RE: ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE DRAFT ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED 2010 File No. 1196

Transcription

1 April 19, 2010 Garibaldi at Squamish Inc. Suite West Broadway Vancouver, BC V6J 4S5 Attention: Mr. Chris Gillham P. Eng. Infrastructure Consultant RE: ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICE File No Dear Chris, Further to our discussion please find below ENKON Environmental Limited s response to the environmental component of the Environmental Assessment Office draft assessment report (2010) regarding the Garibaldi at Squamish resort project. Our response specifically addresses the following sections of the assessment report: 5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat 5.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 5.6 Vegetation 5.9 Environmental and Operational Management Plans 5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat The EAO appears to base their conclusion of insufficient information to draw conclusions on the risk of significant residual adverse effects on fish and fish habitat for one reason: 1) The lack of instream flow data and lack of confidence in the original hydrologic model in the 2003 Application significantly limited the Working Group s ability to effectively review the risk of impacts to fish and fish habitat. The 2009 information submitted by MOE, when compared to the new proposal in Addendum 3 for water withdrawals during spring freshet, illustrated that steelhead requirements for migrating upstream, spawning and migrating downstream occur at the same time as the Proponent anticipates withdrawing the annual water requirements to support the proposed Project. Given that steelhead populations across the south coast are at historically low numbers and many populations, including some in the Squamish watershed, are considered to be at extreme

2 conservation concern levels, MOE has expressed a very high level of concern about the lack of fish life-stage and fish habitat data in the Application and subsequent three Addenda to the Application. This lack of data has prevented MOE from being able to assess the likelihood of project related effects to aquatic ecosystems, fish and fish habitat. MOE believes that in the absence of data to confirm otherwise, there is a high likelihood of the proposed Project s water withdrawals causing a material adverse impact to fish and fish habitat. In discussion with various federal and provincial regulators in 2001, there did not appear to be a consistent policy for assessing impacts to fish habitat from water extraction/withdrawal projects. By 2003, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection were preparing a draft Instream Flow Policy that relied more on replicating/mimicking the natural hydrograph as compared to instream flows to maintain specific fish habitat requirements (pers. comm., S. Babakaiff). It was suggested that minimum instream flows should be equivalent to the median monthly flow of the lowest flow month. However, since the new federal/provincial minimum instream flow policy was not available to the public by the time GAS Inc. submitted their April 2003 Additional Information Requirements to the Environmental Assessment Office, ENKON assessed the potential impacts to Brohm River fish populations associated with a maximum (full build-out) project water demand (potable, irrigation and snow making) of 1.31 million m 3 in four ways based on recommendations from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP): DFO Maintenance of 30% MAD in Fish Bearing Streams WLAP Non- Fish Bearing 90% MAD WLAP Fish Bearing Variable % MAD DFO/WLAP 2003 Median Monthly Flow Based on the assessments conducted for each of the above noted methodologies, no mitigation strategies were proposed for water supply fish habitat impacts as the varying criteria from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection were generally met or greatly exceeded. In January 2004, The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP), Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM), Land and Water BC Inc. (LWBC), and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) developed the British Columbia Instream Flow Thresholds for Fish and Fish Habitat as Guidelines for Reviewing Proposed Water Uses (the Guidelines) to aid in the process of setting instream flows in British Columbia streams. In Section 1.0 of the Guidelines it states that the guidelines are made up of two main components, Flow Thresholds and Assessment Methods. The Guidelines support a two- 2

