRO, on June 11, 2010, that the LO application had also been referred to the six First Nations
that are members of the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group (HTG), which asserts interests in a marine territory that
includes the Project area. These First Nations are as follows:






Chemainus;
Cowichan Tribes;
Halalt;
Lake Cowichan;
Lyackson; and,
Penelakut Tribe
BCFS understands that the MNRO has to date received no feedback from any of the HTG member First Nations.
BCFS also understands, as per the June 11, 2010 communication with MNRO, that this Crown agency considers
the K’ómoks to have the strongest claim to the Project area. As discussed above, the K’ómoks indicated to
BCFS, by letter dated October 9, 2009, that it had no concerns with the Project.
If requested, correspondence noted above and consultation logs can be provided to the RA on a confidential
basis. The logs were previously submitted to Transport Canada in late September 2009 and to MNRO on
June 16, 2010, in support of applications to those agencies in relation to the Project.
BCFS plans to notify First Nations by letter of the CEAA review. BCFS has been advised by MNRO that this
agency plans to contact First Nations as follow up on its referral of the LO application in November 2009, once
the CEAA review has been completed.
BCFS is committed to working with First Nations, as necessary, as it continues its feasibility assessment of the
cable ferry concept.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
42
7.1.2
Public Consultation
Open houses and public meetings on the Project were held on August 20, 2009 (Denman Island) and November
4, 2009 (both on Denman Island and Hornby Island). Concerns raised in these public sessions were limited to
service reliability and implications for local employment due to reduced crew requirements for the cable ferry.
7.1.3
Key Stakeholder Consultation
BCFS met with the following key stakeholders in relation to the Project:








Denman-Hornby Ferry Advisory Committee (June 17 and November 4, 2009);
Council of Marine Carriers (August 6, 2009);
Shellfish Growers of BC (September 28, 2009; phone, email and letter exchange only);
Recreational Boaters Advisory Committee (November 18, 2009);
Council of BC Yacht Clubs (November 28, 2009);
Comox Valley Regional District, Advisory Planning Commission for Baynes Sound (February 15, 2010);
Campbell River Local Marine Advisory Council (March 3, 2010); and,
Herring Industry Advisory Board (April 28, 2010)
With the exception of the Herring Industry Advisory Board (HIAB), no significant issues with the cable ferry
concept have been raised by the above-noted stakeholders.
Contact with the HIAB was initially made on February 5, 2010, as follow up to BCFS’s meeting on
February 3, 2010 with the LKTS, who first advised BCFS of the herring fishery and its possible adverse
interaction with cable ferry operations. The HIAB responded on March 15, 2010, indicating that the cable ferry
“could be a safety issue for the seine fleet...if a boat with a set were to get caught up in the cable”
(Hamer 2010a). Hamer (2010a) also indicated that, until further consultation with the organization had taken
place, it was “strongly opposed” to the Project. The HIAB extended an invitation to BCFS to further this
consultation at the organization’s next regularly scheduled meeting on April 28, 2010.
BCFS attended this HIAB meeting and presented an overview of the Project. HIAB reiterated its concern that
the cable ferry could pose a safety risk to the seine fleet in Baynes Sound. BCFS suggested that a 300 m safety
or “no transit” zone on either side of the ferry may be necessary; however, HIAB noted that the entire crossing is
2200 m, leaving little room for safe passage. Moreover, HIAB asserted that “seine vessels that are setting on
herring, or pumping large sets have limited manoeuvrability at best, and this manoeuvrability is further reduced
with unfavourable tides or high winds.”
BCFS has had several additional communications with HIAB and is committed to working with HIAB, as
necessary, as it continues its feasibility assessment of the cable ferry concept. A meeting between BCFS, HIAB,
and representatives of DFO’s Resource Management Division has been scheduled for Feb 01, 2011.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
43
7.2
Provincial Agency Communications
As discussed in Section 7.1.1, a Licence of Occupation (LO) from MNRO is required for the Project. As a result
of MNRO’s referral of the LO application in November 2009, BCFS has communicated with MNRO on feedback
received from First Nations, the Ministry of Environment, and DFO. Section 7.1.1 outlines the nature of the
discussion with respect to First Nations. Section 7.3 reviews the communications pertaining to DFO.
The Ministry of Environment (MOE) informed MNRO, by letter dated December 3, 2009, that it could not
comment on the LO application at that time because the following information was unavailable to MOE:

marine biophysical inventory;

whether dredging was required, and if so, information about volume, disposal, impacts to marine life;

amount of fish habitat that will be lost due to new construction;

impacts of cable scour to the ocean bottom and marine life; and,

planned mitigation measures and fish habitat compensation.
BCFS has addressed these issues through this CEAA application.
BCFS is aware that MNRO is awaiting the outcome of CEAA review before making a decision on the LO
application.
7.3
Federal Coordination (s.12.(1)(3))
BCFS has been in communication with federal agencies since 2008 on the Project.
In October 2009, BCFS was advised by Transport Canada that the agency was splitting the NWPA application
into two, to allow for separate treatment of the terminals, which were considered “existing,” and the cable, which
was considered “new.”
On January 20, 2010, BCFS learned through MNRO, as per its LO application referral of November 2009, that
DFO had indicated that a CEAA screening level review would be necessary, as triggered by the requirement for
a Section 35(2) Authorization under the Fisheries Act. Attempts by BCFS to reach DFO over the following
months to confirm this requirement were unsuccessful. On May 10, 2010, BCFS requested and received a copy
of the DFO referral response to MNRO, dated December 2, 2009, which indicated the Section 35(2) and CEAA
requirements. At that time, BCFS initiated steps to complete these requirements.
BCFS notes, however, that the information received by MNRO from DFO in December 2009 contradicted
information previously received by BCFS from DFO in four meetings over the course of 2009. BCFS had
understood from those communications that a CEAA had not been triggered. BCFS also notes that it had not
been advised of a CEAA requirement in its communications with Transport Canada leading up to and following
the application for authorization under the NWPA in late September 2009.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
44
With regard to the herring fishery in Baynes Sound discussed in Section 7.1.1, BCFS first became aware of this
fishery during its meeting with LKTS on February 3, 2010. As a result of BCFS inquiries following the LKTS
meeting, BCFS entered into communications with DFO (Fisheries and Aquaculture Management), which advised
BCFS by letter dated March 31, 2010, that it had only recently become aware of the Project. The letter
reiterated the safety issues raised by HIAB outlined in Section 7.2, adding that “additional infrastructure within
[Baynes] Sound that restricts the opportunity to fish can have a serious economic impact on the industry.”
As such, for safety reasons and the potential economic impact of limiting the fishery to avoid any conflict with
ferry operations, DFO “does not support the proposal for a cable ferry in Baynes Sound.”
BCFS is committed to working with DFO and other federal agencies, as necessary, as it continues its feasibility
assessment of the cable ferry concept.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
45
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS7, SIGNIFICANCE AND
MITIGATION (S.16.(1); S.20.(2))
8.0
The potential for project interaction with VECs and VSCs was analyzed based on: information provided by the
proponent; a review of project related activities; an appraisal of the environmental setting; temporal and/or
spatial conflict; personal knowledge and professional judgment. Measures to mitigate any identified potential
adverse interactions were then recommended. Significance of any residual effect was ascertained based on an
evaluation of the effect's magnitude, geographic extent, duration/frequency, irreversibility, and ecological
context. The analysis also considers issues raised in the course of consultation with First Nations, the public,
and/or key stakeholders, as well as accidental and cumulative effects. Refer to the checklist for Scoping Valued
Ecosystem and Social Components Pertinent to this Project (Table 2).
This assessment identified that the site preparation/construction and operation/maintenance phases of the
Project could interact with the VECs and VSCs identified in Table 2. Most potential adverse effects would occur
during the site preparation/construction phase. Potential effects are mitigated by the following factors:

The Site is of relatively small geographic extent;

The duration of the site preparation and construction phases is anticipated to be short; and,

The Site has been previously disturbed.
The significance of residual effects was rated as follows:
(0)
None = No potential effect to VEC or VSC.
(1)
Insignificant = No effect to VEC or VSC after implementation of required mitigation measures.
(2)
Significant = Effect could threaten sustainability of VEC or VSC, even after implementation of
required mitigation measures. Further study or follow-up program should be considered.
(3)
Unknown (+) or (-) = Effect on the identified VEC or VSC is unknown.
8.1
Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project
Table A4-1 (Appendix IV) outlines the potential effects of the environment on the Project and provides
recommended mitigation measures, residual effects, and monitoring and follow-up requirements where these are
applicable. A summary is also provided below:
7
For clarification of this term, please see Reference Guide: Determining Whether A Project Is Likely To Cause Significant Adverse
Environmental Effects. http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/012/newguidance_e.htm
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
46
8.1.1
Climate
Site Preparation / Construction:

Adverse weather conditions may cause temporary delays, but such delays are accounted for in the
construction schedule.

Excessive rain or strong wind conditions could cause soil erosion and sedimentation.
Operations / Maintenance:

Adverse weather is not expected to cause any additional delays in the cable ferry service than those
incurred with the current diesel service.
Mitigation Measures:

Weather delays shall be accounted for in the construction schedule.

Marine weather forecasts will be frequently monitored and communicated to the Project work crew in order
to minimize the potential for marine works to occur in strong winds or rough seas; as poor weather
conditions may contribute to equipment malfunctions that ultimately impact the marine environment.

Work should be halted during heavy precipitation if excessive sediment loading is noted in surface water.

Stockpiled material will be covered during precipitation events to minimize erosion and sediment transport.

Prepare and implement a sediment and erosion control plan as part of an Environmental Management
Plan.
Residual Immitigable Adverse Effects: None identified.
Follow up / Monitoring: None
8.2
Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment
Table A4-2 (Appendix IV) outlines the potential effects of the Project on the environment and provides
recommended mitigation measures, residual effects, and monitoring and follow-up requirements where these are
applicable. Potential project-environment interactions are also presented below by VEC/VSC component:
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
47
8.2.1
Air Quality
Site preparation / Construction:

Dust may be generated if construction activities are undertaken during dry weather, but this effect would be
local and short-term.

Operation of trucks and other machinery used during the Project will result in short-term, localized exhaust
emissions.

Replacement of diesel ferry service with cable ferry service is expected to have a positive effect on local air
quality, as hydrocarbon emissions from the vessels will be reduced.

Ensure all machinery and vehicles utilized for the Project are in best working order in order to reduce air
emissions.

Ensure machinery is turned off when it is not required.
8.2.2
Ambient Noise

Construction activities, such as pile installation, have the potential to increase in-air and underwater noise.

Operation of trucks or other machinery used during all of the project component activities will result in shortterm, localized noise in-air emissions.

Construction will entail driving piles using a barge-mounted crane, increasing noise increase in the area
that might disturb nearby residents on Denman Island and around Buckley Bay.

The cable ferry will generate less in-air noise than the current diesel ferry.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
48

Mitigation of potential effects on underwater noise levels has been accommodated at the design stage by
including equipment such as vibro-hammers for pile installation. This minimizes the effects on marine
mammals and fish by decreasing the anticipated noise levels to below the threshold for physical damage
and minimizing the potential effects on behaviour of local species.




Equipment shall be in good working condition.

When pile driving or pile drilling, a “ramp up” or “soft start” technique shall be used. Where equipment
allows, power shall be built up slowly from a low energy start-up over at least 10 minutes to give adequate
time for marine mammals and fish to leave the vicinity before exposure to the maximum sound pressure
level. There should be a soft start every time pile driving is resumed, even if no marine mammals have
been observed in the area.

Prior to commencing pile driving activities, shore-based or vessel-based visual observations shall be
conducted of the surrounding area to determine if marine mammals are present within the safety perimeter.
If a marine mammal is present within the safety perimeter prior to the start of pile driving, the activity shall
be delayed until such time that the marine mammal has cleared outside the safety perimeter. Activities shall
not resume until it is visually confirmed that the marine mammal is outside the safety perimeter, or if a
minimum of 15 minutes has elapsed since the marine mammal was last sighted within the safety perimeter.

During pile driving, if a marine mammal is known or suspected to be present in the area but outside the
safety perimeter, pile driving can proceed provided that the “soft start” procedure is employed so as to allow
sufficient time for the marine mammals to achieve a safe distance from the source.

Any dead, stranded, sick, or injured marine mammal observed in the Project area shall be reported to the
environmental monitor and should be recorded in a Field Inspection Report.
Use machinery which limits excessive noise.
Ensure work activities are limited to any applicable municipal construction hours of operation by-law.
Work will be conducted during normal daylight hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. If work needs to be
done outside these hours, residents in the area will be notified a minimum of 14 days in advance by letter
and signage posted at the ferry terminal.
Follow up / Monitoring: None.
8.2.3
Geology Terrain
Expansion of fill (rip rap) will alter existing site bathymetry and provide hard-bottom habitat
Mitigation Measures: None
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
49
8.2.4
Surface Water

Pile installation, placement/removal of riprap, and earthworks adjacent to the marine environment will likely
introduce sediments to marine waters, potentially degrading water quality in the immediate project area.
High TSS could result in anoxic conditions in the immediate project area, making it difficult for fish to extract
dissolved oxygen, and also result in gill abrasion.

New piles will need to be installed to provide support for the new floating pontoon and abutment. Once the
new piles are driven to the required depth, sediment from inside the piling must be removed, either with a
small dredge or by pumping water down into the piling and the slurry out of the interior of the piles. This
procedure could introduce water with very high TSS to the marine environment and degrade the water
quality within the immediate project area and farther away.

Following removal of sediment, gravel will be placed in the interior of the piles and concrete will be pumped
into any remaining void space. Concrete has very high pH and effects of high pH on fish may include
mortality, damage to outer surfaces like gills, eyes, and skin, and an inability to dispose of metabolic
wastes. High pH may also increase the toxicity of other substances. The safe pH range for aquatic life is
6.5 to 9.0.

There is a potential for accidental hydrocarbon spills during vehicle fuelling (both landside equipment and
from barges) and from hydraulic line ruptures on equipment, and spills from oils and lubricants maintained
on the site and on barges. Hydrocarbons coming into contact with surface water would constitute a violation
under Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

If excavation is required on the upland side of the berth for extension of utilities, there is potential for
exposed soil in utility corridors and in stockpiles on the site. Precipitation could erode this soil, and transport
runoff water high in Total Suspended Solids (TSS) to marine waters of Baynes Sound. Input of water high
in TSS would constitute a violation under section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

If paving is required in altered areas of the berth, there is potential for runoff caused by precipitation to
transport hydrocarbons to Baynes Sound if the asphalt has not cured adequately.

There is potential for surface water runoff to storm drains or directly to Baynes Sound to transport
accumulated particulates, metals, antifreeze, and leaked hydrocarbons from vehicles parked in the holding
area. Hydraulic oil may also leak from ramp operations.
Terrestrial:

All excavated material and stockpiled material above the Higher High Water Mark (HHWM) shall be located
a minimum of 30 m from water bodies.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
50

Polyethylene tarps, or other suitable measures, shall be used where applicable to cover excavated
sediment or fine material stockpiles. Tarps and other materials such as erosion control matting shall be
secured sufficiently to withstand storms and surface water flows.

Uplands work shall be conducted in accordance with recommendations outlined in the “Land Development
Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat” (Chilibeck et al. 1992).

Sediment control barriers, such as silt fences, are effective in retaining sediment coarser than 0.02 mm in
diameter and filter sediment-laden runoff from eroded slopes and surfaces. The location of silt fences
should be identified by the contractor in conjunction with the environmental monitor and incorporated into
the detailed construction plans as part of an Erosion and Drainage Control Plan. Silt fencing will be
constructed in accordance with the procedure described in the “Land Development Guidelines for the
Protection of Aquatic Habitat” (Chilibeck et al. 1992).

To control the sediment discharge from any soil stockpile, silt fences will be installed around their base.
These piles should also be covered by polyethylene tarps to prevent sediment transport by wind or rain.

To prevent discharge of runoff containing high TSS, concrete wash water, asphalt or oil from paving
operations, the contractor will develop a project Water Quality Management Plan and submit it to BCFS for
approval.

The project Water Quality Management Plan will also outline methods to be used to prevent discharges
containing asphalt slurries and other waste materials from reaching storm drains or ditches.


Construction materials and excavation wastes, overburden, sediment, or other substances deleterious to
marine life shall be disposed of, or placed in such a manner by the Contractor, so as to prevent their entry
into the marine environment at the Project site.
Marine:

All materials used for works associated with the Project, including fill materials, shall be clean material and
substantially free of fines, organic material and deleterious substances (i.e., substances harmful to fish).

Riprap fill will be placed using a barge-mounted clamshell bucket or other method acceptable to DFO in a
way that minimizes sediment disturbance.

Pilings will be installed in accordance with the “Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related
Operations – BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association - March 2003” (Appendix III).

Where applicable, turbidity monitoring shall be implemented during all pile drilling/driving activities, to
ensure that turbidity levels in the marine environment do not exceed established water quality regulatory
criteria during Project works, as described in the Environmental Monitoring Plan.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
51

If deemed necessary (as deemed appropriate and in consultation with regulatory agencies), sediment
control measures (e.g., silt curtain) will be used during pile installation activities occurring outside of the
fisheries work windows.

criteria during Project works, as described in the Environmental Monitoring Plan. Documented turbidity
criteria will be established (in consultation with DFO), specifying conditions for the cessation of work and/or
the deployment of a sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtain).

The contractor will be responsible for collecting any high TSS water removed from the interior of marine
piles and ensuring that no sediment-laden water enters the marine environment.

When pouring concrete during pile installation, all spills of fresh concrete must be prevented from entering
into the marine environment at the site at any time. Concrete is toxic to fish due its high pH. If the concrete
is being placed with a concrete pump, all hose and pipe connections must be sealed and locked properly to
ensure the lines will not leak or uncouple.

All concrete forms will be constructed in a manner which will prevent fresh concrete or cement-laden water
from leaking into the surrounding water.

When fresh water is used to cure concrete, the runoff must be monitored for acceptable pH levels. If the pH
levels are outside the allowable limits, then the runoff water must be contained and neutralized.

When pouring concrete during pile installation, contact between cementitious materials and surrounding
seawater shall be avoided to the extent possible. Where this is not avoidable, circulation of cementitious
material with surrounding seawater shall be minimized to the extent possible.

When grinding cured concrete, the dust and fines entering the water must not exceed the allowable limits
for suspended solids. When grinding green or incompletely cured concrete and the dust or fines are
entering the water, pH monitoring will be conducted to ensure allowable ranges are maintained. In the
event that the levels are outside the acceptable ranges, preventative measures will be introduced. This may
include introducing silt curtains to contain the solids and to prevent fish from entering a contaminated area
or constructing catch basins to recover the runoff and neutralizing it prior to disposal.

All concrete spills must be contained and prevented from entering the water. Washing hand tools, pumps
and transit mixer. All tools, pumps, pipes, hoses and trucks used for finishing, placing or transporting fresh
concrete must be washed off in such a way as to prevent the wash water and excess concrete from
entering the marine environment. The wash water will be contained and disposed of upland in an
environmentally acceptable manner. Whenever there is the possibility of contaminants entering water, the
contractor will monitor pH levels to ensure acceptable levels.

No uncured concrete or concrete wash water will be allowed to enter any surface water feature (marine
water or surface drains). Concrete-covered equipment must be washed off-site, and measures must be
taken to ensure no concrete enters storm drains. As rainfall within 72 hours of pouring concrete can enable
leachate to enter surface or storm water systems, no concrete should be poured if significant precipitation
events are anticipated within 72 hours. The contractor must provide a method for containing any concrete
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
52
that is poured into marine and landside piles. Uncured concrete cannot come into with any surface water for
72 hours and any overflow from the piles must be contained.
General:

For drainage improvements made to the site, oil-water separators or sediment control systems (e.g.,
Stormceptor®) will be implemented.

To prevent accidental fuel spills or hydraulic oil leaks from entering exposed soil or water, the contractor will
have a spill-response plan for this project that has been approved by the Project Manager.

Petroleum oil and lubricants (POL) will be stored in a separate, contained area at the site. Any equipment
maintenance must be done in this area, and well back from any surface water drains or collection points.

Contractors will ensure that all attachments (hydraulic connections and couplings) are in good operating
order and inspected prior to the start of every day. Spill kits and containment booms must be maintained
on-site in case of spills.

All heavy machinery used during construction will be equipped with spill kits.

Equipment must be serviced or fuelled in a designated re-fuelling area, at least 30 m from any surface
water collecting and discharging areas on the site.

Spill kits with absorbent pads and containment booms must be available in the refuelling areas to be used
in the event of accidental spills.

Vegetable-based hydraulic oils should be used in place of traditional hydraulic oil.

If a hydrocarbon sheen is noted within the contained area the contractor will notify the site environmental
monitor and clean it up using absorbent padding.