3 tiered review process for proposed water uses on BC streams. The first tier is a scoping level process (the coarse filter) that provides thresholds for alterations to natural stream flows that are expected to result in low risk to fish, fish habitat, and productive capacity. These thresholds are meant to act as a coarse filter during the review of proposed water uses on BC streams when there is little or no biological or physical data available. In Section 1.1 of the guidelines, it states The coarse filter is first applied to a proposed water use. If the coarse filter indicates that fish-flow issues are not a concern the application would be approved subject to review of other fisheries concerns (e.g., intake screening, footprint issues, etc.). In Section 3.2 of the Guidelines it states under historic flow records: Briefly, preferred hydrologic data are empirical historic flows, obtained from gauged sites with appropriate validation. However, geographic coverage is incomplete in British Columbia, so empirical historic flow records are often not available for streams of interest. There are numerous techniques for estimating natural flows (i.e., corrected for existing water and land uses) at ungauged sites. Whether synthetic or empirical data are used, a minimum 20-year continuous record should form the baseline. In October 2007, using these Guidelines, Urban Systems on behalf of GAS Inc. estimated a minimum and maximum flow threshold for the Brohm River (upstream of the upper limit of fish) based on a rate of 220 litres per capita per day (incorporating water conservation methods proven over 10 years at Sun Peaks Resort near Kamloops) and a rate of 455 litres per capita per day (non-water conservation method: District of Squamish Bylaw). Their study concluded that compliance with the BC Instream Flow Guidelines is achievable and that no Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of fish habitat is caused in the lower fish bearing reaches of the Brohm River by withdrawals from the upper reaches of the Brohm River tributaries. As per the Guidelines, if the proponent of a water withdrawal project passes the first tier, scoping level process (the coarse filter) that provides thresholds for alterations to natural stream flows, withdrawals are expected to result in low risk to fish, fish habitat, and productive capacity. Due to on-going concerns expressed by local government and the Ministry of Environment, in 2007 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) initiated flow monitoring in the two diversion points in the upper Brohm River and the upstream and downstream sections of the lower Brohm River where fish were present. In addition, Urban Systems developed a more comprehensive model (MIKE-SHE) for estimating flows over the longer term (20 years) which used the one year flow monitoring results from NHC to calibrate the model. 3

4 The conclusions from the comprehensive modeling results were The analysis indicates that withdrawals, which will occur over the course of a typical year, will generally be restricted to the freshet period (typically April through July). Finally, it appears that, with properly timed withdrawals, based on application of the hydrologic analysis method described in the Provincial Guidelines (MOE 2004), the hydrologic risk to fish, fish habitat and productive capacity due to water use withdrawals at the fully-built and operating resort is minimal. In addition to GAS Inc. committing to adhere to the Guidelines to minimize potential impacts to fish and fish habitat from water withdrawals, and although according to the Guidelines only Projects that propose to exceed these flow thresholds must collect additional data which would be reviewed and used during a more detailed project review (the second tier), GAS Inc. has also committed to a flow, ecological and geomorphic data collection program as part of the on-going review in the Water Licensing Approval Process (field data collection initiated June 2009). GAS Inc. has also committed to a long term monitoring program that would allow statistically meaningful post diversion cause and effect relations to be established with ongoing development and flow withdrawal. Conclusions In conclusion, GAS Inc. has met the past and current guidelines for assessing fish impacts related to the surface water diversion component of the project. ENKON believes that there is sufficient information on potential impacts to fish and fish habitat provided in the April 2003 Application and Addendums 1-3 to draw conclusions on the risk of significant residual adverse effects on fish and fish habitat, particularly since DFO has confirmed that there is no federal Fisheries Act decision responsibility that requires an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. GAS Inc. intends to show through the application of proven water conservation techniques and water metering that the volume and rate of diversion will be significantly less than required to meet the bylaw requirements of the District of Squamish. GAS Inc. has committed to on-going hydrologic and biological studies following G. Wilson s recommended 10 step process which should be conducted within the Water License Process. In addition, it is highly likely that the Ministry of Environment will impose a number of conditions on the water license to ensure that the withdrawal volumes and timing follow a conservative approach to protect fish populations in the Brohm River. 5.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat The EAO appears to base their conclusion of insufficient information to draw conclusions on the risk of significant residual adverse effects on wildlife for three reasons: 4

5 1) Lack of significance ratings in the November 2009 impact assessment report for the expanded reservoirs. Both of ENKON s January 2008 and November 2009 impact assessment reports related to the expanded reservoirs concluded Based on the impact results summarized in Section 5.1 of the January 2008 report and Sections 2.0 to 4.0 in the November 2009 report and GAS Inc. s commitment to adhere to mitigation measures outlined in the updated Table of Proposed Commitments, reservoir construction will not increase the significance of residual effects from the total Garibaldi at Squamish Project over the significance assessed in the Additional Information Requirements report (April 2003). Furthermore, the significance of cumulative effects will not increase over that described in the Cumulative Effects Assessment (October 2007). 2) Field surveys and assessment carried out for various wildlife were insufficient to meet acceptable standards (such as for passerine birds, raptors, harlequin ducks, small mammals, marbled murrelets, amphibians and reptiles and great blue herons) and survey standards that would be acceptable were identified. In particular, inadequate or absent information on species at risk was highlighted. Throughout the review process MOE has commented a number of times regarding the adequacy of the inventory data and impact assessment for wildlife: S. Rochetta July 29, 2007: The proponent has completed a lot of inventory projects, they have included the data provided from the MOE files. So I don't believe we will be asking for more inventory to be completed. Our further comments will occur at the working group stage to make sure our concerns are included in the Table of Commitments for this EA. S. Reddekopp February 26, 2009: Potential effects of the project on the species of concern in this review have largely been identified and where they have not, issues have often been raised and addressed.. Including the Best Management Practices already cited in the application, the following guidelines and suggestions should be consulted during future commitments in order to enable the success of actions to avoid and mitigate impacts. S. Reddekopp May 18, 2009: The assessment effort documented in the Garibaldi at Squamish Volume 7 Environmental Impact Assessment for the taxa groups listed in Table 1 below is insufficient. At minimum, the proponent needs to adhere to RISC standards corresponding to each taxa group to determine relative abundances with a minimum effort of 3 surveys per year that will be representative of the entire project area and of taxa-specific important times (ex. Breeding periods, life stages). All assessment of ecological values for this project needs to occur for two years prior to commencement of construction, continue through the construction period and then for a minimum of 5 years post-construction (with extended monitoring efforts determined in consultation with 5

6 concerned agencies). This monitoring approach will lead to an understanding of the impacts of resort development and the effectiveness of mitigation. S. Reddekopp June 30, 2009: In order to adhere to best management practices and guidelines before and during construction and operation of the resort, GAS inc. should commit to augmenting the Garibaldi at Squamish Volume 7 Environmental Impact Assessment as outlined by MoE on February 26, 2009 and May 18, The May 18, 2009 data information request included assessments for the taxa groups listed in Table 1 below. At a minimum, the proponent needs to adhere to the RISC standards corresponding to each taxa group to determine relative abundances with a minimum effort of 3 surveys per year that will be representative of the entire project area and of taxa-specific important time periods (ex. Breeding cycles, life stages). All assessment of ecological values for this project needs to occur with sufficient effort as outlined above and in appropriate BMPs and for a period of two years prior to commencement of construction, continue through the construction period and then for a minimum of 5 years post-construction (with extended monitoring efforts determined in consultation with concerned agencies). This monitoring approach will lead to an understanding of the impacts of resort development and the effectiveness of mitigation. S. McCullough July 6, 2009 (forwarding S. Rochetta comments on Table of Commitments): I received an from Steve Rochetta, an Environmental Stewardship ecosystem officer in Squamish. He indicated that he reviewed the Issues Tracking document (Table 1) and felt that his concerns had been addressed in the table. He said he had no further comments on the grizzly, wolverine or ungulate section of the table. In conclusion, while S. Rochetta of MOE in Squamish commented in 2007 that he didn t think MOE would be asking for additional wildlife inventory work, S. Reddekopp of MOE in Surrey commented in 2009 that some inventory work was insufficient. However in review of Table 1 it appears that S. Reddekopp was unaware that D. Blood & Associates and M. Gebauer & Associates were collecting wildlife information on contract to ENKON on behalf of GAS Inc. Three surveys per year were conducted in either 1997 or 2002 for birds including passerines (no Great Blue herons were observed), raptors, amphibians and reptiles. One survey per year was conducted for small mammals (Victor snap traps and pitfall traps: no listed species captured), coastal tailed frogs (which were observed during general amphibian surveys in 2002), Harlequin ducks ( none observed) and marbled murrelets (none observed). 3) The proposed CRA contains habitat suitable for use by a wide range of wildlife. The information provided by the Proponent to fully assess the risk or significance of adverse impacts for each wildlife species is highly variable, and in many instances relies on commitments to conduct further work after an EA decision is made. This approach of deferring studies and committing to future work as a response to issues raised during the 6

7 TABLE 1 WILDLIFE SURVEY EFFORT FOR SELECTED SPECIES Taxa ENKON Survey Result Reports MOE Comments ENKON Survey Dates D. Blood Associates & Gebauer Associates Survey Dates Birds including Passerines Diurnal and Nocturnal Raptors Harlequin Ducks Small Mammals Marbled Murrlets Amphibians and Reptiles (excluding Coastal Tailed Frogs) Coastal Tailed Frog Great Blue Heron Section Volume 7 Section Volume 7 2 surveys in July is insufficient effort. 2 and 1 survey respectively is insufficient effort. July 8, 9, 23, 24 and May 23-25, 1997 June 8-11, 1997 September 1997 July 23, 24 and 26, 2002 May 23&24, 1997 June 7&8, 1997 June 8-11, 1997 Addendum 1 No. None April 23, 2003 Section Volume 7 Section Volume 7 Section volume 7 Section Volume 7 Section Volume 7 No. Need to pay particular attention to SAR (eg. Pacific Water Shrew). No. MOE-ESD has previously commented on information Yes. The reported surveys do not meet Project specifications and are insufficient in scope and effort. None September 8-14, 1997 None June 8-11, 1997 July 22-24, 26, 29 and 30, 2002 September 17-21, 2002 Yes September 17, 18, 20 and None September 8-14, 1997 No July 8, 9, 23, 24 and May 23-25, 1997 June 8-11, 1997 September 1997 Note: Yes/No Responses from MOE are associated with finding or not finding survey results within Volume 7 7