An environmental monitor will be present during all work to ensure that no deleterious substances are
released and that marine organisms are not adversely affected by the work. Work will be suspended if there
is evidence of harm to fish and DFO will be consulted.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
53
8.2.5
The Denman Island West Side Ferry Terminal is sufficiently distant from the coastal wood fern population
(322 m) that no effects are anticipated during any phase of the Project.
Mitigation Measures: All upland works will take place on previously developed land.
8.2.6
Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat

Limited sensory disturbance may result from construction noise (e.g., pile installation). Purple martins were
observed in nest boxes installed on piles in the Buckley Bay Project area south of the existing berth,
although no other bird nests or evidence of birds using the berth as habitat were noted during field
investigations (Archipelago 2009). Purple martin and other bird species that may use habitat in the vicinity
of either terminal would be accustomed to ferry terminal activity and would not likely be affected by terminal
modifications
Operations / Maintenance: No effects anticipated

If purple martins are shown to actively be using next boxes atop pilings near the Buckley Bay terminal at
the time of construction, then construction activities associated with high noise should be undertaken after
chicks have fledged the nest and the period from April 1 to June 1 should be avoided.
Residual Immitigable Adverse Effects: None.
8.2.7
Aquatic Vegetation
See Section 8.2.8
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
54
8.2.8
The facilities at each terminal have been designed to minimize the project footprint to the extent possible.
Habitat within the project footprint will be directly lost. Anticipated habitat losses and gains from Project
components are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Marine Habitat Balance Sheet
Project
Area
Buckley
Bay
Description of Habitat
Construction
Operation
Habitat
Type
Effects
Flora / Fauna
Loss
(m2)
Gain
(m2)
Rip rap
Installation of
new fill
Macroalgae
Fish and Fish
Habitat
100
240
Rocky
hard
bottom
Installation of
new fill
Macroalgae
Fish and Fish
Habitat
140
-140
Rocky
hard
bottom
Shading effects
from concrete
pontoon
Macroalgae
Fish and Fish
Habitat
391
-391
Loss
(m2)
Gain
(m2)
Net
Change
+140
Net Balance Buckley Bay terminal: -391
Denman
Island
West
Rip rap
Macroalgae
Fish and Fish
Habitat
800
Rocky
hard
bottom
Macroalgae
Fish and Fish
Habitat
985
-985
Rocky
hard
bottom
Macroalgae
Fish and Fish
Habitat
391
-391
1785
+985
Net Balance Denman West terminal: -391
Net Balance Project: - 782 m2

The existing riprap apron at both terminals, which provides hard habitat for marine species, will not be
constructed beyond the extent to which some modifications will be necessary to accommodate new
infrastructure.

At Buckley Bay terminal, approximately 240 m2 of riprap fill will be installed on the periphery of the existing
apron in the location proposed for the concrete abutment (covering a portion of the existing apron). This will
result in a loss of 100 m2 of existing riprap habitat and 140 m2 of natural hard bottom habitat. Macroalgae
and marine invertebrates colonizing these areas will be physically lost due to the placement of this fill.
However, subsequent re-colonization of the new riprap fill will result in a gain of 240 m2 of habitat.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
55

At Denman Island West terminal, approximately 1785 m2 of riprap fill will be installed on the periphery of the
existing apron (covering a portion of the existing apron). This will result in a loss of 800 m2 of existing riprap
habitat and 985 m2 of natural hard bottom habitat. Macroalgae and marine invertebrates colonizing these
areas will be physically lost due to the placement of this fill. However, subsequent re-colonization of the
new riprap fill will result in a gain of 1785 m2 of habitat.

Macroalgae growing on hard substrate underneath the new floating concrete platform (391 m2) at both
terminals will be subject to indirect habitat loss through shading effects associated with this structure.

Sediment-laden run-off and hydrocarbon spills could potentially be discharged to the marine environment
and result in deleterious effects on marine biota and marine habitat.

Installation of riprap fill will result in new hard bottom habitat in the intertidal and subtidal zone for fish,
invertebrates, and macroalgae. It will also constitute more unique substrate in the Project area, with more
interstitial space for colonization than is available on typical bedrock.

Pile installation will also physically disturb benthic habitat resulting in a loss of sedentary benthic
invertebrates living in soft bottom habitat. Mobile invertebrates and marine fish within the vicinity will likely
avoid the area during pile installation, but will likely return following the disturbance. Submerged piles will
subsequently serve as new artificial vertical habitat (hard substrate) in the Project areas. The abundance of
hard-substrate invertebrates is expected to increase on this new habitat over a short time frame, particularly
for colonization specialists such as mussels, barnacles and various macroalgae.

Placement of riprap is considered a low risk to northern abalone in the Project areas, due to their apparent
absence from the area. If abalone are present, they are in low density. Abalone inhabiting the riprap face at
either terminal would continue utilizing non-modified riprap areas and any new riprap face.

The replacement of the current ferry operations with a cable ferry system will result in a reduced impact to
marine species and associated marine habitat in the Project area due to the elimination of propeller wash
and associated bottom scour effects in the nearshore environment. This will result in the recovery of benthic
habitat presently disturbed in these areas and allow for eventual colonization by marine vegetation,
invertebrates and fish.

No effects to marine vegetation are anticipated from the operation of the cable ferry as cable scour effects
are limited to deepwater segments of Baynes Sound where vegetation is shown to be absent.

Minimal effects to marine fish and fish habitat are anticipated from operation of the cable ferry as cable
scour effects are limited to deepwater segments of Baynes Sound where fish and fish habitat is shown to
be limited.


Construction barge shall not to come to rest on the seafloor (no grounding).
All foreshore work will be conducted at low tide to minimize impact to the marine environment.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
56

infrastructure.

Compensation for loss of marine habitat will be implemented, in consultation with DFO and in accordance
with a Fisheries Act Section 35(2) Authorization. A monitoring program of the habitat compensation will be
carried out as prescribed by DFO.

Best management practices listed above for controlling sedimentation and contamination of marine waters
are also applicable to protection of marine habitat and biota.

Pile installation will take place during marine / estuarine fisheries work windows (DFO 2010b). It is
important to undertake the physical disturbance associated with the construction phase of the project during
times of least risk to marine life at the terminal sites. If BCFS proposes to complete pile installation outside
the established fisheries work window, additional mitigation measures may be required.

Adherence to the best management practices for pile driving and related operations, as stated in “Best
Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations – BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors
Association – November 2003” (Appendix III). This BMP was co-developed by the BC Marine and Pile
Driving Contractors Association and DFO for pile driving activities in marine environments within the
province of British Columbia).

A qualified environmental monitor (EM) will be on-site during environmentally sensitive stages of the work,
including fill placement and pile cleanout, as well as for any environmental disturbance events should they
occur (i.e. accidental spill). When on-site, the EM will:
 Provide guidance to the contractor with regards to the protection of fish and fish habitat;
 Inspect environmental mitigation and protection measures to assess whether they are functioning as
desired;
 Document work activities and the implementation of environmental mitigation and protection measures;
and,
 The environmental monitor will have authority to shut down the work and immediately contact DFO
should fish or fish habitat be at risk.

Sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtain) and/or fish exclusion measures will be used, while work is
underway (to be removed when silt has settled).

Monitoring of turbidity, throughout the water column, will be undertaken at predetermined distances from
pile driving. Documented turbidity criteria will be established (in consultation with DFO), in advance of pile
driving, specifying conditions for the cessation of work and/or the deployment of a sediment control
measures (e.g., silt curtain) and/ or fish exclusion measures.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
57
Residual Immitigable Adverse Effects: Yes, a temporary loss of marine habitat will occur as the direct
impacts on marine habitat cannot be fully mitigated, and constitute residual adverse effects expected to result in
a HADD. Applicable compensation is proposed in Section 8.6. Once new riprap fill is placed, propeller wash and
associated scour effects are eliminated, and compensation habitat is established, no negative effects are
anticipated; as there will be an increase in the area of substrate/habitat available for colonization of macroalgae,
invertebrates and fish.
Follow up / Monitoring: Monitoring of compensation habitat will be conducted in accordance with DFO
guidance. An EMP will be prepared which will include detailed information on follow-up monitoring requirements.
8.2.9
Migratory Birds

Limited sensory disturbance may result from construction noise, particularly pile installation. The effects
will be short-term and of low frequency. It is predicted that migratory birds will habituate to noise sources
and remain in the area, or will temporally leave the area during noisy activities to avoid behavioural
disturbance and return once pile driving activities have been completed. In view of planned mitigation, the
potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on migratory birds and associated habitat during the
construction phase are rated as low and non-significant.

Pile installation is scheduled to occur outside of the bird nesting season and peak migration period so
disturbance is expected to be minimal.

time for marine mammals to leave the vicinity before exposure to the maximum sound pressure level. There
should be a soft start every time pile driving is resumed, even if no marine mammals have been observed
in the area.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
58
8.2.10
Marine Mammals

Limited sensory disturbance may result from construction noise, particularly pile installation. The effects will
be short-term and of low frequency. It is predicted that marine mammals will habituate to noise sources and
remain in the area, or will temporally leave the area during noisy activities to avoid behavioural disturbance
and return once pile driving activities have been completed. In view of planned mitigation, the potential
adverse environmental effects of the Project on marine mammal and associated habitat during the
construction phase are rated as low and non-significant.

time for marine mammals to leave the vicinity before exposure to the maximum sound pressure level. There
should be a soft start every time pile driving is resumed, even if no marine mammals have been observed
in the area.

Prior to commencing pile driving activities, shore-based or vessel-based visual observations shall be
conducted of the surrounding area to determine if marine mammals are present within the safety perimeter.
If a marine mammal is present within the safety perimeter prior to the start of blasting or impact pile driving,
the activity shall be delayed until such time that the marine mammal has cleared outside the safety
perimeter.

If a marine mammal enters the safety perimeter during active impact pile driving or blasting activities, these
activities shall be suspended until such time as the marine mammal departs outside the safety perimeter.

Activities shall not resume until it is visually confirmed that the marine mammal is outside the safety
perimeter, or if a minimum of 15 minutes has elapsed since the marine mammal was last sighted within the
safety perimeter.

During pile driving, if a marine mammal is known or suspected to be present in the area but outside the
safety perimeter, pile driving can proceed provided that the “soft start” procedure is employed so as to allow
sufficient time for the marine mammals to achieve a safe distance from the source.

Impact pile driving and blasting activities shall be restricted to daylight hours and to periods where wind
conditions do not exceed 25 knots per hour, so as marine mammal sighting ability is not impeded by low
light or adverse weather.

An environmental monitor shall communicate directly with the on-site operations manager during all pile
driving activities. Shut-down of pile driving activities, should this be necessary, shall be coordinated
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
59
between the environemental monitor and the operations manager, or between the environmental monitor
and an on-site contractor appointed by the on-site operations manager.

Any dead, stranded, sick, or injured marine mammal observed in the Project area shall be reported to the
environmental and should be recorded in a Field Inspection Report.
8.2.11
Resource Use

None identified.

The Project could have adverse effects on marine resource use related to the commercial roe herring
fishery in PFMA-14 which occasionally occurs in Baynes Sound over a 1 to 2 day period in March.
Representatives of the Herring Industry Advisory Board (HIAB) and the Seafood Producers Association of
British Columbia (SPABC), and DFO’s Resource Management Branch (Pelagics Division) have identified
Baynes Sound and adjacent waters as a fisheries area of interest over the long term and have indicated
that the installation of a cable ferry may interfere with the existing roe herring fishery; with specific regards
to safety risks associated with the potential entanglement of seining gear with a submerged cable system
(Hamer 2010a, 2010b; SPABC 2010, Webb 2010).

A mutually acceptable agreement will be developed by BCFS, DFO Resource Management Division, and
the herring industry, as represented by the Herring Industry Advisory Board (HIAB), and as supported by
the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia (SPABC). A meeting to formulate this agreement
has been scheduled for Feb 01, 2011.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
60
8.2.12
First Nations
Site Preparation / Construction: None identified.

The potential impacts of the Project on First Nations have been reported to BCFS by the LKTS as limited to
the effects of cable ferry operations on the commercial herring fishery in Baynes Sound that typically occurs
annually over a 1 to 2 day period in March, and in which LKTS First Nations participate. The LKTS
indicated to BCFS that HIAB could represent their interests to BCFS and Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO) on this matter. See Section 8.2.11 (Resource Use).
Mitigation Measures: See Section 8.2.11 (Resource Use).
Residual Immitigable Adverse Effects: See Section 8.2.11 (Resource Use).
Follow up: See Section 8.2.11 (Resource Use).
8.2.13
Archaeology
No registered archaeological sites are located within the Project areas, but several sites have been recorded in
adjacent areas.
For the Buckley Bay Ferry terminal area, the potential to disturb unknown archaeological deposits is moderate to
high. For the Denman Island West Ferry terminal area, the potential to disturb unknown archaeological deposits
is high for terrestrial areas including the intertidal zone and moderate to low for marine areas.
Terrestrial:

Where work will be confined to areas that have been significantly impacted by previous development (i.e.,
adding to an existing structure, working within fill), and where no impacts to undisturbed terrain will occur,
Golder recommends no further archaeological work.

If construction is proposed to occur in undisturbed upland areas within the Project area, Golder
recommends that an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) be conducted prior to the commencement of
construction activities.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
61
Marine:

Where work will be confined to areas that have been significantly impacted by previous development (i.e.,
adding to an existing structure, working within fill, working within an area that has already been dredged)
and where no impacts to undisturbed terrain will occur, Golder recommends no further archaeological work.

If construction is proposed that will involve expanding terminal facilities into the undisturbed intertidal and
subtidal zones beyond the current footprint of fill, pilings, and previously dredged seabed, Golder
recommends that an AIA be conducted prior to the commencement of construction activities.
Follow up / Monitoring:

If construction is proposed to occur in upland locations within the Buckley Bay Project area that have been
partially disturbed, Golder recommends that archaeological monitoring be conducted during construction by
a professional archaeologist.

If construction is proposed to occur in upland areas that have been partially disturbed but are outside areas
assessed during previous AIA (Golder 2008) within the Denman Island West Project area, Golder
recommends that archaeological monitoring be conducted during construction by a professional
archaeologist.
8.2.14
Human Health and Safety


Safety will be a prime consideration of the design, with all elements prepared by qualified engineers.

During excavation there is potential to encounter underground utilities such as electrical wiring, and workers
could be at risk.
Heavy equipment will be used during site preparation and construction, raising Health and safety concerns
associated with both the equipment itself and with working within the marine environment.

Safety practices at BC Ferries terminals are well established and will continue to be applied at the two
terminals.

Cable ferry operations may be somewhat safer than diesel operations, as docking will be better guided
during adverse weather conditions.

The contractor will be required to develop a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prior to commencement of
work at the site that will include specific procedures and protocols for working around construction to
reduce the potential for accidents during construction.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
62

The HASP must be approved by BC Ferries personnel. At the beginning of the project the Prime Contractor
will hold a Health and Safety meeting to discuss potential hazards, safe work practices, first aid stations,
hospital location and emergency response procedures.

A BC One call must be made prior to any site excavation or pile driving to ensure that all known utilities are
located. Private utility locators may also be contacted to aid in locating all known utilities at the site.

All work must be conducted in accordance with applicable Worker Compensation Board Occupational
Health and Safety Regulations.

Prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan as part of an Environmental Management Plan to divert
traffic away from and/or safely through any construction areas, and to restrict public access from active
construction areas.
8.2.15
Navigation
Site Preparation / Construction: No effects anticipated during this phase of the Project.
Operation / Maintenance:

The cable system has the potential to interfere with local navigation in the immediate vicinity of Buckley Bay
and Denman Island West terminals where cables rise to the surface in order to tie in to shore-based anchor
points. For the purpose of this assessment and mitigation planning, all areas within the cable footprint
without adequate cable-to-surface clearance of at least 5 m have been identified as potential navigational
hazard areas.

The Project could pose safety risks to the commercial herring fishery in Baynes Sound that typically occurs
annually over a 1 to 2 day period in March, with specific regards to the potential interaction between the
submerged cable and deeply-set seine nets, particularly during periods of limited vessel manoeuvrability
when seine nets are full. For the purpose of this assessment, we have assessed this potential interaction
under Section 5.4.8 (Resource Use), and not under navigation based on clarification received from NWPA
that concerns raised by HIAB are a resource issue, and not a navigational issue (fishing is considered an
activity, not an NWPA issue) (R. Greville – NWPA, pers. Comm. 31 March).

A 100-m safety perimeter (vessel exclusion zone) will be implemented around both terminals (measured
from the concrete pontoon), such to avoid interference between local boat traffic and the cable as it rises to
the surface to tie in to shore-based anchor points (based on a minimum 5 m depth clearance required
between the cable and the surface). Suitable visual surface marking will be installed (lighted marker buoys)
to demarcate the safety perimeter in accordance with regulations described in the Private Buoy Regulations
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
63
SOR/99-335 and requirements set out in Canadian Aids to Navigation (TP 968) published by the Canadian
Coast Guard.

A vessel exclusion zone will be implemented within a 50-m boundary on either side of the cable ferry while
it is in transit, such to avoid interference between the cable as it is drawn in and released from the cable
vessel (based on a minimum 5 m depth clearance (vessel draft) required between the cable and the
surface on either end of the vessel).
Residual Immitigable Adverse Effects: None
8.3
Accidents and Malfunctions
Due to the use of heavy machinery, vehicles and power tools during construction, there is a risk of fuel and other
hydrocarbon spills to the immediate area. Soils that may become contaminated due to spills will need to be
assessed, managed and disposed of in accordance with the BC Environmental Management Act and associated
regulations, including the Contaminated Sites Regulation and Hazardous Waste Regulation.
The contractor shall provide a Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan that shall include but not be
limited to the following mitigation measures and details:

Keep equipment and machinery well maintained and in good working order to avoid any mechanical or
equipment failures;

All equipment and machinery used shall be equipped with emergency response spill kit and shall be
inspected daily for leaks;

Details as to what spill response materials will be on site, for what purpose they are intended; in what
volume, and in what location will they be stored on site (note: spill response materials must be on site prior
to project commencement);

Spill reporting procedures and contacts including telephone numbers; and,

Response procedures detailing the steps to be undertaken for spills.
The general intentions of the Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan can be met by using machinery
that is in good repair and free of external oil and grease or other substances that may cause adverse
environmental effects. Furthermore, any on-site refuelling shall be monitored and an effective communication
protocol shall be followed to minimize potential for accidental release or overfilling of the equipment.
In addition to a Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan, general mitigation and control measures to
prevent potential adverse effects from accidents and malfunctions include:

Established best practices and SOPs for refuelling and petroleum/oil/liquid (POL) storage shall be followed.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
64
8.4
Summary of Residual Adverse Effects (s.16.(1)(b))
The analysis in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 provide a discussion of significance of impacts on different VECs / VSCs for
the Project. The determination of significance of an impact included considerations of magnitude, frequency,
and duration. Residual, immitigable adverse effects of the project are limited to those associated with direct loss
of marine habitat within the project footprint at the two terminals as a result of riprap expansion activities and
placement of the concrete pontoon. No other residual effects have been identified or are anticipated.
8.5
Cumulative Effects (s.16.(1)(a))
Cumulative environmental effects are defined in the reference guide produced by the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency (CEAA 1994) as:
“The effect on the environment which results from effects of a project when combined with those of
other past, existing and imminent projects and activities. These may occur over a certain period of
time and distance”.
The cumulative environmental effects potentially resulting from the project were reviewed considering the
existing environment and the current land uses, past land uses, and proposed or planned future development
projects.
Given that any residual significant residual effects identified for the Project will be negated through mitigation and
compensation measures identified in this assessment, it can be concluded that this Project will not contribute to
any cumulative effects that might result from other existing or planned projects.
8.5.1
Past Developments
Project works at the Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal would be the second infrastructure alteration there in five years.
Habitat quality in the Project area has likely recovered in the period since the first alteration (berth realignment),
and the habitat compensation reef mounds will have functioned to compensate for temporal habitat losses on
riprap faces. Therefore, it is unlikely that cumulative impacts will occur. No other past projects with potential
effects on marine habitat have been identified in the vicinity during the same time period.
8.5.2
Proposed Future Developments
The Denman Island Residents Association may be planning development of foreshore areas south of the
Denman Island West Side Ferry Terminal (Archipelago 2009), but no details are available. It is unlikely that
cumulative effects will result, as effects at the terminal are local and short-term, and will not occur during the
same time period. There may, however, be an opportunity for a combined habitat compensation strategy that
would offset temporal habitat losses due to both projects.
The Integrated Land Management Bureau’s (MNRO) on-line land applications database (Integrated Land and
Resource Registry (ILRR)) was searched for future projects under application in the vicinity of the project area
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
65
(https://apps.gov.bc.ca/apps/ilrr/html/ILRRWelcome.html). There were no projects under application that were in
the immediate vicinity of the project area, although several aquaculture/shellfhish tenure applications on Denman
Island were under review. No other projects with potential effects on marine habitat have been identified in the
vicinity during the same time period
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/index_e.cfm) was searched for
future projects under application in the vicinity of the project area. There were no projects under application that
were in the vicinity of the project area.
8.6
Recommendations for Compensation to Address Potential HADD
8.6.1
Compensation Proposed at Buckley Bay Terminal
It is proposed that the following compensatory habitat be constructed at the Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal:

Additional artificial reef structures to augment reefs and groynes constructed in 2006 as compensation for
former berth realignment. Extent of compensation will be of a size that will compensate for habitat losses in
the footprint of the new riprap and concrete pontoon, and to compensate for temporal loss of riprap habitat,
at a ratio of approximately 2:1.
To avoid a temporal lag between habitat loss and new habitat becoming functional, these compensation works
can be undertaken, to the degree possible, before construction.
8.6.2
Compensation Proposed at Denman Island West Terminal
It is proposed that the following compensatory habitat be constructed at the Denman Island West Side Ferry
Terminal:

Additional artificial reef structures to augment reefs and groynes constructed at Buckley Bay terminal in
2006 as compensation for former berth realignment. Extent of compensation will be of a size that will
compensate for habitat losses in the footprint of the new riprap and concrete pontoon, and to compensate
for temporal loss of riprap habitat, at a ratio of approximately 2:1
To avoid a temporal lag between habitat loss and new habitat becoming functional, these compensation works
can be undertaken, to the degree possible, before construction.
8.7
Follow-up (s.14.(c); s.16.(2)(c))
A formal follow-up program as defined under CEAA is not required. A monitoring program during construction is
recommended to verify that required mitigation measures are implemented during environmentally sensitive
stages of the work.
Usually one of the conditions stated in a Fisheries Act Section 35(2) Authorization is the requirement for an
environmental construction monitor. As described in the Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
66
Aquatic Habitat, the purpose of the monitor is to ensure a high standard of environmental protection during all
construction-related activities (Chilibeck 1992). Construction monitoring can occur continuously or periodically
over the duration of construction. The frequency of monitoring will be determined based on the sensitivity of the
site, the nature of construction, and DFO’s expectations.
Generally, the monitor will have the written authority from the client to modify or stop construction activities when
non-compliance issues arise or unforeseen circumstances causing environmental problems arise. The following
list summarizes the key services that the monitor provides:




Acts as an intermediary between the client and regulatory agencies;



Defines environmental standards for construction;
Briefs the contractor on site-specific environmental requirements;
Provides basic environmental education and construction guidelines to all field personnel;
Closely supervises construction activity to ensure compliance with construction guidelines and the Fisheries
Act Authorization;
Maps and delineates sensitive areas in advance of actual construction; and,
Reports to the client and regulatory agencies on the environmental performance of the contractor.
The role of the monitor with respect to the client, contractor and regulatory agency liaisons is to be determined in
advance of construction activities.