8 EA process reduces EAO s ability to reach firm conclusions regarding the potential for significant adverse impacts from the proposed Project. Table 2 outlines the EAO s assessment of impacts from the environmental reports contained in the Application (2003) and Addendum 1-3 during the review process. As you will note, all wildlife (including species at risk that had potential habitat within the study area) except Townsend s Big-eared Bat were rated for impact significance which varied from insignificant, low or moderate. No impacts were rated as high. While there was a commitment to conduct further studies for some species to address MOE s comments in 2009, any future studies were intended to elaborate on wildlife information collected to date, to potentially provide site specific information on some species to be incorporated into Best Management Plans. Particularly since MOE overlooked some of the inventory work completed by D. Blood and M. Gebauer. Conclusions ENKON believes that there is sufficient information on potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat provided in the April 2003 Application and Addendums 1-3 for the EAO to draw conclusions on the risk of significant residual adverse effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. In addition, GAS Inc. has committed to development of various wildlife management and monitoring plans that have to be approved by the Regional Manager of the Ministry of Environment, prior to the start of construction. 5.6 Vegetation The EAO appears to base their conclusion of insufficient information to draw conclusions on the risk of significant residual adverse effects on vegetation resources for two reasons: 1) DFO raised concerns about impacts to vegetation in riparian zones and sought close to full retention of vegetation within the management zones for S4, S5 and S6 classified streams as part of establishing setbacks for riparian zones. To address this issue, the EAO directed the proponent in their May 14, 2008 letter to provide additional information to assess the potential for impacts on watercourses and streamside vegetation where proposed development encroaches into streamside riparian protection areas in both higher and lower elevations within the Project area. ENKON provided a report in Addendum 3 entitled Stream Crossing Impact Analysis of Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project Ski Runs/Lifts and Golf Course Fairways that concluded Impacts within the Brohm River watershed sub-basins were 3.7% and 4.7% based on the TRIM and MCSL watercourse networks, respectively. There were no impacts to three of the seven Brohm River sub-basins and the entire Cheekye River watershed sub-basins from ski run/lift stream crossings using either stream data base. There were no impacts to any of watersheds from the January 9, 2008 golf course layout. 8

9 TABLE 2 EAO/PROPONENT ASSESSMENT OF WILDLIFE IMPACTS AND COMMITMENTS Wildlife Species Provincial/Federal Ranking Proponent Document Impact Rating or Commitment Mountain Goats Regionally Important Application Report Low EA Review Monitoring Plan to the Black-Tailed Deer Regionally Important Application Report Moderate EA Review Deer Management Plan to the Satisfaction of MOE Black Bear None Application Report Moderate EA Review Management Plan to the Grizzly Bear Blue Listed Application Report Low EA Review Management Plan to the Wolverine Blue Listed Application Report Moderate EA Review and Addendum 2 Monitoring Plan to the Bobcat, Cougar, Coyote and Wolf None Application Report Low Small Mammals Only Pacific Water Shrew Red Listed EA Review Application Report No Conclusion Moderate to Insignificant EA Review and Addendums No Rating 1,2 and 3 Marbled Murrelet Red-Listed Application Report Low to Insignificant EA Review, Addendum 1 and 2 and November 2009 Reservoir Update Low Magnitude, Long- Term Negative Residual Impact on a Regional Scale that is of Moderate Significance. 9

10 Wildlife Species Provincial/Federal Ranking Proponent Document Impact Rating or Commitment Management Plan to the Harlequin Duck None Application Report Low to Insignificant as none were found EA Review Management Plan to the Amphibians Species at Risk including Spotted owl, Northern goshawk, Marbeled murrelet, peregrine falcon, western screech-owl, coastal tailed frog, red-legged frog, western toad and rubber boa) Red-Legged Frog Blue Listed Specie at Risk Application Report Addendums 1 and 2 and November 2009 Reservoir Update Report Spotted Owl Red-Listed Addendum 1 and November 2009 Reservoir Update Northern Goshawk Red-Listed Addendum 1 and November 2009 Reservoir Update Raptors Regionally Important Application Report Low to Insignificant Songbirds None Application Report Moderate- Low/Insignificant Moderate- Low/Insignificant Wildlife Management Plan for each Species to the Low Magnitude Negative Effect on a Regional Scale Nest Management Plan to the Satisfaction of MOE Low Negative Effect on a Regional Scale that is of Moderate Significance Mitigation Measures Proposed Peregrine Falcon Special Concern Addendum 1 No residual effects Mitigation Measures Proposed Western Screech Owl Special Concern Addendum 1 Low Magnitude, Long 10