Monitoring Plan to be developed for this project?
Yes
No
NOTE: Project works shall be conducted in accordance with mitigation measures and best management
practices (BMPs) as provided in Section 8.2. A qualified environmental monitor (EM) will be on-site during
environmentally sensitive stages of the work, including fill placement and pile cleanout, as well as for any
environmental disturbance events should they occur (i.e. accidental spill). When on-site, the EM will:
 Provide guidance to the contractor with regards to the protection of fish and fish habitat;
 Inspect environmental mitigation and protection measures to assess whether they are functioning as
desired;
 Provide guidance to the contractor for the installation of compensation habitat;
 Document work activities and the implementation of environmental mitigation and protection measures;
and,
 The environmental monitor will have authority to shut down the work and immediately contact DFO
Additionally, as deemed appropriate and in consultation with regulatory agencies:
 Sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtain) and/or fish exclusion measures will be used, while work is
underway (to be removed when silt has settled); and/or alternatively, and,
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
67
 Monitoring of turbidity, throughout the water column, will be undertaken at predetermined distances
from the barge. Documented turbidity criteria will be established (in consultation with Environment
Canada / DFO), in advance of dredging, specifying conditions for the cessation of work and/or the
deployment of a sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtain) and/ or fish exclusion measures.

8.8
The Proponent will be reporting on implementation of mitigation measures?
Yes
No
Summary and Recommendations
By identifying potential environmental effects prior to construction and implementing mitigation measures and
Best Management Practices related to construction and operation phases of the project, it is anticipated that the
negative residual environmental effects associated with the project will be minimized. Based on our
environmental assessment of the existing environment, combined with the mitigation measures presented, all
residual effects are predicted to be of negligible to low ecological consequence and not significant with respect to
the site preparation / construction phase, with the exception of the loss of hard bottom habitat due to the
expansion of the riprap apron at both terminals and the alteration of habitat (shading effects) from the placement
of the concrete pontoon. The effect of these Project activities on fish and fish habitat is predicted to be of
moderate ecological consequence and significant. Through the combination of habitat gain (i.e., creation of
subtidal habitat and rocky intertidal habitat with riprap expansion) and the implementation of habitat
compensation (artificial reef mounds), the ecological consequence and significance can be reduced (refer to
Section 8.5 for detailed discussion). It is predicted that adverse environmental effects during this phase can be
minimized or prevented through the implementation of an Environmental Management Plan.
With respect to operations, the residual effects are predicted to be of low ecological consequence and not
significant. This is largely related to cable ferry design which will limit cable scour effects to the deepwater
segments of Baynes Sound where marine vegetation is absent and marine fish and fish habitat is limited. It is
predicted that all other adverse environmental effects during operations can be minimized or prevented through
the implementation of an Environmental Management Plan.
A summary of mitigation measures for this Project can be found in Appendix IV - Table A4-2. It is recommended
that the proponent implement an EMP in order to minimize incremental effects from the Project. Plans to be
completed as part of an Environmental Management Plan include, but are not limited to, the following:

Sediment and erosion control plan;

Surface water handling and management plan (water quality management plan);

Traffic Management Plan;

Health and Safety Management Plan; and,

Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan.
All plans are to be prepared by the contractor and submitted to BCFS for review prior to the start of construction.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
68
9.0
CEAA DETERMINATION (S.20.(1))
The project has been screened in accordance with CEAA requirements. In accordance with Section 20(1) of
CEAA, on the basis of this report, it has been determined that the responsible authority (RA) shall take one of
the following courses of action in respect of the project:
[X]
The project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects: the project may
proceed provided the RA ensures the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures identified in
this report. Section 20.1(a)
[]
The project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be justified. The
project will not proceed. Section 20.1(b)
[]
Refer the project to the Minister of the Environment for referral to a mediator or a review panel for the
following reason:
[]
it is uncertain as to whether the project, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation
measures that the RA considers appropriate, is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects,
Section 20.1(c)(i);
[]
the project, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the RA
considers appropriate, is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and Section 20.1(b) does
not apply, Section 20.1(c)(ii); or,
[]
public concern warrants a reference to a mediator or review panel Section 20.1(c)(iii).
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
69
10.0 CLOSURE
We trust the enclosed application will provide you with the information required for your review of the Project.
Please do not hesitate to contact Phil Rouget of the Victoria Golder Office at (250) 419-4945 if you have any
questions or require additional information. We look forward to your reply.
Reviewed by:
ORIGINAL SIGNED
ORIGINAL SIGNED
Phil Rouget, R.P.Bio., M.Sc.
Senior Marine Biologist
Dave Munday, R.P.Bio., M.B.A., B.Sc.
Senior Environmental Specialist
PR/DM/smh/rem/kar
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
n:\final\2009\1477\09-1477-0029 bc ferries fn consult buckley-denman\01-18-11 proposed cable ferry screening report revised- final\rpt 01-18-11 ea report proposed cable ferry revised final.docx
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
70
11.0 REFERENCES
Alexander, D. 1997. An Archaeological Overview of the Buckley Bay Main Road and Interchange for the
Vancouver Island Highway Project. Report prepared for the Vancouver Island Highway Project,
Vancouver.
Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd. (Arcas). 2007. BC Hydro Northern Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands
Archaeological Assessments, 2005-2007 Permit Report HIP 2005-215. Report on file with the
Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. (Archipelago). 2005. Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal Expansion, Marine
Environmental Assessment. Prepared for SEACOR, Victoria, BC, by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.,
Victoria, BC. 16 pp. + app.
Archipelago. 2006. Buckley Bay Terminal Expansion Project – Environmental Monitoring and As-built Survey.
Letter report prepared for British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.,
Victoria, BC. 5 pp.
Archipelago (Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.). 2009. Marine Biophysical Inventories at Buckley Bay, Denman
Island and Hornby Island Ferry Terminals. August 19, 2009.
BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association. 2003. Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and
Related Operations.
BC Shellfish Growers Association (BCSGA). 2009. Letter sent to BCFS in September 2009.
Booth, B.P. 2001. Baynes Sound/Lambert Channel-Hornby Island Waters Important Bird Areas Conservation
Plan. Canadian Nature Federation, Bird Studies Canada, Federation of BC Naturalists, Wild Bird Trust
BC. 33 pp
Bussey, J.1987. Heritage Resource Overview Assessment, Inland Island Highway, Parksville to Menzies Bay,
Vancouver Island. Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Bussey, J. 1990. Heritage resource inventory and impact assessment proposed inland Island Highway between
Qualicum and Campbell River and including French Creek near Parksville. Archaeology Branch, Ministry
of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). 1994. Reference Guide: Addressing Cumulative
Environmental Effects. website http://www.ceaa.gc.ca.
Chilibeck, B., G. Chislett, and G. Norris. 1992. Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic
Habitat. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Conservation Data Centre (CDC). 2010. Generalized Locations - Dryopteris arguta (Coastal Wood Fern).
Available at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/eoMap.do?id=17433. Accessed October 15, 2010.
Cleary, J.S., Schweigert, J.F. and V. Haist. 2009. Stock Assessment and Management Advice for the British
Columbia Herring Fishery: 2009 Assessment and 2010 Forecasts. Research document 2009/079.
Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
71
Dawe, N.K., R. Buechert, and D.E.C. Trethewey. 1998. Bird Use of Baynes Sound - Comox Harbour, Vancouver
Island, British Columbia. 1980-1981. Technical Report Series No. 286, Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific
and Yukon Region, British Columbia.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 2010a, Fisheries Act. Available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/F-14/page5.html#anchorbo-ga:s_34. Accessed: Aug 13, 2010.
DFO 2010b. BC and Yukon Marine/Estuarine Timing Windows. Available at: http://www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/habitat/timing-periodes/tp-marine-marin-eng.htm#19. Accessed August 19, 2010.
DFO 2010c. Mapster OGC Data Viewer and Metadata Search. Available at: http://www-heb.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/maps/maps-data_e.htm. Accessed July 29, 2010.
DFO 2010d. Section 142, Baynes Sound Herring Spawn Records. Available at: http://www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/science/species-especes/pelagic-pelagique/herring-hareng/herspawn/142fig-eng.htm.
Accessed September 10, 2010.
DFO 2010e. Roe Herring 2010 Coastwide Season Review. Integrated Fisheries Management. Fisheries and
Oceans Canada.
DFO 2011. Roe herring seine catch data for PFMA-14: 2000-2010. Data provided electronically (e-mail) on Jan
06, 2011 from Brenda Spence, DFO Resource Manager-Pelagics Division. Data extracted from DFO
resource managers’ daily notes and internal record of management strategies (RMS) document.
EYE (E.Y.E. Marine Consultants). 2010. Buckley Bay and Denman Island West Ferry Cable Profiles. Drawing
No: 10028-103, Sheets 1-22.
Georgia Strait Alliance (GSA). 2010. Community Mapping Window. Available at:
http://squamish2010.ca/GeorgiaStraitAlliance. Accessed August 23, 2010.
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder). 1998. Archaeological Mitigation of DjSf-13 Buckley Bay main road and
Interchange Vancouver Island Highway Project HCA Permit 1997-345. Report on file with the Archaeology
Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Golder. 2008. Interim Report: Archaeological Impact Assessment of BC Ferries Denman Island West Terminal
Proposed Queuing Lane. HCA Permit 2008-150. Report on file with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Golder. 2010a. Archaeological Overview Assessment Report For BC Ferries Terminals at Buckley Bay, Denman
Island West, Denman Island East, and Hornby Island, BC. Letter report prepared for British Columbia
Ferry Services Inc. by Golder Associates Ltd. Victoria; 33 pp. + app.
Golder. 2010b. Project Description and Marine Biophysical Assessment. Proposed Modifications at BCFS
Buckley Bay and Denman Island West Terminals, BC. October 04, 2010.
Grant, O. 2006. British Columbia Archaeological Site Inventory Form, DjSe-17. Site form on file with the
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
72
Greene, Nancy A. 2003. Preliminary Report on Mapping Fish Complexes at Comox Bay, British Columbia.
Report on file with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Hamer, L. 2010a. Letter sent to BCFS on March 15, 2010 from Lorena Hamer on behalf of the Herring Industry
Advisory Board (HIAB).
Hamer, L. 2010b. Letter sent to BCFS on October 13, 2010 from Lorena Hamer on behalf of the Herring Industry
Advisory Board (HIAB).
Haist, V. and L. Rosenfeld. 1988. Definitions and codings of localities, sections, and assessment regions for
British Columbia herring data. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1994: 123 p.
Hay, D. E. and A. R. Kronlund. 1987. Factors affecting the distribution, abundance, and measurement of Pacific
herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) spawn. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44: 1181-1194 p.
I.R. Wilson Consultants Ltd. (I.R. Wilson). 1991. Heritage Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment,
Vancouver Island Natural Gas Pipeline (2 Volumes).
I.R. Wilson. 1994. Archaeological Inventory and Impact Assessment Vancouver Island Highway Project Nanaimo
Parkway, Mostar Road to Superior Road. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture
and the Arts, Victoria.
James, Rick. 2004. Ghost Ships of Royston. Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia. Vancouver.
James, Rick. 2006. The Schooner Alumna, uncovering the Identity of Mud Bay’s Mystery Wreck. Western
Mariner, April 2006:34-35.
Kapes, P. 1986. Detailed Site Report for Site DjSe-8, Remarks. Provincial Heritage Register Site Form
accessed by Remote Access to Archaeological Sites (RAAD), December 10, 2010, Archaeology Branch,
Victoria, BC.
Kennedy, Dorothy and Randy Bouchard. 1983. Sliammon Life, Sliammon Lands. Talon Books, Vancouver.
Midgley P. 2003. Definitions and codings of localities, herring sections, and stock assessment regions for British
Columbia herring data. Can. Manuscr. Rep. of Fish. and Aquat. Sci. 2634: 113 p.
Millennia Research Ltd. 2005. Archaeological Potential, Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal. Report on file with the
author, Victoria.
MOE 2010a. British Columbia Species and Ecosystems Explorer. Available at:
http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/search.do?method=reset. Accessed: August 16, 2010.
MOE. 2010b. Coastal Resource Information System. Available at:
http://webmaps.gov.bc.ca/imf5/imf.jsp?site=dss_coastal. Accessed on July 29, 2010.
Ministry of Forests (MOF). 1999a. The Ecology of the Coastal Western Hemlock Zone. Pamphlet available at:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/biogeo/biogeo.htm
MOF. 1999b. The Ecology of the Coastal Douglas-fir Zone. Pamphlet available at:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/biogeo/biogeo.htm
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
73
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). 2002. Baynes Sound Coastal Plan for Resource
Management. Government of British Columbia. Resource Management Division.
Murton, P and D. Foster. 1975. Report of the East Coast Vancouver Island Survey. Report on file, Archaeology
Northern Maritime Research. 2002. Northern Shipwrecks Database. Database on CD Rom, Bedford, Nova
Scotia.
Pacific Coastal Resource Atlas (PCRA), 2010. Available at: http://cmnbc.ca/atlas_gallery/pacific-coastalresources-atlas-british-columbia. Accessed July 29, 2010.
Pratt, C. 2005. BC Hydro Northern Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands Archaeological Assessments, 2005-2007
Permit Report (Heritage Inspection Permit 2005-215). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Victoria, BC
Public Works Canada. 1977. Denman Island BC Wharf and Float. Marine Services survey plan on file with
Ministry of Highways, BC
Rogers, Fred. 1973. Shipwrecks of British Columbia. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver BC.
Species at Risk Act (SARA). 2010. Species at Risk Public Registry. Available at:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=527. Accessed August 20, 2010.
SEACOR Environmental Ltd. 2005. Screening Level Environmental Assessment, Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal
Berth Replacement, Buckley Bay, BC. Prepared for BC Ferry Services Inc. Victoria, BC. 20 pp. + app.
Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia (SPABC). 2010. Letter sent to BCFS on November 20, 2010
from Don McLeod on behalf of the SPABC.
Sensitive Habitat Inventory Mapping (SHIM). 2010. Available at: http://www.shim.bc.ca/shim/main.htm.
Accessed July 29, 2010.
Shellfish Aquaculture. 2003. Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries,
Fisheries and Aquaculture website. Available at: http:// www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/Shellfish/shellfish
main.htm. Accessed on July 29, 2010.
Simonson, B. 1993. Results of an archaeological inventory and impact assessment of Potential Development
impacts at the Buckley Bay Site (DjSf-13). Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Smith, N. 2005. Archaeological Potential, Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal. Letter report to Stephen Mayall of BC
Ferry Services Inc. from Millennia Research Limited, Victoria, BC. 7 pp.
Species at Risk and the Local Government (SRLG) 2010. A Primer for British Columbia. Available at:
http://www.speciesatrisk.bc.ca/node/7884 Accessed October 15, 2010.
Transport Canada. 1981. List of Shipping Casualties Resulting in Total Loss in British Columbia Coastal Waters
Since 1897. Ottawa.
Webb, R. 2010. Letter sent to BCFS on March 31, 2010 from Randy Webb, Regional Resource Manager,
Pelagics, of DFO.
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
74
FIGURES
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
75
P lan 29 657
S RW Pl an VIP67704
BUCKLEY BAY FERRY TERMINAL
DENMAN ISLAND WEST FERRY TERMINAL
0
75
150
225
300
375
REFERENCES
LEGEND
WATER LOT BOUNDARY
CABLE ROUTE
APPROXIMATE TRACKLINES FOR SIMS VIDEO SURVEY
APPROXIMATE TRACKLINES FOR ROV SURVEY
SCALE IN METRES
1. BASE PLAN PROVIDED BY "BC FERRIES"
CAD FILE: 08637-SK-010.dwg, 08637-SK-050.dwg
DATED: 26 NOVEMBER, 2009..
2. OTHOPHOTO TAKEN FROM GOOGLE.
BC FERRIES - PROPOSED CABLE FERRY BUCKLEY
BAY AND DENMAN ISLAND WEST TERMINALS
BAYNES SOUND, B.C.
BUCKLEY BAY FERRY TERMINAL AND
CABLE ROUTE
FIGURE 1
BUCKLEY BAY TERMINAL FIGURE 2
AFOUR (4) NEW STEEL VERTICAL PILES (914 MM Ø)
BTWO (2) NEW DOLPHINS
CNEW FLOATING CONCRETE PLATFORM
DNEW STEEL RAMP
ENEW FILL EXPANSION
TTRANSECTS
C
D
A
E
B
T2
96
n2
P la
57
SR
W
n
Pla
4
70
67
VIP
T1
T3
LEGEND
0
WATER LOT BOUNDARY
FERRY CABLE ROUTE
APPROXIMATE TRANSECT LOCATIONS
MAJOR CONTOURS (5m INTERVALS)
REFERENCES
CAD FILE: 08637-SK-010
20
40
60
SCALE IN METRES
80
100
BAYNES SOUND, B.C.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION TRANSECTS
AND SIMS VIDEO SURVEY
FIGURE 2
DENMAN ISLAND WEST TERMINAL FIGURE 3
FFOUR (4) NEW STEEL VERTICAL PILES (914 MM Ø)
GTWO (2) NEW DOLPHINS
HNEW FLOATING CONCRETE PLATFORM
INEW STEEL RAMP
JNEW RIP RAP EXPANSION
LNEW OUTFALL / OIL AND GREASE SEPARATOR #1
MNEW OUTFALL / OIL AND GREASE SEPARATOR #2
TTRANSECTS
T1
L
J
M
T2
J
F
I
G
J
H
T3
T4
LEGEND
0
WATER LOT BOUNDARY
FERRY CABLE ROUTE
APPROXIMATE TRANSECT LOCATIONS
MAJOR CONTOURS (5m INTERVALS)
REFERENCES
CAD FILE: 08637-SK-050.dwg
20
40
60
SCALE IN METRES
80
100
BAYNES SOUND, B.C.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION TRANSECTS
AND SIMS VIDEO SURVEY
FIGURE 3
C
D
E
A
B
D
B
C
A
D
B
C
A
A
B
C
D
E
FIGURE 4
CABLE FERRY FEASIBILITY STUDY
90639
British Columbia
Ferry Services Inc.
FLOATING PONTOON & RAMP - OPTION 1
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
08637-SK-010
A
G
F
F
F
H
F
G
J
I
J
G
H
F
F
G
H
I
J
K
FIGURE 5
L
CABLE FERRY FEASIBILITY STUDY
90639
British Columbia
Ferry Services Inc.
FLOATING PONTOON & RAMP - OPTION 1
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
08637-SK-050
A
J
K
J
L
K
F
G
H
I
J
J
K
L
J
F
J
J
ABBREVIATION ELEVATION GEODETIC DATUM (m)
DESCRIPTION
I
FIGURE 6
DENMAN WEST TERMINAL
BCF PROJECT NO 90639
British Columbia
Ferry Services Inc.
PROPOSED LANDING / QUEUE AREA UPGRADES
SITE PLAN
08637-CI-DLP-1001 B
APPENDIX I
Marine Biophysical Inventories at Buckley Bay, Denman Island
and Hornby Island Ferry Terminals (DVD)
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
76
APPENDIX II
Archaeological Overview Assessment for BC Ferries Terminal at
Buckley Bay, Denman Island West, Denman Island East and
Hornby Island, BC
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
77
E/10/410
09-1477-0029
October 7, 2010
1112 Fort Street
Victoria, BC
V8V 4V2
Attention: Mr. Kelly Wheeler
RE:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ASSESSMENT FOR BC FERRIES
TERMINALS AT BUCKLEY BAY, DENMAN ISLAND WEST, DENMAN
ISLAND EAST, AND HORNBY ISLAND, BC
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
On behalf of British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (BC Ferries), Golder Associates Ltd.
(Golder) conducted an archaeological overview assessments (AOA) of BC Ferries
terminals at: Buckley Bay, Denman Island West, Denman Island East, and Hornby Island
(Figures 1 and 2). These Project areas are located on Buckley Bay on Vancouver Island,
Denman Island and Hornby Island, British Columbia (BC).
A report summarizing the results of the AOA for the proposed improvements to the
Buckley Bay, Denman Island West, Denman Island East, and Hornby Island terminals
was first provided to BC Ferries on August 27, 2008. This AOA report was subsequently
updated on September 1, 2010 to reflect changes to the Project area boundaries. This
AOA report reflects the results of a second change to the Project area boundaries; as
such, it supersedes the earlier 2008 version of this report.
2640 Douglas Street, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8T 4M1
Tel: +1 (250) 881 7372 Fax: +1 (250) 881 7470 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
1.0
-2-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
OBJECTIVES
As per the Archaeology Branch (2008) “Archaeological Overview Assessments as
General Land Use Planning Tools - Provincial Standards and Guidelines”, the objectives
of an AOA study are to (1) assess the archaeological resource potential of the Subject
Property; (2) identify the need and appropriate scope of further field studies; and,
(3) identify areas where sites are apparently absent, implying low or no archaeological
potential.
2.0
HERITAGE LEGISLATION
All archaeological sites on Provincial Crown or private land that predate AD 1846 are
automatically protected under 1996 amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act
(HCA). Certain sites, including burials and rock art sites, that have historical or
archaeological value, are protected regardless of age. All shipwrecks and aircraft crash
sites that are two or more years old are also protected under the HCA.
Subsurface investigation of an archaeological site requires a permit under Section 14 of
the HCA. The Archaeology Branch (Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts) is the
provincial government agency responsible for administering the HCA, issuing
archaeological permits and maintaining a database of recorded archaeological sites.
Archaeological site protection under the HCA does not necessarily negate impact; in
some cases, development proceeds following an impact assessment or other mitigative
actions. With the exception of impacts occurring under a Section 14 permit, Section 12
of the HCA requires that a permit must be obtained prior to any alteration to a known
archaeological site. A Section 12 permit is held by the proponent and may include data
recovery or mitigative requirements such as monitoring or data sampling.
After a 15 day internal review period, the Archaeology Branch forwards all applications
for Section 12 or Section 14 HCA permits to appropriate First Nations for review. In
most circumstances, a 30-day review period is provided to First Nations for comments
regarding the proposed methodology.
3.0
BACKGROUND
The four BC Ferries terminals assessed in this AOA are located on Vancouver Island,
Denman Island and Hornby Island. The Buckley Bay ferry terminal is located on
Vancouver Island, the largest island on the west side of North America. The terminal is
adjacent to Baynes Sound, which forms part of the larger Strait of Georgia that separates
the Island from the BC mainland (Figure 1).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
-3-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Two ferry terminals are located on Denman Island: Denman Island West and Denman
Island East. The Denman Island West ferry terminal is located opposite the Buckley Bay
ferry terminal; whereas the Denman Island East ferry terminal is located opposite and
west of the Hornby Island ferry terminal (Figures 1 and 2). Denman Island is a
moderately sized island that covers 5,150 hectares (ha) located in the north-central
portion of the Strait of Georgia, within 2 kilometres (km) of Vancouver Island. Separated
from Vancouver Island by Baynes Sound, Denman Island is part of a small plate
fragment riding in the subduction zone between Vancouver Island and the BC mainland
(Bradley, Hoffman and Hammond 1998).
Hornby Island, which is one of the two most northern Canadian Gulf Islands, is located
approximately 2 km east of Denman Island across Lambert Channel (Figure 2). The
island covers 3,100 ha and was formed by isostatic rebound after the last ice age.
3.1
Palaeoenvironment
The present-day topography of the each of the four study areas in this AOA have been
formed and altered through epochs of geological processes. This discussion concentrates
on the Late Pleistocene and Holocene processes that coincide with human habitation of
the area. Biotic variability within this region is the result of fluctuating climatic
conditions, influenced by the region’s physiography (Hebda 1995).
Sea levels have changed dramatically since deglaciation. Clague et al. (1982) report that
sea levels were as much as 200 m above present levels during initial deglaciation about
13,000 years ago. At the beginning of the Holocene Epoch, sea levels dropped rapidly.
This change, combined with isostatic rebound of submerged coastal lowlands, caused sea
levels to reach a point about 12 m below present levels by about 8,000 years ago.
Between 7,500 and 7,000 years ago, sea levels began to rise again, a trend that continued
until about 5,500 to 5,000 years Before Present (BP), when a period of stability
commenced. Clague et al. (1982) suggest that the sea had risen to within 2 m of its
present level by 5,000 BP and that sea levels have remained relatively stable over the past
5,000 years, with local fluctuations limited to no more than 1 to 2 m.
Radiocarbon dating of samples obtained from the general area surrounding Buckley Bay
indicates that there was some regional variation in the relative sea level pattern for
Baynes Sound. Hutchinson et. al. (2004) tested an area extending from Comox to
Parksville and as far east as Lasqueti Island, including Baynes Sound and Lambert
Channel. This study shows that around 14,000 BP relative sea level in the area fell from
150 m elevation above present day levels to -15 m below present day levels by
11,500 BP. Relative sea level then rose to about +1 m by 9,000 or 8,500 BP, before
falling slowly to modern levels (Hutchinson et. al. 2004:183). The upper tidal limit
remained at about 4 m above its present limit until approximately 3,000 years ago, from
which point sea levels have remained stable (Hutchinson 1992).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
3.2
-4-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Physiography and Geology
The Buckley Bay, Denman Island West, Denman Island East, and Hornby Island ferry
terminals are located in the Nanaimo Lowland physiographic region of Vancouver Island.
Extending from Campbell River in the north to Victoria in the south, the region consists
of rolling hills that give way to flatter plains alongside the Strait of Georgia (Yorath and
Nasmith 1995).
The geology of the study area is comprised of quaternary sediments along the coastal
margin with inland areas consisting of Upper Cretaceous deposits from the Nanaimo
Group (Mueller 1977). Nanaimo Group deposits are characterized by cyclical, upward
fining sequences of conglomerate, sandstone, shale, and coal of non-marine or near shore
deltaic origin, succeeded by marine sandstone, shale, and thin-bedded graded
shale-siltstone sequences (Mueller 1977).
Typical surficial deposits contain morainal, colluvial, fluvial, and marine materials. The
most extensive parent material is comprised of morainal deposits. Well- to moderatelywell-drained podzolic soils with dark reddish colors, low pH values, and moderate-tohigh iron and aluminum content exist within this landscape (Jungen and
Lewis 1978:110).
3.3
Biogeoclimatic Zone
The four Project areas in this AOA are located within the Coastal Douglas-fir (CDF)
biogeoclimatic zone, a zone which is most commonly associated with the Gulf Islands
and south-eastern Vancouver Island (Nuszdorfer et al. 1991:82). Located in the rain
shadow of the Vancouver Island and Olympic Mountains, the CDF zone features warm,
dry summers and mild, wet winters. This zone is typically characterized by Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) in upland forests. Depending on soil moisture and the nutrients
that are present, western redcedar (Thuja plicata), grand fir (Abies grandis), arbutus
(Arbutus menziesii), Garry oak (Quercus garryana), and red alder (Alnus rubra) often
accompany Douglas-fir (Nuszdorfer et al. 1991:82).
Other tree species that occur less commonly in the CDF zone include shore pine (Pinus
contorta), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), bitter
cherry (Prunus emarginata), western flowering dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), bigleaf
maple (Acer macrophyllum), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and trembling
aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Nuszdorfer et al. 1991:82).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
-5-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Many species that enjoy a broader southern distribution are restricted to Garry oak
ecosystems within the CDF environment. These species include common camas
(Camassia quamash), broad-leaved shootingstar (Dodecatheon hendersonii) and satinflower (Sisyrinchium douglasii) (Nuszdorfer et al. 1991:84). Other ethnographically
significant species in the region include deltoid balsamroot (Balsamorhiza deltoiea) and
great camas (Camassia leichtlinii) (Nuszdorfer et al. 1991:82, 84).
Wildlife species include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black bear
(Ursus americanus), cougars (Felis concolor), and elk (Cervus elaphus) (Nuszdorfer et
al. 1991:88). Several species of waterfowl winter on estuaries and within sheltered waters
in this zone, including mallard (Anas platyrhnchos), hooded merganser
(Lophodytes cucullatus), and glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus). Only a few species
breed in the CDF, such as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Canada goose
(Branta canadensis), and mallard. Species of forest birds include pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), and raven (Corvus corax).
Nagorsen (1990) and Nuszdorfer et al. (1991) provide a comprehensive discussion of
mammalian and avian species common to the Project area.
Most of the plant and animal species of the region were utilized by First Nations. A
number of detailed sources are available that discuss the plant and animal resources of the
Project area. For example, plant resources utilized by the Vancouver Island Salish are
summarized in Turner and Bell (1971). Similarly, Nagorsen (1990) and Pojar et al.
(1991) provide comprehensive lists of mammal, bird, and fish species found throughout
the four Project areas.
3.4
Marine Environment
The four ferry terminals are located in waters that are relatively protected from the
prevailing north-westerly and south-easterly winds, and the waves these winds generate
through the north-central portion of the Strait of Georgia. The Buckley Bay and Denman
Island West ferry terminals are specifically protected by their location in the narrowest
part of Baynes Sound falling between Denman Point, 3.70 km to the north, and
Mapleguard Point located 10 km to the south. The Denman Island East and
Hornby Island terminals are in the most protected part of Lambert Channel extending a
distance of about 7.5 km between Phipps Point to the north and Norman Point to the
south. Despite the protective landforms, a breakwater was still found to be necessary in
order to shelter the Denman Island East ferry slip from south-easterly swells.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
-6-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
The tidal currents in the area are described as “weak” compared with other parts of the
Strait (Thomson 1981:152). However, the tidal range is relatively large, the mean tidal
range at the northern entrance of Baynes Sound being about 3.35 m: compared with only
1.82 m in Victoria, for example (Thomson 1981:148). Maximum depths in the narrow
portions of both Baynes Sound and Lambert Channel reach about 60 m. While much of
the shoreline is fairly steep, there are several places with extensive areas of mud, sand
and stones that dry at low tide. These shoals sometimes proved hazardous for early
historic vessels, but generally the area is not a challenging one for navigation. It is
probable that vessel wakes in recent decades have accelerated shoreline erosion in the
most protected areas of both Baynes Sound and Lambert Channel.
The intertidal zone adjacent in the vicinity of the four BC Ferries terminals consists of a
protected mixed sediment beach that supports a variety of shellfish species including:
littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea), butterclam (Saxidomus giganteus), blue mussel
(Mytilus edulis), basket cockle (Clinocardium nuttallii), horseclam (Tresus sp.), barnacle
(Balanus/Semibalanus sp.), and native oyster (Ostrea lurida). Offshore fish species
include coho, chum, pink, and chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha), cod
(Gadus macrocephalus), rockfish (Sebastes sp.), and herring (Clupea harengus).
Harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) are widely
available in Baynes Sound and throughout Lambert Channel in the past (Reeves et al.
2002: 118-121). These marine resources formed an important part in meeting local
First Nations dietary needs.
3.5
Cultural Context
According to ethnographic records, in the early 19th century, the Project area was
occupied by the Pentlatch people. Following the decline in Pentlatch population, the
Island Comox prevailed over the east coast of Vancouver Island around Comox and
Courtenay. In addition, other local aboriginal groups, including the Lekwiltok, were also
known to have had a presence in the area.
The Project area falls within the present-day traditional territories of the Qualicum,
Comox, Homalco, Cape Mudge, Campbell River, Nanoose and Sliammon First Nations.
The Qualicum First Nation is a composite group comprised mainly of descendents from
Northern Coast Salish linguistic groups such as the Pentlatch, Cowichan, Nanoose, and
Nanaimo, with some band members affiliated with the Lekwiltok or other
Kwakwaka’wakw groups (Alexander 1997). The Comox, Homalco, and Sliammon First
Nations are also considered to be of Northern Coast Salish linguistic ancestry
(Mitchell 1990). Information relating specifically to Pentlatch traditional culture is
sparse, as the population had already declined at the time that most ethnographic research
took place. A generalized discussion of salient features of the Northern Coast Salish is
provided in Section 3.5.1. Section 3.5.2 provides a summary of relevant cultural traits of
the Cape Mudge and Campbell River bands who are Kwakwaka’wakw.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
3.5.1
-7-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Northern Coast Salish
The Comox, Homalco, Sliammon, Nanoose and, for the most part, the Qualicum
First Nations fall within the Northern Coast Salishan language family which is comprised
of the Comox, Pentlatch, and Sechelt languages. Comox is spoken by members of the
Island Comox whose territories encompass the eastern shore of Vancouver Island from
Kelsey Bay to Cape Lazo. The territory of the traditionally Pentlatch-speaking Qualicum
is also located on the eastern shore of Vancouver Island, extending from Cape Lazo south
to Parksville and including offshore islands such as Denman and Hornby Islands. The
Homalco and Sliammon belong to the Mainland Comox language family. The Homalco
were known to have winter villages on Bute Inlet, Orford Bay and at the mouths of
Homathko and Southgate rivers, while the Sliammon resided to the south of the Homalco
in two main winter villages, Grace Harbour and Sliammon Creek (Kennedy and
Bouchard 1990:441-442).
Social organization, subsistence and material culture are based on the general
Northern Coast Salish linguistic grouping. For more detail regarding the cultures of the
Northern Coast Salish, Kennedy and Bouchard (1983, 1990), Boas (1886), and Barnett
(1938-1939) should be consulted.
3.5.2
Kwakwaka’wakw
The Kwakwaka’wakw live on northern Vancouver Island and the adjacent mainland of
British Columbia. Much of the available ethnographic literature refers to the
Kwakwaka’wakw as the Kwakiutl or the Southern Kwakiutl. The Kwak’wala language
belongs to the Wakashan language family. While Kwak’wala is generally homogeneous,
there are dialectal distinctions between communities (Galois 1994).
Kwakwaka’wakw village group and numaym (local group) territories that encompass the
Buckley Bay Project area include the Weewiakay, who are now known as the
Cape Mudge Band, and the Weewaikum, Homayno, Hahamatsees, Kweeha, and Tlaaluis,
who, over the past centuries, have merged to form the Campbell River Band.
Kwakwaka’wakw culture is summarized in Galois (1994) and Codere (1990). Other
sources that can be consulted include Boas (1909, 1921, 1934, 1966), Dawson (1888),
and Drucker (1943, 1965).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
3.5.3
-8-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Culture History
The marine environment has been critical for sustenance and transportation as long as
humans have been present in the coastal region of British Columbia. The greatest
number and largest of Precontact settlement sites are located on the littoral. In the
Georgia Strait, the earliest of these sites is dated to about 9,000 years BP. This date
corresponds with sea levels approaching current levels in the Denman and Hornby Island
area. Because of lower relative sea levels predating 9,000 years BP, any littoral sites that
may have existed at this time were on a shoreline that has since been inundated. Core
samples that reveal the presence of shell, sea mammal bone, and wood dating to
11,700 years BP and older suggest a post-glacial environment in the central Georgia
Strait that was capable of supporting humans by at least 11,000 years BP.