11 Wildlife Species Provincial/Federal Ranking Proponent Document Impact Rating or Commitment Term Effect on a Regional Scale of Moderate Significance Mitigation Measures Proposed Townsend s Big-eared Bat Blue-Listed Addendum 2 No Rating Management Plan to the Rubber Boa Yellow-Listed Addendum 1 Insignificant Mitigation Measures Proposed Coastal Tailed Frogs, Red-Legged Frogs, Western Toads (Blue-Listed; Blue-Listed And Federal Species of Concern, respectively) Addendum 1 and November 2009 Reservoir Update Fisher Blue-Listed Addendum 2 and November 2009 Reservoir Update Low Magnitude Loss of Instream Habitat and Long Term, Medium Magnitude Loss of Upland Habitat of Moderate Significance. Mitigation Measures Proposed Low Management Plan to the EAO Conclusion Information Provided by the Proponent is Insufficient to Draw Conclusions on the Risk of Significant Residual Adverse Effects on Wildlife 11

12 With respect to ski run crossings, riparian area management prescriptions are recommended for development to address critical features functions and conditions afforded by streamside vegetation, while allowing for safe skier overpass, vegetation maintenance to facilitate early winter and spring grooming. As per the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), Forest Planning and Practices Regulation Part 4, Division 3, Riparian Areas, riparian management zones (RMZ) are recommended for non-fish bearing streams (S5 and S6) with specific management activities permitted to address critical features functions and conditions (i.e. shade, bank stability, allochthonous food & nutrient contributions). There are no impacts to fish bearing streams from ski run/lift development. After review of ENKON s riparian habitat impact report by Fisheries and Oceans, it is our understanding that concerns regarding riparian habitat impacts seemed to be addressed and DFO didn t see any obvious need for any form of approval ( to Graeme McLaren from Mike Engelsjord on June 19, 2009). 2) The EAO advised the Proponent that the November 2009 reservoir vegetation impact assessment did not consider the footprint of the dam structures themselves and therefore may underestimate impacts. The downstream footprint of a 50 metre high dam would likely extend 100 metres downstream straddling the stream and riparian zones. In one case, Proponent maps indicate this would impact additional old growth forest. EAO also identified inconsistencies in vegetation cover (forest ages) between maps and photo images used in the studies to complete the assessment..this has created uncertainty about the extent of old growth available today, the role the remaining forests play in ecosystem connectivity, the amount of additional old growth that would be removed by the proposed Project and the impacts of additional cutting on ecosystem connectivity. Further assessment of vegetation impacts from expanded dam footprints (assuming all dams extend ~100m downstream) indicates that the additional impacts to old growth forest would be 2.4 hectares associated with the Original Secondary Storage, Snow Making Storage 1 and 3, and Supplemental Storage 1 only. This results to an increase of old growth forests impacted from all development from 235 ha (20.4 %) to ha (20.6%) from a total 1,151 old growth forests within the project boundary. The forest age maps submitted in the November 2009 reservoir report were from the Ministry of Forests data base dated ENKON recently received updated cutblock information from the Ministry of Forests that did not increase/reduce the impacts to old growth forests, so we believe that the impact assessment to old growth forests is accurate recognizing some limitations to the government data base. Regarding the discrepancy between aerial photograph and forest age class maps, there is no way to use aerial photographs to assess impacts as forest age cannot be determined from them. They were simply used in the report to provide a better visual image of some of the reservoirs. 12

13 Conclusions Based on the above noted comments, ENKON believes that there is sufficient information on potential impacts to vegetation provided in the April 2003 Application and Addendums 1-3 for the EAO to draw conclusions on the risk of significant residual adverse effects on vegetation. In addition, GAS Inc. has committed to development of various vegetation management plans that have to be approved by the Regional Manager of the Ministry of Environment, prior to the start of construction. 5.9 Environmental and Operational Management Plans There are no conclusions regarding the adequacy of the plans which at a minimum should be acknowledged as satisfactory to the working group members. Yours truly, Glenn Stewart, B.Sc., R.P.Bio. President 13