The first Europeans to record their observations of Denman and Hornby Islands and the
surrounding waters were Dionisio Alcalá Galiano and Cayetano Valdés y Flores who
explored the area with the Sutil and Mexicana in AD 1792. The names currently used for
the significant geographic features in the area were assigned by Captain George Richards
during cartographic surveys in the area in 1859 and 1860. Denman, Hornby, and Baynes
were all commanders in chief, while Lambert was a flag captain on the Pacific Station
(Esquimalt) (Walbran 1971[1909]). The year after Richard’s survey was completed
Governor James Douglas issued a land and settlement proclamation that brought the first
settlers into the Baynes Sound area.
Following settlement, the transportation of people and goods between Denman, Hornby
and Vancouver Islands has depended on the use of landing areas with wharf structures.
Vessel activity was concentrated near where these wharves were located and the potential
for vessel loss and abandonment was increased. Historic wharf structures are known to
have existed in the vicinity of ferry terminals in Buckley Bay, Denman West, and Hornby
Island (Ford Cove).
4.0
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREAS
4.1
Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal
The Buckley Bay ferry terminal is located on the east margins of Vancouver Island,
roughly 20 km southeast of Courtenay, BC and approximately 1.4 km north of the mouth
of the Tsable River, on the shore of Baynes Sound (Figure 1). The Buckley Bay ferry
terminal Project area encompasses the existing ferry terminal, queuing lanes, an
additional parking area just east of the queuing lanes and adjacent intertidal and marine
environments (Figure 3). The existing ferry terminal is oriented northwest and extends
120 metres (m) from the shore (Figure 3).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
-9-
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
The Buckley Bay Project area has been significantly impacted by previous development.
These developments include machine excavation of soils and sediments, dredging,
paving, laying down of rip rap and other related activities associated with the
construction of buildings, wharf and other facilities (Figure 3).
4.2
Denman Island West Ferry Terminal
The Denman Island West ferry terminal is located within Baynes Sound on the west
shore of Denman Island, 8.3 km south of the north end of the island and opposite
Buckley Bay on Vancouver Island (Figure 1). This Project area consists of the existing
terminal and the intertidal and subtidal zones adjacent to the terminal and ferry berth, and
an upland area that is located approximately 50 m north of Denman Road and extends for
approximately 60 m to the southeast (Figure 4). The existing ferry terminal is oriented
northwest and extends approximately 100 m from the shore (Figure 4).
4.3
Denman Island East Ferry Terminal
The Denman Island East ferry terminal is located on the east shore of Denman Island,
2.6 km north of Boyle Point that is situated at the south end of the island (Figure 2). The
Denman Island East ferry terminal is located on the shore of Lambert Channel (Figure 2).
The Project area includes the existing terminal in addition to the intertidal and subtidal
zones adjacent to the existing terminal and ferry berth and a small upland area that is
located approximately 15-20 m south of the ferry access road (Figure 5). The existing
ferry terminal is oriented north-south and is situated approximately 50 m from the shore
(Figure 5).
Similar to the Buckley Bay Project area, the Denman Island West Project area has been
significantly disturbed by previous construction activities that include, but are not limited
to outbuildings, excavation, infilling, roadways, utility installation and erosion control
mechanisms. Specific developments that were once located within the southeast marine
portion of the Denman Island West ferry terminal Project area include a launch ramp and
pier (Public Works Canada 1977, file 7955). Currently all that remains of the structures
is concrete associated with the old ramp and the foundations of the old pier (Figure 4).
Undisturbed terrain may be present within the upland portion of the Denman Island West
Project area and within the intertidal zone adjacent to the existing septic field.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
4.4
- 10 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Hornby Island Ferry Terminal
The Hornby Island ferry terminal is located on the west shore of Hornby Island, along the
west shore of Lambert Channel 3.6 km north of Norman Point (Figures 2 and 6). The
Project area includes the existing terminal, intertidal and subtidal areas adjacent to the
existing terminal and ferry berth and an upland area that is located north and east of the
terminal approximately adjacent to the ferry access road (Figure 6). The existing ferry
terminal is oriented north-south and is situated approximately 30 m from the shore
(Figure 6).
Similar to the other three Project areas assessed in this AOA, the Hornby Island ferry
terminal Project area has been significantly impacted by previous construction that
includes, but is not limited to, outbuildings, excavation, infilling, roadways, utility
installation and erosion control mechanisms such as rip rap revetments. Undisturbed
areas of limited areal extent may be present within the north-northeast portion of the
Project area.
5.0
METHODS
Golder did not contact First Nations for this AOA; First Nations Consultation was carried
out by others concurrent with the archaeological work.
The AOA proceeded through two phases, described below.
5.1
Phase 1 – Background Review
Detailed topographic maps scaled at 1:5,000 were reviewed to identify locations such as
stream terraces, outcrops, or flat benches with potential to contain undocumented
archaeological sites.
In contrast, locations generally considered to have low
archaeological potential included areas subject to extensive land disturbance, such as
roads, or landslides.
A review of select archaeological impact assessment reports and directly relevant
archaeological overview assessments on file with the Archaeology Branch was
undertaken. This included published and unpublished sources summarizing local and
regional history, archaeology and the local environment. The Provincial Heritage
Registry was searched using the Remote Access to Archaeological data (RAAD)
application to establish whether any previously recorded archaeological sites are found in
the Subject Property, and to determine the types of sites that may be located in the
vicinity of the development.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 11 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Archaeological information with respect to aircraft and shipwrecks is minimal in contrast
to the thousands that are known to have been lost, scuttled, and abandoned on the BC
coast. There is no single source from which historical data for shipwrecks and aircraft
crash site locations can be extracted. Sources consulted for this report include the
following:
1. The “List of Shipping Casualties Resulting in Total Loss in British Columbia Coastal
Waters Since 1897” is a manuscript that lists civilian marine casualties recorded by
Transport Canada and its predecessors (the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the
Department of Marine and the Ministry of Transportation) from 1897 to 1980.
2. Shipwrecks of British Columbia (Rogers 1973) and More Shipwrecks of British
Columbia (Rogers 1992) summarize years of research on ship wrecks from official
sources, as well as newspapers. Maps included in his books provide an excellent
geographically-based starting point for wrecks dating prior to 1973.
3. The Northern Shipwrecks Database is the most complete and current listing for
shipwrecks (Northern Maritime Research 2002). The sources for most of the
database entries for shipwrecks in British Columbia are Rogers (1973; 1992) and the
Transport Canada Casualty Lists, along with other more recent official sources. This
database is not without errors and omissions.
4. The Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia has surveyed ship wreck
sites throughout British Columbia, and maintains an archive which includes several
lists of British Columbia shipwrecks. The society President Jacques Marc was
consulted for shipwreck information pertinent to the Project areas.
5. The Joint Rescue Coordination Centre in Victoria maintains an in-house database
which includes the locations and brief details of marine and air incidents (both
civilian and military) occurring in coastal British Columbia dating back to the mid
1960s. Major Mitch Leenders consulted this database when he was contacted about
this project.
6. The “Synopses of Aircraft Accidents” lists aircraft accidents across Canada for which
accident investigation reports were produced by the Ministry of Transport/Transport
Canada between 1970 and 1984. Golder Associates has a partial list of these issues
that were reviewed for this report.
7. After accident investigations are now the responsibility of the Transportation Safety
Board, marine and air accident reports are available on the internet. Accessible
reports include accidents dating to between 1991 and 2006 (Transportation Safety
Board of Canada n.d.; n.d.).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
5.2
- 12 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Phase 2 – Reporting
This letter report outlines Golder’s findings and recommendations based on information
collected from a review of background data on file with Golder and the Archaeology
Branch.
6.0
RESULTS
6.1
Previous Archaeology
A review of readily available data regarding local and regional prehistory, history,
ethnography, and the environment of the Buckley Bay, Denman Island West,
Denman Island East and Hornby Island ferry terminals was conducted. Included in this
review were archaeological site records and reports on file with the Archaeology Branch.
6.1.1
Numerous archaeological studies have taken place in the vicinity of the Buckley Bay
ferry terminal. Bussey (1987) and Alexander (1997) conducted archaeological overview
assessments for the Inland Island Highway Project. Additionally, archaeological
inventory and impact assessments were also undertaken as part of the Inland Island
Highway Project that include the following: Kennedy and Bouchard (1989); Bussey
(1990) and Wilson (1991, 1994). Simonson (1993) conducted an inventory and impact
assessment of potential impacts to DjSf-13 (Buckley Bay site) that had resulted from
commercial development. Golder (1998) followed with an archaeological mitigation of
DjSf-13 that was conducted for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as part of
the Vancouver Island Highway Project.
Several inter-tidal archaeological sites are also known in the region, including DjSe-19
(Moore 2007), DkSf-43 and DkSf-44 (Greene 2003). Archaeological monitoring was
conducted for a BC Hydro cable trench 1 km southeast of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal
in 2007 (Moore 2007). Cultural deposits from DjSe-19 were observed in the intertidal
zone. DkSf-43 and DkSf-44 are located on the Vancouver Island side of Baynes Sound
in Comox harbour and are amongst the two largest inter-tidal sites (5 km2 and 1 km2,
respectively) that have been recorded in BC (Greene 2003).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
6.1.2
- 13 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
The East Coast Vancouver Island Survey resulted in the identification of shoreline
archaeological sites DjSe-8, DjSe-9 and DjSe-17, located in the vicinity of the Denman
Island West Ferry terminal (Murton and Foster 1975). In 2006, Baseline Archaeological
Services monitored the installation of a submarine hydro cable at DjSe-17, located 30 m
southeast of the Denman Island West ferry terminal (Attachment I) and observed that the
archaeological deposits may extend uphill, as no deposits were observed in the trench
excavated for the hydro cable (Grant 2006; Moore 2007). Most recently, Golder
(Huculak 2008) completed an archaeological impact assessment (AIA) in advance of the
construction of a queuing lane adjacent to the north margin of Denman Road. Subsurface
testing did not result in the identification of archaeological sites or features
(Huculak 2008).
6.1.3
Minimal archaeological studies have taken place in the vicinity of the Denman Island
East ferry terminal. An archaeological survey was undertaken by the Archaeological
Sites Advisory Board in 1972 and a second survey was undertaken by the
Heritage Conservation Branch in 1982. These studies inventoried previously unrecorded
archaeological sites and documented archaeological the condition of previously recorded
sites.
6.1.4
One previous archaeological study was undertaken in the vicinity of the Hornby Island
ferry terminal. Conducted in 1975 by Murton and Foster, this study assessed the
condition of the previously recorded archaeological site DiSe-31. During this study,
Murton and Foster (1975) noted that given the limited size of DiSe-31, coupled with
disturbance from previous house construction, the site would not likely yield significant
archaeological information.
6.2
Analysis found no archaeological sites have been previously recorded within BC Ferries
Terminals at Buckley Bay; Denman Island West; Denman Island East and Hornby Island.
However, background information obtained from the Provincial Heritage Registry did
reveal a number of previously recorded sites in the vicinity of each of the four terminals.
Of these previously recorded archaeological sites, the most common archaeological site
types found are archaeological shell middens (Attachment I).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
6.2.1
- 14 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Archaeological Sites
Four previously recorded archaeological sites are located in the vicinity of Buckley Bay
ferry terminal: DjSe-19, DjSf-6, DjSf-13, and DjSf-30 (Attachment I). Of greatest
significance and closest proximity is DjSf-13, which is located less than 90 m from the
Buckley Bay ferry terminal (Attachment I). DjSf-13 is situated between 0 m and 8 m
above sea level (asl) on a low terrace adjacent to the shore of Buckley Bay. A small,
unnamed stream runs through the site. DjSf-13 consists of a shell midden with associated
human remains that extends 650 m along the shoreline and approximately 120 m inland.
Murton and Foster (1975) estimated that the site was originally 500 m by 200 m in size.
However, only a fraction of the site remains intact (Golder 1998).
DjSf-6 is a shell midden and habitation feature located approximately 570 m south of the
Buckley Bay ferry terminal on a gravel bluff located at 20 m asl. The site was recorded
in 1975 by Murton and Foster (1975) during the East Coast Vancouver Island Survey
from Nanaimo to Courtenay. The site covers a 30 m by 23 m area and consists of a shell
midden and possible house features. In 1997 during an overview of the Buckley Bay
Turnaround for Vancouver Island Highway Project, Alexander (1997) reported that a
small portion of the site may contain intact archaeological deposits.
DjSf-30 is a shell midden site that is located approximately 895 m northwest of the
Buckley Bay terminal at an elevation of 1.5 m asl. The site was recorded in 1975 by
Murton and Foster (1975) during the East Coast Vancouver Island Survey from Nanaimo
to Courtenay. The site encompasses 300 m by 25 m on the shoreline of Lambert
Channel. The site contains ground stone artifacts such as a knife, and a mortar and pestle
(Murton and Foster 1975).
DjSe-19 is a shell midden site that is located approximately 1,000 m east of the Buckley
Bay terminal at the eastern extremity of Base Flat, near the mouth of the Tsable River.
The site was first recorded in 1987 by an independent researcher. The site encompasses
110 m by 10 m and includes an intertidal component manifest as a thin cultural deposit
approximately 10 m long and lying between 5 to 10 cm below surface (Moore 2007).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 15 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Marine Sites
A review of the aerial photograph of the Buckley Bay terminal area shows a clearing in
the beach rocks located about 100 m north of the terminal that runs perpendicular to the
shoreline (Figure 3). This pattern is characteristic of canoe runs, stone alignments that
are protected under the HCA. However, there is no archaeological site recorded at this
location either in the intertidal zone or on adjacent land; furthermore the clearing has
been preserved in modern times. As such, this feature is probably the result of recent
improvements by a local property owner.
No historical shipwrecks have been previously documented within 2 nm (3.7 km) of the
Buckley Bay ferry terminal. However, the fishing boat Kristiejanter sank at an unknown
location in Baynes Sound (Northern Maritime Research 2002). More specific
information on the location of this vessel and whether or not it was salvaged was not
found in the documentation reviewed.
The 1,015 ton Prince Albert grounded at an unspecified location in Baynes Sound in
1914. Built in 1892 in Hull, UK, the Prince Albert had a very long career and active on
the BC coast before sinking in 1950 in the Strait of Juan de Fuca under the name
J.R. Morgan (Northern Maritime Research 2002; Transport Canada 1981). This vessel
was eventually salvaged.
Three occurrences in the vicinity of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal were recorded by the
Joint Rescue Coordination Centre between 2003 and 2006. Only one of these would
result in material remaining on the seabed: a 28-foot aluminum “oyster skiff” was
reported “lost” on September 14, 2006 at coordinates (4931.5 N 12450.4 W). This places
it within 350 m east of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal (Mitch Leenders pers. comm.
August 19, 2008).
Anomalies observed in air photos were noted in the intertidal zone within 50 m both
north and south of the Buckley Bay ferry terminal. These anomalies are probably
manmade, but it is likely that they pre-date 1846. However, there are numerous
examples of vessels being abandoned or used as breakwaters in nearby inter-tidal areas.
For example, the S.S. Grey and the Alumna are found in Fanny Bay about 2.75 km to the
south of the Project area, and several breakwater vessels are situated at Royston, 15 km
north of the Project area (Jacques Marc [Underwater Archaeology Society of BC], pers.
comm. August 19, 2008; James 2004; 2006)
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
6.2.2
- 16 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Three recorded archaeological sites are located in the vicinity of the Denman Island West
Project area: DjSe-8, DjSe-9 and DjSe-17 (Attachment I).
DjSe-8 is a shell midden site recorded 34 m northwest of the Denman Island West ferry
terminal (Attachment I). Exposed cultural deposits measure 500 m by 15 m; however,
the site has not been tested to confirm dimensions or assess integrity and could extend
beyond the recorded location into the Project footprint. The site was first recorded in
1975 by Murton and Foster and later revisited by Kapes in 1986. Murton and Foster
(1975) observed midden deposits ranging in depth from 20 cm to 1 m below surface.
Erosion of the site from tidal action was also observed by Murton and Foster (1975).
DjSe-9 is a shell midden site recorded 1 km northwest of the Denman Island West
Terminal (Attachment I). DjSe-9 was first recorded by Murton and Foster (1975) and
later revisited by Kapes in 1986. The exposed site measures 110 m by 20 m and midden
deposits reportedly ranged in from 30 cm to 1 m in depth; however, the site has not been
tested to confirm dimensions or assess integrity.
DjSe-17 is a shell midden site recorded 30 m southeast of the Denman Island West
Terminal (Attachment I). The site measures 50 m by 10 m and has shell midden deposits
that are up to 40 cm in depth. The site dimensions and depth of deposits are estimated
(Murton and Foster 1975). DjSe-17 has since been revisited by Kapes in 1986 and
Owen Grant in 2005. Based on observations made in 2005, the site contains sporadic
shell midden deposits that stretch along the shoreline of Baynes Sound.
Marine Sites
Denman Point is just about 2 nm (3.7 km) north of the Denman Island West ferry
terminal. The reef extending from Denman Point (previously known as Village Point)
seemed to present a considerable hazard to local shipping. In 1901, the 1,695-ton iron
steam schooner Willamette out of San Francisco grounded on the reef on her way in to
Union Bay (Rogers 1973:39). In 1903, the 337 ton steamer Barbara Boscowitz was
stranded there. It was recovered, although declared a partial loss. This Victoria-built
vessel played an important role in the early settlement up and down the coast between
1883 and the last of her numerous accidents led to her scrapping in 1904 (Northern
Maritime Research 2002). In this same year the naval vessel HMS Flora grounded on
the same reef (Rogers 1973:39). The 52-ton steam tug Vulcan caught fire as a result of a
deck-load of fuel oil the night of January 28, 1925 (Rogers 1973:38-39). The remains of
the Vulcan are apparently still visible on the beach near Denman Point today.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 17 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
A more recent tragedy was the loss of two CF 101 Voodoo aircraft which collided in
flight over Denman Island in 1969. Both pilots successfully ejected from the aircraft but
both navigators were unable to free themselves from the wreckage and were killed. The
reported location of the collision is within 2 nautical miles (nm) (3.7 km) of the Denman
Island ferry terminal, but there is no indication that any of the wreckage fell into the
water in the immediate vicinity (Mitch Leenders pers. comm. August 19, 2008).
At least until 1977, a government wharf was located immediately to the east of the
current ferry terminal (Public Works Canada 1977, file 7955). The wharf structure has
been removed. A breakwater located to the east of the wharf remains, although it is in
disrepair, and closer to the ferry terminal are concrete blocks, dolphins and an intertidal
ramp associated with the former ferry landing site.
6.2.3
There is only one previously recorded archaeological site in the vicinity of the Denman
Island East Project area (Attachment I). DjSe-31 is a shell midden site located 500 m
northwest of the Denman Island East ferry terminal. The site was recorded in 1975 by
Murton and Foster (1975) during the East Coast Vancouver Island Survey from Nanaimo
to Courtenay. The site covers 60 m by 10 m on the shoreline of Lambert Channel. The
site is very small and only a thin archaeological deposit was noted by Murton and Foster
(1975). Additionally, the site has been impacted by residential construction.
Marine Sites
Approximately 2 nm (3.7 km) south of the Denman Island East ferry terminal are the
remains of the iron steamer Alpha (DiSe-37), located just off Chrome Island
(Marc 1999). The Alpha was built on the Clyde for Cunard Steamships in 1863 and was
a veteran of many Atlantic crossings before rounding the Horn to participate in the
Klondike gold rush (Paterson 1976:11-16). The Alpha went down taking nine lives with
her on December 15, 1900, and remains the worst recorded marine disaster in the vicinity
of the Project area.
The only shipwrecks reported within 2 nm (3.7 km) of Denman Island East terminal are
the 31 ton Victoria and an unnamed vessel. Rogers locates the former about 2.2 km
southeast of the terminal, and the latter about 3.7 km to the north-northwest (1973).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 18 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Two occurrences in the vicinity of the Denman Island East terminal were recorded by the
Joint Rescue Coordination Centre between 1986 and 2003 involving one aircraft and a
small craft. Neither of these would result in material remaining on the seabed
(Mitch Leenders pers. comm. August 19, 2008).
6.2.4
There is only one previously recorded archaeological site in the vicinity of the
Hornby Island Project area. DjSe-4 is located 100 m north of the existing Hornby Island
ferry terminal (Attachment I). The site is an archaeological shell midden that measures
approximately 96 m by 132 m and is located on Shingle Spit, facing Lambert Channel.
First recorded by Oliver in 1972, it was estimated to extend to a depth of 4 m below
surface. During the 1982 Highways Survey, Brolly (1982) noted that the site had been
previously disturbed by landscaping and pothunting.
Marine Sites
Besides the Victoria, and the unnamed vessel previously mentioned, three additional
wrecks have been reported on the Hornby Island side of Lambert Channel within 2 nm
(3.7 km) of Hornby Island ferry terminal: the Mistress, the Sonja, and a third sailing
vessel reportedly lost in 1997 (name unknown).
The Mistress was a gillnetter that stranded and sank off Phipps Point in 1991, and the
Sonja was a troller that burned and sank at anchor in Ford Cove in 1996, 2.6 km south of
the terminal (Northern Maritime Research 2002).
The third vessel and the most likely to have left wreckage in close proximity to the
terminal was a 17 m sailing vessel that was reportedly lost October 8, 1997 at the
Hornby Island ferry terminal (Mitch Leenders pers. comm. August 19, 2008). No record
of salvage or recovery of this vessel has been found.
6.3
Archaeological potential was defined by the presence of archaeological sites within and
adjacent to the Project areas and terrain where archaeological sites have been previously
identified in other localities, including locations adjacent to prominent hydrological
features (e.g., Baynes Sound and Lambert Channel).
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
6.3.1
- 19 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Terrestrial Archaeological Deposits
Based on the search of the Provincial Heritage Registry and background literature review,
there is one previously recorded archaeological site situated adjacent to one of the four
Project areas. DjSf-13 is located in the immediate vicinity of the Buckley Bay ferry
terminal (Attachment I: Table 1). DjSf-13 is a significant archaeological site has been
partially impacted by past development activities that resulted in the disturbance of
human remains (Hoffman 1998). Given the significance of this site and that the Project
area is located near prominent freshwater (Tsable River) and saltwater (Baynes Sound)
hydrological features, the Buckley Bay Project area is situated in a location considered to
have high potential to contain undocumented archaeological sites. Upland areas that
have not been significantly disturbed by past development within and immediately
adjacent to the existing Buckley Bay ferry terminal are also considered to have high
archaeological potential for archaeological sites that include culturally modified trees
(CMTs). However, there have been significant land altering impacts that have occurred
within and adjacent to the Buckley Bay ferry terminal, which decreases the
archaeological potential.
Marine Archaeological Deposits
DjSf-13 consists of large portions of intact shell midden that could extend below areas of
fill within the Project area including into the intertidal and subtidal areas. In 2005,
Millennia Research undertook an archaeological overview study in advance of ferry
terminal improvements proposed for Buckley Bay. Millennia (2005) assigned a low
archaeological potential to areas where specific berth realignments activities were
proposed. Potential was determined in part from information obtained during core log
drilling undertaken by C.N. Ryzuk and Associates Ltd. A review of these core logs
indicated that naturally occurring seashells, wood, gravel and sand was identified from
-5 m to -7 m from chart datum which is described as the lower low water level
(Millennia 2005:3). Although the core log data does not strongly suggest that human
habitation occurred in this area, the gravel stratum may have been exposed when sea
levels were lower and as such could have been used by people in the past
(Millennia 2005).
A sunken “oyster skiff” is located approximately 350 m east of the Buckley Bay ferry
terminal (Mitch Leenders pers. comm. August 19, 2008). The remains of this vessel, if
they have not already been removed, are protected under the HCA; a Section 12 Site
Alteration Permit would be required before the vessel remains can be removed or in any
other way impacted.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 20 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
The intertidal and subtidal deposits at Buckley Bay are considered to have moderate
archaeological potential to a depth of 15 m below chart datum. The results in the core
samples reported by Millennia (2005) are offset somewhat by the potential these same
cores reveal for preserved organic material in the area, along with the more recent
discovery of intertidal cultural deposits at nearby site DjSe-19. The potential for
encountering a shipwreck if any terminal development extends to the east into subtidal
waters is considered high. The potential for encountering vessel remains in the intertidal
zone is considered moderate.
6.3.2
The Denman Island West ferry terminal is located between two previously recorded
archaeological sites, DjSe-8 and DjSe-17 (Attachment I: Table 2). These sites stretch
along Baynes Sound, separated only by the ferry terminal. During the 2008
archaeological impact assessment (AIA) conducted in advance of developments for an
additional queuing lane along the northeast side of Denman Road, no archaeological
sites, materials or features were located (Huculak 2008). Given the results of the 2008
AIA, upland areas northeast of Denman Road, but within BC Ferries property, that are
steep and rocky are considered to have a low archaeological potential. Whereas level
upland areas are considered to have a moderate to high archaeological potential. In
addition, terrain along the shoreline immediately adjacent to previously recorded
archaeological sites DjSe-8 and DjSe-17 have high archaeological potential.
No previously recorded archaeological sites exist within the intertidal zone adjacent to
the Denman Island West ferry terminal. No features of interest are evident in the
intertidal area in the available aerial photograph of this Project area.
The intertidal and subtidal deposits at the Denman Island West ferry terminal are
considered to have moderate potential to a depth of 15 m below chart datum (lower low
water level) for the areas offshore from DjSe-8 where the ferry slip is located, and to the
southeast of the terminal offshore from DjSe-17.
The only historical shipwreck known to rest within 2 nm (3.7 km) of the terminal is the
Vulcan (Rogers 1973:38-39), and potentially the Kristiejanter (see Section 6.2.1) The
potential for encountering a ship or aircraft wreck in the area is considered low,
presuming that the wreck of the Kristiejanter is located elsewhere in Baynes Sound.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 21 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Protected waters near wharves, including the area to the west of the abandoned
breakwater within which an historic wharf and the existing ferry terminal were and are
located, have an elevated potential for vessel abandonment, typically within the intertidal
or shallow sub tidal zones. No vessel remains were noted in the upper intertidal area in
2008. However, because of the location, there is potential for encountering abandoned
vessel remains in the lower intertidal and shallow sub tidal waters.
6.3.3
Background research indicates that one previously recorded archaeological site is located
near the Denman Island East ferry terminal (Attachment I: Table 3). Upland areas to the
south, east and west of the terminal that have not been significantly impacted by previous
development are considered to have a moderate archaeological potential. Terrain along
the shoreline, but below layers of fill, has a moderate potential to contain archaeological
deposits.
No features of interest are evident in the intertidal area on the aerial photograph of the
Denman Island East ferry terminal. Considerable exposures of sandstone extending into
the subtidal zone, except in the small bay located directly west of the ramp which is not
associated with a known site, would limit the prospects for subtidal archaeological
deposits.
No ship wrecks are airplane crash sites are located within 2 km of the Denman Island
East terminal.
The intertidal and subtidal deposits at the Denman Island East ferry terminal are
considered to have low potential owing to the rocky shoreline and lack of proximal sites.
The potential for encountering a shipwreck or aircraft remains in the intertidal and
subtidal zones is also low.
6.3.4
One previously recorded archaeological site is located near the Hornby Island ferry
terminal (Attachment I: Table 4). Treed upland areas that have not been significantly
impacted by previous construction are considered to have a moderate to high
archaeological potential for archaeological sites that may include CMTs. Terrain along
the shoreline, but below fill, also has a moderate potential to contain archaeological
deposits.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 22 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
A review of the aerial photograph of the Hornby Island ferry terminal area (see Figure 6)
reveals a number of alignments and other features in the intertidal zone between 25 and
70 m of the terminal. These appear to be man-made, and while unlikely to pre-date 1846,
may represent shipwreck remains. The intertidal zone is also fairly extensive to the north
of the terminal and offshore from DjSe-4.
A 17 m sailing boat is understood to have sunk at the Hornby Island ferry terminal in
1997 (Mitch Leenders pers. comm. August 19, 2008); no record of salvage or recovery
has been found. No other ship wrecks are airplane crash sites are located within 2 nm of
the Denman Island East terminal.
The intertidal and subtidal deposits offshore from DjSe-4 north of the Hornby Island
ferry terminal are considered to have moderate to high potential to a depth of 15 m below
datum. The intertidal and subtidal deposits south of the Hornby Island ferry terminal are
considered to have moderate potential to a depth of 15 m below datum. The potential for
encountering a shipwreck if terminal development extends into subtidal waters is high.
The potential for encountering vessel remains in the intertidal zone is moderate.
7.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given that future development activities are unknown, general archaeological
recommendations are presented for each of the four Project areas below.
7.1
7.1.1
Where work will be confined to areas that have been significantly impacted by previous
development (i.e., adding to an existing structure, working within fill) and where no
impacts to undisturbed terrain will occur, Golder recommends:

No further archaeological work.
If construction is proposed to occur in upland locations within the Buckley Bay Project
area that have been partially disturbed, Golder recommends:

Archaeological monitoring during construction by a professional archaeologist.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 23 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
If construction is proposed to occur in undisturbed upland areas within the Buckley Bay
Project area, Golder recommends:

AIA be conducted prior to the commencement of construction activities.
7.1.2
development (i.e., adding to an existing structure, working within fill, working within an
area that has already been dredged) and where no impacts to undisturbed terrain will
occur, Golder recommends:

If construction is proposed that will involve expanding terminal facilities into the
undisturbed intertidal and subtidal zones beyond the current footprint of fill, pilings, and
previously dredged seabed, Golder recommends:

7.2
7.2.1

If construction is proposed to occur in upland or intertidal areas that have been partially
disturbed, but are outside locations assessed during the previous Denman Island West
Project AIA (Huculak 2008), Golder recommends:

If construction is proposed to occur in undisturbed upland areas outside areas assessed
during the previous AIA (Huculak 2008), or within the intertidal zone adjacent to the
existing septic field within the Denman Island West Project area, Golder recommends:

Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
7.2.2
- 24 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
occur, Golder recommends:

previously dredged seabed Golder recommends:

7.3
7.3.1

If construction is proposed to occur in upland areas that have been somewhat disturbed,
or where disturbance is unknown within the Denman Island East Project area, Golder
recommends:

If construction is proposed to occur in undisturbed upland areas within the Denman
Island East Project area, Golder recommends:

Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
7.3.2
- 25 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
For construction proposed that will involve expanding terminal facilities into the
intertidal and subtidal zones including beyond the current footprint of fill, pilings, and

7.4
7.4.1

If construction is proposed to occur in upland areas that have been partially disturbed
within the Hornby Island Project area, Golder recommends:

If construction is proposed to occur in undisturbed upland areas within the Hornby Island
Project area Golder recommends:

AIA be conducted prior to the commencement of construction activities. The purpose
of the AIA would be to: (1) identify, record, and assess archaeological sites located
within the Subject Property; (2) identify and evaluate possible impacts by the
proposed development to these archaeological sites; and (3) recommend appropriate
impact management actions. The AIA would need to be conducted under a Heritage
Inspection Permit issued by the Archaeology Branch per Section 14 of the HCA.
7.4.2
occur Golder recommends:

No further archaeological work is recommended.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 26 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029

The purpose of an AIA would be to: (1) identify, record, and assess archaeological sites
located within the Subject Property; (2) identify and evaluate possible impacts by the
proposed development to these archaeological sites; and (3) recommend appropriate
impact management actions. The AIA would need to be conducted under a Heritage
Inspection Permit issued by the Archaeology Branch per Section 14 of the HCA.
Archaeological monitoring would be undertaken to reduce or eliminate adverse project
impacts on archaeological sites that could not be predicted or evaluated prior to
construction.
Consistent with industry practice and the bylaws of the BC Association of Professional
Archaeologists, First Nation groups whose asserted traditional territory encompasses the
Project area should be notified to discuss the nature and schedule of any commissioned
archaeological assessment, and to invite a representative of the community(s) to
participate in the field assessment.
Even the most thorough investigation may not identify all archaeological materials that
may be present. BC Ferries is advised that if unanticipated archaeological materials or
features (including but not limited to, culturally modified trees, rock art, stone artifacts,
human remains, or unusual objects or features of a possible ceremonial nature) are
encountered during construction or related activities, all work in the immediate area
should cease, and the Archaeology Branch and Golder should be contacted.
8.0
LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT
This report was prepared for the use of BC Ferries Services Inc. Any use, reliance or
decisions made by third parties on the basis of the report are the responsibility of such
third parties. This study was not intended to address issues of traditional aboriginal use,
rights, or title.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
9.0
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
- 27 -
CLOSURE
We trust the information in this report is satisfactory for your present needs. Should you
require additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at your earliest convenience.
Yours very truly,
ORIGINAL SIGNED
Shauna A. Huculak, M.A., R.P.C.A.
Archaeologist
ORIGINAL SIGNED
Charles Moore, M.A., R.P.C.A.
Archaeologist
Reviewed by:
ORIGINAL SIGNED
Ben Hjermstad, M.A.
Senior Archaeologist/Associate
SH/CM/BH/rem
Attachments: Figure 1 – Key Plan: Buckley Bay and Denman Island West Terminals
Figure 2 – Key Plan: Denman Island East and Hornby Island Terminals
Figure 3 – Site Plan: Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal
Figure 4 – Site Plan: Denman Island West Ferry Terminal
Figure 5 – Site Plan: Denman Island East Ferry Terminal
Figure 6 – Site Plan: Hornby Island Ferry Terminal
Attachment I: Tables
Z:\FINAL\2009\1477\09-1477-0029 BC Ferries FN Consult Buckley-Denman\Archaeology\REP 1007_10 BCFS Buckley Denman AOA Report.docx
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
10.0
- 28 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
REFERENCES CITED
Archaeology Branch
2008 Archaeological Overview Assessments as General Land Use Planning Tools –
ProvincialStandards and Guidelines. Online at
http://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/
Alexander, D.
1997 An Archaeological Overview of the Buckley Bay Main Road and Interchange for
the Vancouver Island Highway Project. Report prepared for the Vancouver Island
Highway Project, Vancouver.
Barnett, Homer G.
1938 The Coast Salish of Canada. American Anthropologist
40(1):118-141.
1939 The Coast Salish of British Columbia. University of Oregon Monographs, Studies
in Anthropology 4. The University Press, Eugene.
Boas, Franz
1886 “PenlLatc Texts,” with Interlinear English Translation. Manuscript No. 740 in
National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
1909 The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. Publications of the Jesup North Pacific
Expedition 5(2):301-522; Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History
8(2).
1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl (Based on data collected by George Hunt). 2 Parts.
Pp. 43-1481 in 35th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for the
Years 1913-1914. Washington.
1934 Geographical Names of the Kwakiutl Indians. Columbia University Contributions
to Anthropology, 20. Columbia University Press, New York.
1966 Kwakiutl Ethnography. Helen Codere, Ed. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Bradley, T., J. Hoffman and H. Hammond
1998 Denman Island Ecosystem-Based Assessment of Denman Island. Electronic
document accessed March 11, 2008. http://www.denmanis.bc.ca/silrept.htm
Brolly, R.
1982 Report of the 1982 Highways Survey. Heritage Conservation Branch. Report on
file with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts,
Victoria.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 29 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Bussey, J.
1987 Heritage Resource Overview Assessment, Inland Island Highway, Parksville to
Menzies Bay, Vancouver Island. Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
1990 Heritage resource inventory and impact assessment proposed inland Island
Highway between Qualicum and Campbell River and including French Creek
near Parksville. Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts,
Victoria.
Codere, Helen
1990 Kwakiutl: Traditional Culture. In The Handbook of North American Indians,
Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited Wayne Suttles, pp. 259-377. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Comox Valley Harbour Authority
2008 Marine History .A Web resource:
http://www.comoxfishermanswharf.com/marine_history/index.htm.
Clague, John, John R. Harper, R.J. Hebda and D.E. Howes
1982 Late Quaternary Sea Levels and Crustal Movements, Coastal British Columbia.
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 19:597-618.
Dawson, G.M.
1888 Notes and Observations on the Kwakiool People of the Northern Part of
Vancouver Island and Adjacent Coasts, Made During the Summer of 1885.
Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Volume IV, Section 2, pp. 63-88.
Drucker, Philip
1943 Archaeological Survey on the Northern Northwest Coast. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Bulletin 133, Anthropological Paper 20, Washington, D.C.
1965
Cultures of the North Pacific Coast. Chandler, Los Angeles.
Galois, Robert
1994 Kwakwaka’wakw Settlements, 1775-1920: A Geographical Analysis and
Gazetteer. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 30 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
1998 Archaeological Mitigation of DjSf-13 Buckley Bay main road and Interchange
Vancouver Island Highway Project HCA Permit 1997-345. Report on file with
the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Grant, O.
2006 British Columbia Archaeological Site Inventory Form, DjSe-17. Site form on file
with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts,
Victoria.
Greene, Nancy A.
2003 Preliminary Report on Mapping Fish Complexes at Comox Bay, British
Columbia. Report on file with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism,
Gulf Islands Guide
2008 Hornby Island History. A Web resource:
http://www.gulfislandsguide.com/history/hornby.htm.
Harris, Cole
1994 Voices of Disaster: Smallpox around the Strait of Georgia in 1782. Ethnohistory
41(4):591-626.
Hebda, Richard J.
1995 British Columbia Vegetation and Climate History with Focus on 6 KA BP.
Géographie Physique et Quarternaire 49 (1):55-79.Hoffman, T.
1998 Describing Site Alterations Resulting from reburial of human Remains at DjSf-13,
Buckley Bay, BC. Report on file with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of
Tourism, Culture and the Arts, Victoria.
Huculak, S.A.
2008 Interim Report: Archaeological Impact Assessment of BC Ferries Denman Island
West Terminal Proposed Queuing Lane. HCA Permit 2008-150. Report on file
with the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts,
Victoria.
Hutchinson, Ian
1992 Holocene Sea Level Change in the Pacific Northwest: A Catalogue of
Radiocarbon Dates and an Atlas of Regional Sea Level Curves. Institute for
Quaternary Research, Simon Fraser University, Discussion Paper Number 1.
Burnaby, Canada.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 31 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Hutchinson, I, T.S. James, J.J. Clague, J.V. Barrie, & K.W. Conway
2004 Reconstruction of late Quaternary sea-level change in southwestern British
Columbia from sediments in isolation basins. Boreas 33:183-194.
James, Rick
2004 Ghost Ships of Royston. Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
2006 The Schooner Alumna, uncovering the identity of Mud Bay’s Mystery Wreck.
Western Mariner. April 2006:34-35.
Jungen, J.R. and T. Lewis
1978 The Coast Mountains and Islands. In The Soil Landscapes of British Columbia,
edited by K.W.G. Valentine, P.N. Sprout, T.E. Baker and L.M. Lavkulich, pp.
101-120. BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria.
Kennedy, Dorothy and Randy Bouchard
1983 Sliammon Life, Sliammon Lands. Talon Books, Vancouver.
1990 Northern Coast Salish. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7:
Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 441-452. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Marc, Jacques
1999 Historic Shipwrecks of Northeastern Vancouver Island. Underwater
Archaeological Society of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Millennia Research Ltd.
2005 Archaeological Potential, Buckley Bay Ferry Terminal. Report on file with the
author, Victoria.
Mitchell, Donald
1990 Prehistory of the Coasts of Southern British Columbia and Northern Washington.
In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast. Edited by
Wayne Suttles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Moore, Charles D.
2007 BC Hydro Northern Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands Archaeological
Assessments, 2005-2007 Permit Report HIP 2005-215. Report on file with the
Mueller, J.E.
1977 Geology of Vancouver Island (map). Geological Survey of Canada, Department
of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 32 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
Murton, P and D. Foster
1975 Report of the East Coast Vancouver Island Survey. Report on file, Archaeology
Nagorsen, David
1990 The Mammals of British Columbia: A Taxonomic Catalogue.Memoir No. 4.
Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria.
Northern Maritime Research
2002 Northern Shipwrecks Database. Database on CD Rom, Bedford, Nova Scotia.
Nuszdorfer, F. C., K. Klinka and D. A. Demarchi
1991 Coastal Douglas-fir zone. Pages 95-112 in Ecosystems of British Columbia.
Edited by D. Meidinger and J. Pojar. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Special
Report Series No. 6, Victoria, BC. 330 pp.
Paterson. T.W.
1976 British Columbia Shipwrecks. Stagecoach Publishing Co. Ltd., Langley, B.C.
Pojar, J., K. Klinka and D.A. Demarchi
1991 Coastal Western Hemlock Zone in D. Meidinger and J. Pojar (eds.) Ecosystems of
British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests, Special
Reeves, R., B. Stewart, P. Clapham and J. Powell
2002 Guide to Marine Mammals of the World. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
Rogers, Fred.
1973 Shipwrecks of British Columbia. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver BC.
1992 More Shipwrecks of British Columbia. Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver BC.
Simonson, B.
1993 Results of an archaeological inventory and impact assessment of Potential
Development impacts at the Buckley Bay Site (DjSf-13). Report on file,
Thomson, Richard E.
1981 Oceanography of the British Columbia Coast. Canadian Special Publication of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa.
Transport Canada
1970-1984 Synopses of Aircraft Accidents – civil aircraft in Canada (four issues per
year) Ministry of Transport/Transport Canada. Ottawa.
1981
List of Shipping Casualties Resulting in Total Loss in British Columbia Coastal
Waters Since 1897. Ottawa.
Golder Associates
Mr. Kelly Wheeler
- 33 -
October 7, 2010
09-1477-0029
1985 Index of Investigation Reports: Marine Casualty Investigations. Ottawa.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
n.d. Marine Investigation Reports. 1991-2006. Web Resource:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/index.asp?section=1.
n.d.
Air Investigation Reports. 1990-2006. Web Resource:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/index.asp?section=4.
Turner, Nancy
1990 "Burning Mountain Sides For Better Crops:" Aboriginal Landscape Burning in
British Columbia. Archaeology in Montana 32(2):57-73.
Turner, Nancy and Marcus Bell
1971 The Ethnobotany of the Coast Salish Indians of Vancouver Island. Economic
Botany 25(1):63-104.
Walbran, John T.
1971 [1909] British Columbia Coast Names, their Origin and History. Douglas and
McIntyre, Vancouver.
Wilson, I.R.
1991 Heritage Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment, Vancouver Island Natural
Gas Pipeline (2 Volumes).
1994 Archaeological Inventory and Impact Assessment Vancouver Island Highway
Project Nanaimo Parkway, Mostar Road to Superior Road. Report on file,
Yorath, C.J. and H.W. Nasmith
1995 The Geology of Southern Vancouver Island: A Field Guide. Orca Books
Publishing, Victoria.
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT I
TABLES
TABLE 1: Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the Buckley Bay Ferry terminal
Borden Number
Site Type(s)
Approximate Distance from
Buckley Bay Ferry terminal
DjSf-6
Shell midden, habitation feature
570 m south
DjSf-13
Burial, Shell midden
<0.90 m south
DjSf-30
Shell midden
895 m northwest
DjSe-19
Shell midden (including intertidal)
1000 m southeast
TABLE 2: Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the Denman Island West Ferry
terminal
Borden Number
Site Type(s)
Denman Island West Ferry
terminal
DjSe-8
Shell midden
34 m northwest
DjSe-9
Shell midden
1000 m northwest
DjSe-17
Shell midden
30 m southeast
TABLE 3: Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the Denman Island East Ferry
terminal
Borden Number
Site Type(s)
Denman Island East Ferry
terminal
DiSe-31
Shell midden
502 m northwest
TABLE 4: Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the Hornby Island Ferry terminal
Borden Number
Site Type(s)
Hornby Island Ferry terminal
DjSe-4
Shell midden
100 m north
APPENDIX III
Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related
Practices
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
78
Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related
Operations – BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors
Association - November, 2003
The BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO) have developed a Best Management Practices Policy for pile driving
operations and related activities when working on the water within the province of British
Columbia.
The Pile Driving Industry utilizes many different construction methods, equipment and
materials in order to complete the contractual obligations for its client. Hammers;
including drop, diesel, air, vibratory and hydraulic, vibroflot, and rotary, air and churn
drills are the primary instruments in a pile driving operation. These hammers and drills
are supported by a wide variety of heavy equipment, including a range of conventional
cranes (truck mounted, crawler and pedestal mounted), spud scows, support barges and
other water borne equipment. The piling types include treated timber (primarily
creosote), concrete and steel (pipe, h-beam and sheet). Construction projects have the
potential to utilize a number of different combinations of equipment and materials. It is
the purpose of this document to examine the characteristics of each potential combination
and develop a Best Management Practices Policy that will meet the following criteria:
-Maximize environmental protection
-Avoid contravention of the Fisheries Act
-Provide construction services economically
1)- Basic Rules of Operation
When in an aquatic environment, contractors will employ the following BASIC Best
Management Practices:





All equipment will be maintained in good proper running order to prevent leaking or
spilling of potentially hazardous or toxic products. This includes hydraulic fluid,
diesel, gasoline and other petroleum products.
Storage of fuels and petroleum products will comply with safe operating procedures,
including containment facilities in case of a spill.
Pile cut-offs, waste or any miscellaneous unused materials will be recovered for
either disposal in a designated facility or placed in storage. Under no circumstances
will materials be deliberately thrown overboard.
Contractors will have emergency spill equipment available whenever working near or
on the water.
Contractors, where possible, will position their water borne equipment in a manner
that will prevent damage to identified fish habitat (i.e. eelgrass). Where possible,
alternative methods will be employed (i.e.: use of anchors instead of spuds). In the
event that, despite precautions, the contractor is aware that fish habitat has been
2




inadvertently damaged, the incident must be reported and discussed with DFO to
ensure that appropriate action (restoration) is taken.
Prior to the commencement of any work, the contractor will complete and forward the
attached “Notice of Project” to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Letters of
advice or Habitat Authorizations may be required, depending on the scope of work
proposed.
If contractors are working and a herring (or other fish) spawning occurs, the work
will be temporarily suspended and the appropriate DFO contact notified.
There will be no restriction of work during closure periods (the only exception being
when spawning is present, all work must cease and the local DFO habitat biologist
must be contacted for further instructions), provided the contractors employ an
exclusion device (protective netting or geotextile material suspended in the water
column around pile driving area) around the work area to prevent fish access or when
required, an effective method of mitigating shock waves (bubble curtain).
Whenever shock wave monitoring (hydrophone) is performed at a marine
construction site and the findings are available to the contractor, the data will be
forwarded to the BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association and Svein
Vagle at the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, BC. It is hoped that a database can
be built that will more precisely define work procedures and reflect the safest and
most economical approach to protecting the fish and their habitat.
2)-Timber Piling (creosote):
When driving timber piling, the following Best Management Practices will be employed
to prevent impact to marine fish and their habitat:




Where possible, new timber piles will comply with the best Management Practices
for the use of treated wood in aquatic environments as developed by the Canadian
Institute of Treated Wood and the Western Wood Preservers Institute and the DFO
document “Guidelines to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat from Treated Wood Used in
Aquatic Environments in the Pacific Region”.
Where the above is not possible, creosote piling will stand (weather) for a minimum
of 45 days prior to installation.
These requirements are for new piling only. Reused piling will not normally be
subject to any additional treatments (timberfume is a provincially licensed
preservative that is available for treatment of used piles), however, pilings with
excessive creosote should be avoided. Reuse of suitable piling should be encouraged.
In the case of mooring piles, exposed to significant wear, the contractor should
encourage the owner to protect the piling with rub strips as per the “Guidelines for
use of Treated Wood.
Timber piling is normally driven using a drop hammer, a diesel/air impact hammer or
a small vibratory hammer. Because of the relative small diameter of the timber pile,
and its excellent energy absorbing quality, there is little threat of sound pressure
impacts to fish and their habitat when driving timber piles.
3


Environmental monitoring of sound pressure impacts is not required.
An attempt should be made to determine whether least impact means full extraction
of the piling or if leaving a stub that would not interfere with navigation is acceptable.
If complete demolition is required on timber pile structures, the contractor will
remove the piling by mechanical means and avoid breaking the piling at the mud line
or below. It may be appropriate to cut off the piling flush with the mud line. All
demolition operations should be monitored in order to control and contain the
construction debris and to determine whether there are any effects on fish or fish
habitat.
3)-Concrete Piles
When driving concrete piles, regardless of which hammer is being used, the following
Best Management Practices will be employed to minimize/prevent impacts to fish
habitat:
Concrete Piles 24 inch diameter and less


The physical design of 24 inch concrete pile dictates that: 1/ the energy required must
be controlled in order to prevent the pile from breaking and 2/ the concrete
construction of the pile will absorb the energy. These two factors are expected to
result in low level shock wave emission (less than 30 kPa.) and minimal or no effects
to fish and their habitat should result.
Environmental monitoring of sound pressure levels is generally not required.
Piles Greater than 24 inch diameter



When driving concrete piles with a diameter greater than 24 inches using an impact or
hydraulic hammer, the following Best Management Practice will be employed to
minimize the impact on fish habitat:
Visual and hydrophone monitoring of the impact on fish by the sound waves emitted
will be required. If sound pressures over 30 kPa are measured or a fish kill occurs, the
contractor will introduce effective means of reducing the level of the shock waves.
Appropriate mitigating measures would be the deployment of a bubble curtain over
the full length of the wetted pile. This should reduce the shock waves to an acceptable
level.
If, despite the introduction of preventative measures, further visual/hydrophone
monitoring reveals unacceptable conditions (fish kill or sound pressure over 30 kPa),
the work will stop immediately, DFO will be contacted, and the methods will be
reviewed and corrected
4)-Steel Pipe Piles
Piles less than 18 inch diameter
4
When driving steel piles 24 inches in diameter and less, regardless of the type of hammer
being used, the following Best Management Practices will be employed to prevent
impacts to fish habitat:



Because of the small diameter of the pile it is assumed that the energy required to
drive the pile to the final point of installation will not result in shock waves in excess
of 30 kPa, therefore, protective measures to reduce shock waves are not expected to
be required.
If, however, ground conditions during pile installation cause a fish kill, work will
cease and contractors will be responsible for introducing effective means of reducing
the level of shock waves or will introduce measures that will prevent fish from
entering the potentially harmful shock wave area. Appropriate mitigating measures
would include the deployment a bubble curtain over the full length of the wetted pile.
This technique should reduce the shock waves to an acceptable level.
If, despite the introduction of preventive measures, further visual/hydrophone
then the work will stop immediately and the methods will be reviewed and corrected
(with consultation with DFO).
Piles Greater than 24 inches in diameter
When driving steel pipe piles with a diameter greater than 24 inches using impact or
hydraulic hammers, the following Best Management Practices will be employed to
prevent impacts to fish habitat:


Hydrophone and visual monitoring of the effects of the shock waves on fish will be
required. If a fish kill occurs, the contractor will introduce effective means of
reducing the level of the shockwave. Appropriate mitigating measures would be the
deployment of a bubble curtain over the full length of the wetted pile.
(with consultation with DFO).
5)-Steel Sheet Piles and H-piles
When driving steel sheet piles and H-piles with a drop hammer, an impact hammer or a
vibratory hammer, the following Best Management Practices will be employed to
minimize the impact on fish habitat:

It is anticipated that the driving of these types of piles will not generate shock waves
in excess of 30kPa, therefore, mitigating measures are not expected to be required.
5


If, however, ground conditions during pile installation cause a fish kill, work will
cease and contractors will be responsible for introducing effective means of reducing
the level of shock waves or will introduce measures that will prevent fish from
entering the potentially harmful shock wave area. Appropriate mitigating measures
would include the deployment a bubble curtain over the full length of the wetted pile.
This technique should reduce the shock waves to an acceptable level.
(in consultation with DFO).
6)-Stone Column Construction
When installing stone column using a vibroflot, the following Best Management
Practices will be employed to prevent impacts to fish habitat:



The vibrating action and air flush associated with the operation of the probe results in
a high degree of turbidity. When this level exceeds the criteria as outlined in the
British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines, the contractor will introduce
containment methods that are designed to isolate the contaminated area and to prevent
fish from entering the contaminated area. Silt curtains and netting are two methods
that can provide the necessary protection.
When supplying the aggregate to the probe, the contractor will ensure that spillage is
prevented, thereby providing additional protection to fish habitat.
An independent environmental consultant will be used to monitor turbidity levels.
7)-Underwater Drilling and Blasting
When performing underwater drilling and blasting the following Best Management
Practices will be employed to prevent impacts to fish habitat:
Underwater Drilling



Generally, drilling underwater is a process that has very little impact on fish or fish
habitat. The procedure does not generate shock waves.
Contractors will ensure that all attachments (hydraulic connections and couplings) are
in good operating order and inspected prior to the start of every day. Spill kits and
containment booms must be maintained on-site in case of spills.
Depending on soil conditions and the potential for turbidity, drill cuttings will be
deposited adjacent to the operation, contained on the sea bed or pumped to the surface
for deposit into containment skiffs or scows for land disposal when it is determined
that the drill cuttings are unsuitable for return to the environment.
Underwater Blasting
6
Contractors required to perform blasting underwater will provide the following protection
to prevent impacts to fish habitat:



Because of the potential for harmful shock waves resulting from a blast, a protection
shield will surround the immediate blast area. This would be in the form of an airinduced bubble curtain, which has the primary purpose of absorbing the shock wave
and a secondary purpose of preventing fish from entering the blast area.
In order to protect against flying rock, mats (rubber) will be placed over the blasting
area. The placement of the mats may also provide protection for any fish swimming
in the immediate area.
Monitoring of fish movement and concentrations will be conducted using a sounder
to determine if fish herding or scaring techniques (seal bombs) can be utilized to
reduce the presence of fish in the blast area. If fish scaring techniques are deemed
necessary, the DFO habitat biologist or technician responsible for the project must be
consulted to determine the risk to fish.
8)-Cleaning out Pipe Piles:
When cleaning out pipe piles (i.e.: air lifting) the following Best Management Practices
will be employed to prevent impacts to fish habitat:

Generally, sediment contained in the pipe is will be pumped to the surface and
processed through an approved containment system and disposed of at an approved
landfill site.
 If the contractor knows that the sediment is toxic, the sediment must not be
redistributed in the area. If the sediment is non-toxic, and if fish are not present in the
area, and adjacent fish habitats are not a concern (contact DFO) it may be acceptable
to:
1. Pump the sediment through a discharge tube and allow it to settle in the immediate
area with or without a silt curtain to contain the sediment.
2. Pump the sediment through a discharge tube and additional flex hosing and redirect it
back to the base of the pile.
9) Containment of Concrete Residue and Water Run Off
When placing concrete in form work over or in water, the following Best Management
Practices will be employed to prevent the impacts to fish habitat:
Pouring concrete
 Spills: When pouring concrete all spills of fresh concrete must be prevented.
Concrete is toxic to fish due its high pH. If concrete is discharged from the
transit mixer directly to the formwork or placed by wheelbarrow, proper
sealed chutes must be constructed to avoid spillage. If the concrete is being
7

placed with a concrete pump, all hose and pipe connections must be sealed
and locked properly to ensure the lines will not leak or uncouple. Crews will
ensure that concrete forms are not filled to overflowing.
 Sealing forms: All concrete forms will be constructed in a manner which will
prevent fresh concrete or cement-laden water from leaking into the
surrounding water.
Curing concrete
 When fresh water is used to cure concrete, the run off must be monitored for
acceptable pH levels. If the pH levels are outside the allowable limits then the
run off water must be contained and neutralized.
Grinding concrete
 When grinding cured concrete, the dust and fines entering the water must not
exceed the allowable limits for suspended solids. When grinding green or
incompletely cured concrete and the dust or fines are entering the water, pH
monitoring will be conducted to ensure allowable ranges are maintained. In
the event that the levels are outside the acceptable ranges, preventative
measures will be introduced. This may include introducing silt curtains to
contain the solids and prevent fish from entering a contaminated area or
constructing catch basins to recover the run off and neutralizing it prior to
disposal.
Patching concrete
 Spills: When patching concrete, all spills must be contained and prevented
from entering the water.
Washing hand tools, pumps and transit mixer
 All tools, pumps, pipes, hoses and trucks used for finishing, placing or
transporting fresh concrete must be washed off in such a way as to prevent the
wash water and excess concrete from entering the marine environment. The
wash water will be contained and disposed of upland in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
Whenever there is the possibility of contaminants entering water, the contractor will
monitor pH levels to ensure acceptable levels.
8
APPENDIX
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Contact List
Name
Telephone No.
9
Fax. No.
NOTICE OF PROJECT
Project Location:
To: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Attention:
Telephone/Fax/email:______________________________________
From: “Contractor”
Telephone/Fax/email:______________________________________
Representative:
Please be advised of the following marine/pile driving project:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Project Manager/Superintendent:
Project Telephone/Fax/email:________________________________
Project commencement date:
Project Information:
Type:
Bearing
Fender
Mooring
Number of Piles:
Pile Diameter (if steel)
Type of Driving:
Vibro Drop Hammer __________________
Special Conditions at the Bottom (use of pins, sockets, epoxy, concrete, other)
_______________________________________________________________
General Equipment On-Site (barge, truck, crane, etc.) ____________________
Signature of Contractor: _____________________________
Date: ____________________
APPENDIX IV
Table A4 - 1 – Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project
Analysis
Table A4 - 2 – Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment
Analysis
January 18, 2011
Report No. 09-1477-0029
79
APPENDIX IV
Environment
Table A4-1: Potential Effects of the Environment on the Project Analysis
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
Description of Potential Project
Interaction with VEC / VSC

Physical

Climate

1
Excessive rain or strong wind
conditions could cause soil erosion
and sedimentation
During the construction phase,
adverse weather conditions may
cause temporary delays, but such
delays are accounted for in the
construction schedule
During the operations phase, adverse
weather is not expected to cause any
additional delays in the cable ferry
service than those incurred with the
current diesel service
Required Mitigation

Weather delays shall be accounted for in the construction schedule

Marine weather forecasts will be frequently monitored and communicated to the Project work
crew in order to minimize the potential for marine works to occur in strong winds or rough
seas; as poor weather conditions may contribute to equipment malfunctions that ultimately
impact the marine environment.

Work should be halted during heavy precipitation if excessive sediment loading is noted in
surface water.

Stockpiled material will be covered during precipitation events to minimize erosion and
sediment transport.

Prepare and implement a sediment and erosion control plan as part of an Environmental
Management Plan.
Significance of Residual Impacts rated as follows:
0 = None, 1 = Insignificant, 2 = Significant, 3 = Unknown, Positive (+), Negative (-).
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
1
Residual
Effects
Significance of
Residual Effects1
Further Study or Follow-up
None
1
No
APPENDIX IV
Environment
Table A4-2: Potential Effects of the Project on the Environment Analysis
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
Description of Potential Project Interaction
with VEC / VSC

Operation of trucks and other machinery
Required Mitigation

used during the Project will result in shortterm, localized exhaust emissions

Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
None
1
No
None
1
No
Ensure all machinery and vehicles utilized for the Project are in best working order in order to reduce air
emissions.

Ensure machinery is turned off when it is not required.
Site preparation and construction activities
may generate dust if undertaken during
dry weather, but this effect would be local
Air Quality
and short-term

Replacement of diesel ferry service with
cable ferry service is expected to have a
positive effect on local air quality, as
hydrocarbon emissions from the vessels
will be reduced


Equipment shall be in good working condition.
in-air and underwater noise.

Use machinery which limits excessive noise.
Operation of trucks or other machinery

Ensure work activities are limited to any applicable municipal construction hours of operation by-law.

Work will be conducted during normal daylight hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. If work needs to be
Construction activities, such as pile
Physical
installation, have the potential to increase

used construction and operational phases
will result in short-term, localized noise in-
done outside these hours, residents in the area will be notified a minimum of 14 days in advance by
air emissions.

Ambient Noise
The cable ferry will generate less in-air
noise than the current diesel ferry.
letter and signage posted at the ferry terminal.

Mitigation of potential effects on underwater noise levels has been accommodated at the design stage
by including equipment such as vibro-hammers for pile installation. This minimizes the effects of
underwater noise on marine mammals and fish by decreasing the anticipated noise levels to below the
threshold for physical damage and minimizing the potential effects on behaviour of local species.

allows, power shall be built up slowly from a low energy start-up over at least 10 minutes to give
adequate time for marine mammals and fish to leave the vicinity before exposure to the maximum sound
pressure level. There should be a soft start every time pile driving is resumed, even if no marine
mammals have been observed in the area.
2
Significance of Residual Impacts rated as follows:
0 = None, 1 = Insignificant, 2 = Significant, 3 = Unknown, Positive (+), Negative (-).
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
2
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Required Mitigation

Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
None
0
No
None
1
No
Prior to commencing all pile driving activities, shore-based or vessel-based visual observations shall be
conducted of the surrounding area to determine if marine mammals are present within the safety
perimeter. If a marine mammal is present within the safety perimeter prior to the start of pile driving, the
activity shall be delayed until such time that the marine mammal has cleared outside the safety
perimeter.

Activities shall not resume until it is visually confirmed that the marine mammal is outside the safety
perimeter, or if a minimum of 15 minutes has elapsed since the marine mammal was last sighted within
the safety perimeter. If a marine mammal is known or suspected to be present in the area but outside the
safety perimeter, pile driving can proceed provided that the “soft start” procedure is employed so as to
allow sufficient time for the marine mammals to achieve a safe distance from the source.

Any dead, stranded, sick, or injured marine mammal observed in the Project area shall be reported to
the environmental monitor and should be recorded in a Field Inspection Report.
Geology /
Terrain

Expansion of fill (rip rap) will alter existing

No mitigation required.
site bathymetry and provide hard-bottom
habitat
Construction Phase
Terrestrial


Pile installation, placement/removal of
riprap, and earthworks adjacent to the
marine environment will likely introduce
sediments to marine waters, potentially
located a minimum of 30 m from water bodies.

secured sufficiently to withstand storms and surface water flows
project area. High TSS could result in
area, making it difficult for fish to extract
dissolved oxygen, and also result in gill
abrasion.
Surface Water
Polyethylene tarps, or other suitable measures, shall be used where applicable to cover excavated
sediment or fine material stockpiles. Tarps and other materials such as erosion control matting shall be
degrading water quality in the immediate
anoxic conditions in the immediate project
All excavated material and stockpiled material above the Higher High Water Mark (HHWM) shall be

Uplands work shall be conducted in accordance with recommendations outlined in the “Land
Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat” (Chilibeck et al. 1992).

Sediment control barriers, such as silt fences, are effective in retaining sediment coarser than 0.02 mm
in diameter and filter sediment-laden runoff from eroded slopes and surfaces. The location of silt fences

New piles will need to be installed to
should be identified by the contractor in conjunction with the environmental monitor and incorporated into
provide support for the new floating
the detailed construction plans as part of an Erosion and Drainage Control Plan. Silt fencing will be
pontoon and abutment. Once the new
constructed in accordance with the procedure described in the “Land Development Guidelines for the
piles are driven to the required depth,
Protection of Aquatic Habitat” (Chilibeck et al. 1992).
sediment from inside the piling must be
removed, either with a small dredge or by

To control the sediment discharge from any soil stockpile, silt fences will be installed around their base.
These piles should also be covered by polyethylene tarps to prevent sediment transport by wind or rain.
pumping water down into the piling and
the slurry out of the interior of the piles.
This procedure could introduce water with

December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
To prevent discharge of runoff containing high TSS, concrete wash water, asphalt or oil from paving
3
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
very high TSS to the marine environment
operations, the contractor will develop a project Water Quality Management Plan and submit it to BCFS
and degrade the water quality within the
for approval.
immediate project area and farther away.

Required Mitigation

containing asphalt slurries and other waste materials from reaching storm drains or ditches.
Following removal of sediment, gravel will
be placed in the interior of the piles and
concrete will be pumped into any
remaining void space. Concrete has very
high pH and effects of high pH on fish may
The project Water Quality Management Plan will also outline methods to be used to prevent discharges


Construction materials and excavation wastes, overburden, sediment, or other substances deleterious to
marine life shall be disposed of, or placed in such a manner by the Contractor, so as to prevent their
include mortality, damage to outer
entry into the marine environment at the Project site.
surfaces like gills, eyes, and skin, and an
inability to dispose of metabolic wastes.
Marine
High pH may also increase the toxicity of

other substances. The safe pH range for
and substantially free of fines, organic material and deleterious substances (i.e. substances harmful to
aquatic life is 6.5 to 9.0.

There is a potential for accidental
hydrocarbon spills during vehicle fuelling
All materials used for works associated with the Project, including fill materials, shall be clean material
fish).

Riprap fill will be placed using a barge-mounted clamshell bucket or other method acceptable to DFO in
a way that minimizes sediment disturbance.
(both landside equipment and from
barges) and from hydraulic line ruptures

Operations – BC Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association – March 2003” (Appendix III).
on equipment, and spills from oils and
lubricants maintained on the site and on
barges. Hydrocarbons coming into contact

criteria during Project works, as described in the Environmental Monitoring Plan.
violation under section 36(3) of the

with surface water would constitute a
Fisheries Act.
Pilings will be installed in accordance with the “Best Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related

If deemed necessary (as deemed appropriate and in consultation with regulatory agencies), sediment
control measures (e.g. silt curtain) will be used during pile installation activities occurring outside of the
If excavation is required on the upland
fisheries work windows.
side of the berth for extension of utilities,
there is potential for exposed soil in utility
corridors and in stockpiles on the site.
Precipitation could erode this soil, and

transport runoff water high in Total
criteria during Project works, as described in the Environmental Monitoring Plan. Documented turbidity
Suspended Solids (TSS) to marine waters
criteria will be established (in consultation with DFO), specifying conditions for the cessation of work
of Baynes Sound. Input of water high in
and/or the deployment of a sediment control measures (e.g. silt curtain).
TSS would constitute a violation under
section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
If paving is required in altered areas of the

The contractor will be responsible for collecting any high TSS water removed from the interior of marine
4
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Required Mitigation
piles and ensuring that no sediment-laden water enters the marine environment.
berth, there is potential for runoff caused
by precipitation to transport hydrocarbons
to Baynes Sound if the asphalt has not

entering into the marine environment at the site at any time. Concrete is toxic to fish due its high pH. If
cured adequately.
the concrete is being placed with a concrete pump, all hose and pipe connections must be sealed and
locked properly to ensure the lines will not leak or uncouple.
Operations Phase

There is potential for surface water runoff

particulates, metals, antifreeze, and

When fresh water is used to cure concrete, the runoff must be monitored for acceptable pH levels. If the
pH levels are outside the allowable limits, then the runoff water must be contained and neutralized.
leaked hydrocarbons from vehicles parked
in the holding area. Hydraulic oil may also
All concrete forms will be constructed in a manner which will prevent fresh concrete or cement-laden
water from leaking into the surrounding water.
to storm drains or directly to Baynes
Sound to transport accumulated
When pouring concrete during pile installation, all spills of fresh concrete must be prevented from

leak from ramp operations.
When pouring concrete during pile installation, contact between cementitious materials and surrounding
seawater shall be avoided to the extent possible. Where this is not avoidable, circulation of cementitious
material with surrounding seawater shall be minimized to the extent possible.

When grinding cured concrete, the dust and fines entering the water must not exceed the allowable limits
for suspended solids. When grinding green or incompletely cured concrete and the dust or fines are
entering the water, pH monitoring will be conducted to ensure allowable ranges are maintained. In the
event that the levels are outside the acceptable ranges, preventative measures will be introduced. This
may include introducing silt curtains to contain the solids and to prevent fish from entering a
contaminated area or constructing catch basins to recover the runoff and neutralizing it prior to disposal.

All concrete spills must be contained and prevented from entering the water. All tools, pumps, pipes,
hoses and trucks used for finishing, placing or transporting fresh concrete must be washed off in such a
way as to prevent the wash water and excess concrete from entering the marine environment. The wash
water will be contained and disposed of upland in an environmentally acceptable manner. Whenever
there is the possibility of contaminants entering water, the contractor will monitor pH levels to ensure
acceptable levels.

No uncured concrete or concrete wash water will be allowed to enter any surface water feature (marine
water or surface drains). Concrete-covered equipment must be washed off-site, and measures must be
taken to ensure no concrete enters storm drains. As rainfall within 72 hours of pouring concrete can
enable leachate to enter surface or storm water systems, no concrete should be poured if significant
precipitation events are anticipated within 72 hours. The contractor must provide a method for containing
any concrete that is poured into marine and landside piles. Uncured concrete cannot come into with any
surface water for 72 hours and any overflow from the piles must be contained.
General

December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
For drainage improvements made to the site, oil-water separators or sediment control systems (e.g.,
5
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Required Mitigation
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
None
1
None
None
1
None
Stormceptor®) should be implemented.

To prevent accidental fuel spills or hydraulic oil leaks from entering exposed soil or water, the contractor
will have a spill-response plan for this project that has been approved by the Project Manager.

Petroleum oil and lubricants (POL) will be stored in a separate, contained area at the site. Any
equipment maintenance must be done in this area, and well back from any surface water drains or
collection points.

Contractors will ensure that all attachments (hydraulic connections and couplings) are in good operating
order and inspected prior to the start of every day. Spill kits and containment booms must be maintained
on-site in case of spills.

All heavy machinery used during construction will be equipped with spill kits.

Equipment must be serviced or fuelled in a designated re-fuelling area, at least 30 m from any surface
water collecting and discharging areas on the site.

Spill kits with absorbent pads and containment booms must be available in the refuelling areas to be
used in the event of accidental spills.

Vegetable-based hydraulic oils should be used in place of traditional hydraulic oil.

If a hydrocarbon sheen is noted within the contained area the contractor will notify the site environmental
monitor and clean it up using absorbent padding.

An environmental monitor will be present during environmentally sensitive works to ensure that no
deleterious substances are released and that marine organisms are not adversely affected by the work.
Work will be suspended if there is evidence of harm to fish and DFO will be consulted.

The Denman Island West Side Ferry

All upland works will take place on previously developed land.
Terminal is sufficiently distant from the
Terrestrial
Vegetation
coastal wood fern population (322 m) that
no effects are anticipated during any
phase of the Project.
Biological

Terrestrial
Wildlife &
Habitat
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
Limited sensory disturbance may result

If purple martins are shown to actively be using next boxes atop pilings near the Buckley Bay terminal at
from construction noise (e.g., pile
the time of construction, then construction activities associated with high noise should be undertaken
installation). Purple martins were observed
after chicks have fledged the nest and the period from April 1 to June 1 should be avoided.
in nest boxes installed on piles in the
Buckley Bay Project area south of the
existing berth, although no other bird nests
or evidence of birds using the berth as
6
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Required Mitigation
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
habitat were noted during field
investigations (Archipelago 2009). Purple
martin and other bird species that may use
habitat in the vicinity of either terminal
would be accustomed to ferry terminal
activity and would not likely be affected by
terminal modifications
Aquatic
Vegetation

See Fish and Fish Habitat
Site Preparation & Construction

The existing riprap apron at both
terminals, which provides hard habitat for
marine species, will not be constructed
beyond the extent to which some

See Fish and Fish
Habitat

Construction barge shall not to come to rest on the seafloor (no grounding).

All foreshore work will be conducted at low tide to minimize impact to the marine environment.

Yes, a temporary
loss of marine
habitat will occur
as the direct
impacts on marine
habitat cannot be
fully mitigated,
and constitute
residual adverse
effects expected
to result in a
HADD. Applicable
compensation is
proposed in
Section 8.6. Once
new riprap fill is
placed, propeller
wash and
associated scour
effects are
eliminated, and
compensation
habitat is
established, no
negative effects
are anticipated; as
there will be an
increase in the
area of
substrate/habitat
available for
colonization of
macroalgae,
invertebrates and
fish.
modifications will be necessary to
infrastructure.
accommodate new infrastructure.

At Buckley Bay terminal, approximately

Compensation for loss of marine habitat will be implemented, in consultation with DFO and in
accordance with a Fisheries Act Section 35(2) Authorization. A monitoring program of the habitat
240 m2 of riprap fill will be installed on the
compensation will be carried out as prescribed by DFO.
periphery of the existing apron in the
location proposed for the concrete

waters are also applicable to protection of marine habitat and biota.
abutment (covering a portion of the
existing apron). This will result in a loss of
100 m2 of existing riprap habitat and 140
Fish and Fish
Habitat
Best management practices listed above for controlling sedimentation and contamination of marine

Pile installation will take place during marine / estuarine fisheries work windows (DFO 2010b). It is
important to undertake the physical disturbance associated with the construction phase of the project
m2 of natural hard bottom habitat.
during times of least risk to marine life at the terminal sites. If BCFS proposes to complete pile
Macroalgae and marine invertebrates
installation outside the established fisheries work window, additional mitigation measures may be
colonizing these areas will be physically
required.
lost due to the placement of this fill.
However, subsequent re-colonization of


Adherence to the best management practices for pile driving and related operations, as stated in “Best
the new riprap fill will result in a gain of
Management Practices for Pile Driving and Related Operations – BC Marine and Pile Driving
240 m2 of habitat.
Contractors Association – November 2003” (Appendix III). This BMP was co-developed by the BC
Marine and Pile Driving Contractors Association and DFO for pile driving activities in marine
At Denman Island West terminal,
environments within the province of British Columbia).
approximately 1785 m2 of riprap fill will be
installed on the periphery of the existing
A qualified environmental monitor (EM) will be on-site during environmentally sensitive stages of the
apron (covering a portion of the existing
work, including fill placement and pile cleanout, as well as for any environmental disturbance events
apron). This will result in a loss of 800 m2
should they occur (i.e. accidental spill). When on-site, the EM will:
of existing riprap habitat and 985 m2 of

natural hard bottom habitat. Macroalgae
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029

Provide guidance to the contractor with regards to the protection of fish and fish habitat;
7
See Fish and
Fish Habitat
1
Yes, an EMP will be prepared which will
include detailed information on follow-up
monitoring requirements.
Monitoring of compensation habitat will be
conducted in accordance with DFO guidance.
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Required Mitigation

and marine invertebrates colonizing these
areas will be physically lost due to the
desired;
placement of this fill. However,

subsequent re-colonization of the new

habitat.
platform (391 m2) at both terminals will be
The environmental monitor will have authority to shut down the work and immediately contact DFO
Macroalgae growing on hard substrate
underneath the new floating concrete
Document work activities and the implementation of environmental mitigation and protection
measures; and,
riprap fill will result in a gain of 1785 m2 of

Inspect environmental mitigation and protection measures to assess whether they are functioning as

Sediment control measures (e.g. silt curtain) and/or fish exclusion measures will be used, while work is
underway (to be removed when silt has settled).
subject to indirect habitat loss through
shading effects associated with this
structure.

Sediment-laden run-off and hydrocarbon

Monitoring of turbidity, throughout the water column, will be undertaken at predetermined distances from
pile driving. Documented turbidity criteria will be established (in consultation with DFO), in advance of
spills could potentially be discharged to
pile driving, specifying conditions for the cessation of work and/or the deployment of a sediment control
the marine environment and result in
measures (e.g. silt curtain) and/ or fish exclusion measures.
deleterious effects on marine biota and
marine habitat.

Installation of riprap fill will result in new
hard bottom habitat in the intertidal and
subtidal zone for fish, invertebrates, and
macroalgae. It will also constitute more
unique substrate in the Project area, with
more interstitial space for colonization than
is available on typical bedrock.

Pile installation will also physically disturb
benthic habitat resulting in a loss of
sedentary benthic invertebrates living in
soft bottom habitat. Mobile invertebrates
and marine fish within the vicinity will likely
avoid the area during pile installation, but
will likely return following the disturbance.
Submerged piles will subsequently serve
as new artificial vertical habitat (hard
substrate) in the Project areas. The
abundance of hard-substrate invertebrates
is expected to increase on this new habitat
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
8
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Required Mitigation
over a short time frame, particularly for
colonization specialists such as mussels,
barnacles and various macroalgae.

Placement of riprap is considered a low
risk to northern abalone in the Project
areas, due to their apparent absence from
the area. If abalone are present, they are
in low density. Abalone inhabiting the
riprap face at either terminal would
continue utilizing non-modified riprap
areas and any new riprap face.
Operations & Maintenance

The replacement of the current ferry
operations with a cable ferry system will
result in a reduced impact to marine
species and associated marine habitat in
the Project area due to the elimination of
propeller wash and associated bottom
scour effects in the nearshore
environment. This will result in the
recovery of benthic habitat presently
disturbed in these areas and allow for
eventual colonization by marine
vegetation, invertebrates and fish.

No effects to marine vegetation are
anticipated from the operation of the cable
ferry as cable scour effects are limited to
deepwater segments of Baynes Sound
where vegetation is shown to be absent.

Minimal effects to marine fish and fish
habitat are anticipated from operation of
the cable ferry as cable scour effects are
limited to deepwater segments of Baynes
Sound where fish and fish habitat is shown
to be limited.
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
9
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC

Pile installation may cause minor
disturbance to migratory birds in the
vicinity
Migratory
Birds

Marine
Mammals
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
Pile installation may cause minor
disturbance to marine mammals in the
vicinity
Required Mitigation

Pile installation is scheduled to occur outside of the bird nesting season and peak migration
period so disturbance is expected to be minimal.

When pile driving or pile drilling, a “ramp up” or “soft start” technique shall be used. Where
equipment allows, power shall be built up slowly from a low energy start-up over at least 10
minutes to give adequate time for marine birds to leave the vicinity before exposure to the
maximum sound pressure level. There should be a soft start every time pile driving is
resumed, even if no marine birds have been observed in the area.

When pile driving or pile drilling, a “ramp up” or “soft start” technique shall be used. Where
equipment allows, power shall be built up slowly from a low energy start-up over at least 10
minutes to give adequate time for marine mammals to leave the vicinity before exposure to
the maximum sound pressure level. There should be a soft start every time pile driving is
resumed, even if no marine mammals have been observed in the area.

Prior to commencing pile driving activities, shore-based or vessel-based visual observations
shall be conducted of the surrounding area to determine if marine mammals are present within
the safety perimeter. If a marine mammal is present within the safety perimeter prior to the
start of blasting or impact pile driving, the activity shall be delayed until such time that the
marine mammal has cleared outside the safety perimeter.

If a marine mammal enters the safety perimeter during active impact pile driving or blasting
activities, these activities shall be suspended until such time as the marine mammal departs
outside the safety perimeter.

Activities shall not resume until it is visually confirmed that the marine mammal is outside the
safety perimeter, or if a minimum of 15 minutes has elapsed since the marine mammal was
last sighted within the safety perimeter.

During pile driving, if a marine mammal is known or suspected to be present in the area but
outside the safety perimeter, pile driving can proceed provided that the “soft start” procedure
is employed so as to allow sufficient time for the marine mammals to achieve a safe distance
from the source.

Impact pile driving and blasting activities shall be restricted to daylight hours and to periods
where wind conditions do not exceed 25 knots per hour, so as marine mammal sighting ability
is not impeded by low light or adverse weather.

The environmental monitor shall communicate directly with the on-site operations manager
during all pile driving activities. Shut-down of pile driving activities, should this be necessary,
shall be coordinated between the environmental monitor and the operations manager, or
between the environmental monitor and an on-site contractor appointed by the on-site
operations manager.
10
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
None
1
No
None
1
No
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC

Resource
Use
Socio-economic / Cultural

First Nations
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
Required Mitigation

Any dead, stranded, sick, or injured marine mammal observed in the Project area shall be
reported to the environmental monitor and should be recorded in a Field Inspection Report.
The Project could have adverse
effects on marine resource use related
to the commercial roe herring fishery
in PFMA-14 which occasionally occurs
in Baynes Sound over a 1 to 2 day
period in March. Direct effects relate
to navigational safety due to the
potential entanglement of seining gear
with the submerged cable. Indirect
effects relate to fishing revenues if
fishery cannot take place.

A mutually acceptable agreement will be developed by BCFS, DFO Resource Management
Division, and the herring industry, as represented by the Herring Industry Advisory Board
(HIAB), and as supported by the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia
(SPABC). A meeting to formulate this agreement has been scheduled for Feb 01, 2011.
The potential impacts of the Project
on First Nations have been reported
to BCFS by the LKTS as limited to the
effects of cable ferry operations on the
commercial herring fishery in Baynes
Sound that typically occurs annually
over a 1 to 2 day period in March, and
in which LKTS First Nations
participate. The LKTS indicated to
BCFS that HIAB could represent their
interests to BCFS and Fisheries and
Oceans Canada on this matter. See
Section 8.2.11 (Resource Use)

Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
None
1
No
None
1
No
See Section 8.2.11 (Resource Use)
11
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Site Preparation / Construction
 No registered archaeological sites are
located within the Project areas, but
several sites have been recorded in
adjacent areas.


Archaeology

Human
Health and
Safety

December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
Required Mitigation
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
Terrestrial
 Where work will be confined to areas that have been significantly impacted by previous
development (i.e., adding to an existing structure, working within fill) and where no impacts to
undisturbed terrain will occur, Golder recommends no further archaeological work.

For the Buckley Bay Ferry terminal
area, the potential to disturb unknown
archaeological deposits is moderate
to high.
For the Denman Island West Ferry
terminal area, the potential to disturb
unknown archaeological deposits is
high for terrestrial areas including the
intertidal zone and moderate to low for
marine areas.
Residual Effects

If construction is proposed to occur in
upland locations within the Buckley Bay
Project area that have been partially
disturbed, Golder recommends
archaeological monitoring (under a
Heritage Conservation Act permit) during
construction by a professional
archaeologist.
If construction is proposed to occur in undisturbed upland areas within the Project area,
Golder recommends that an Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) be conducted prior to
the commencement of construction activities.
Marine
 Where work will be confined to areas that have been significantly impacted by previous
development (i.e., adding to an existing structure, working within fill, working within an area
that has already been dredged) and where no impacts to undisturbed terrain will occur, Golder
recommends no further archaeological work.
None
1
If construction is proposed that involves expanding terminal facilities into the undisturbed
intertidal and subtidal zones beyond the current footprint of fill, pilings, and previously dredged
seabed, Golder recommends that an AIA be conducted prior to the commencement of
Human Health has the potential to be
affected during the Project. Potential
exists for human health and safety to
be impacted by machinery such as
trucks and construction equipment
working and entering and exiting the
project site. The possibility exists for
collisions between onsite equipment
and workers and offsite machinery
and the public.

The contractor will be required to develop a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) prior to
commencement of work at the site that will include specific procedures and protocols for
working around construction to reduce the potential for accidents during construction.

The HASP must be approved by BC Ferries personnel. At the beginning of the project the
Prime Contractor will hold a Health and Safety meeting to discuss potential hazards, safe
work practices, first aid stations, hospital location and emergency response procedures.

A BC One call must be made prior to any site excavation or pile driving to ensure that all
known utilities are located. Private utility locators may also be contacted to aid in locating all
known utilities at the site.
During excavation there is potential to
encounter underground utilities such
as electrical wiring, and workers could
be at risk.

All work must be conducted in accordance with applicable Worker Compensation Board
Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.
12
If construction is proposed to occur in
upland areas that have been partially
disturbed but are outside areas assessed
during previous AIA (Golder 2008) within
the Denman Island West Project area
Golder recommends archaeological
monitoring (under a Heritage
Conservation Act permit) during
construction by a professional
archaeologist.
If construction is proposed that will
involves expanding terminal facilities into
the undisturbed intertidal and subtidal
zones beyond the current footprint of fill,
pilings, and previously dredged seabed,
Golder recommends that an AIA be
conducted prior to the commencement of
None
1
No
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC

Cable ferry operations may be
somewhat safer than diesel
operations, as docking will be better
guided during adverse weather
conditions.

Prepare and implement a Traffic Management Plan as part of an Environmental Management
Plan to divert traffic away from and/or safely through any construction areas, and to restrict
public access from active construction areas.

The cable system has the potential to
interfere with local navigation in the
immediate vicinity of Buckley Bay and
Denman Island West terminals where
cables rise to the surface in order to
tie in to shore-based anchor points.
For the purpose of this assessment
and mitigation planning, all nearshore
areas within the terminal and cable
corridor footprint without adequate
cable-to-surface clearance of at least
5 m have been identified as potential
navigational hazard areas for local
traffic in Baynes Sound.

A 100-m safety perimeter (vessel exclusion zone) will be implemented around both terminals
(measured from the concrete pontoon), such to avoid interference between local boat traffic
and the cable as it rises to the surface to tie in to shore-based anchor points (based on a
minimum 5 m depth clearance required between the cable and the surface). Suitable visual
surface marking will be installed (lighted marker buoys) to demarcate the safety perimeter in
accordance with regulations described in the Private Buoy Regulations SOR/99-335 and
requirements set out in Canadian Aids to Navigation (TP 968) published by the Canadian
Coast Guard.

A vessel exclusion zone will be implemented within a 50-m boundary on either side of the
cable ferry while it is in transit, such to avoid interference between the cable as it is drawn in
and released from the cable vessel (based on a minimum 5 m depth clearance (vessel draft)
required between the cable and the surface on either end of the vessel).

Vessels and machinery will arrive on site in a clean condition and are to be maintained free of
fluid leaks and invasive species.

All work will be conducted in a manner that does not result in the deposit of a toxic or
deleterious substance into waters frequented by fish. Refuelling and washing of machinery or
equipment will not take place on the marine foreshore.

Appropriate spill control equipment will be kept on site at all times during the work. Pile driving
should not be conducted during rough weather and sea conditions (e.g. strong winds and
waves).

The contractor shall provide a Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan that shall
include but not be limited to the following mitigation measures and details:

Keep equipment and machinery well maintained and in good working order to avoid any
mechanical or equipment failures;
Navigation
Accidents /
Malfunctions
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
Required Mitigation

The potential interaction between the
Project and the herring fishery is
addressed under Resource Use.

Potential spills from heavy equipment,
vehicles, vessels, barge, and other
mechanical equipment
13
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
None
1
No
None
1
No
Environment
APPENDIX IV
Valued
Ecosystem /
Social
Component
(VEC / VSC)
with VEC / VSC
Required Mitigation

All equipment and machinery used shall be equipped with emergency response spill kit and
shall be inspected daily for leaks;

Details as to what spill response materials will be on site, for what purpose they are intended;
in what volume, and in what location will they be stored on site (note: spill response materials
must be on site prior to project commencement);

Spill reporting procedures and contacts including telephone numbers; and,

Response procedures detailing the steps to be undertaken for spills;
n:\final\2009\1477\09-1477-0029 bc ferries fn consult buckley-denman\12-20-10 proposed cable ferry screening report - final\appendix iv - table a4-1 and a4-2.docx
December 20, 2010
Project No. 09-1477-0029
14
Residual Effects
Significance of
Residual
Effects2
3795 Carey Road
Victoria, British Columbia, V8Z 6T8
Canada
T: +1 (250) 881 7372

BC Ferries Buckley Bay and Denman Island West Terminals

Transcription

Similar documents

Save at Aldo`s! - Aldo`s Restaurant Block Island

Pender Island Map

Walking Tour - The Weehawken Time Machine

Honeymoon Island State Park Caladesi Island State Park

PortNYC Brochure

5K Labor Day Run - Village of Dobbs Ferry

CATALINA ISLAND MARINE INSTITUTE

a sample of the New York guide

Fire Island Destinations

New Jersey 2013 Trans Am Run