SEA-TO-SKY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT APPLICATION CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Submitted to Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency February 2004

Prepared jointly by Robertson Environmental Services Ltd. and Par Terre Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. on behalf of Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project Office

Ministry of Transportation Partnerships Department

Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project Cumulative Environmental Assessment 1 Reason for the Cumulative Environmental Assessment The Finalized Terms of Reference issued by the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) for the Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project (the STS Project) on June 24, 2003 specify that: If any residual environmental effects are predicted, identify and describe any consequential cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or are likely to be carried out. In the Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project Application (August 2003) the Ministry of Transportation (MoT) concluded “that there will be no likely measurable or demonstrable residual adverse effects on any of the valued ecosystem components as a result of the Sea-to-Sky project”. The MoT also recognized “that the reviewers will reach their own conclusions based on the information provided in the Application and that additional information may be brought forward during the technical review stage that could lead to further discussion with regard to residual environmental effects”. The MoT met with Responsible Authorities on September 16, 2003, September 22, 2003, and September 24, 2003 to discuss cumulative environmental assessment requirements. MoT developed a cumulative environmental assessment work plan based on these discussions and on direction found in the Responsible Authorities’ Application review letters. This work plan was the subject of a meeting with the Responsible Authorities on December 8, 2003. This cumulative effects assessment (CEA) report considers the issues identified in the work plan and during the subsequent meeting with the Responsible Authorities. The CEA is intended to satisfy the requirement under section 16(1)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the Act) that every screening study shall include a consideration of the environmental effects of any cumulative environmental effects, and the requirement under section 16(1)(b) that every screening study shall include a consideration of the significance of the effects referred to in 16(1)(a). This CEA, in combination with the Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project Application serves to satisfy the requirements of a screening level assessment under the Act. 2

Scope of Cumulative Assessment

In accordance with the CEA work plan, the following ecosystem components are considered in this CEA analysis: • Acid rock drainage and metal leachate • Loss of common natural vegetation • Birds, specifically marbled murrelet, band-tailed pigeon and northern goshawk • Air quality • Stormwater and water quality 1

3

Determination of Significance

This CEA discusses the significance of any adverse cumulative effects. The criteria that are used to determine whether the adverse environmental effects are ‘significant’ include: • magnitude – the degree of change relative to the baseline • geographic extent – the spatial area affected • duration – the length of time over which the environmental effect occurs • frequency – how often the effect occurs within a given period • reversibility – the potential for the impact to lessen and for the baseline conditions to reestablish • ecological context – an indication of the extent to which the area affected is relatively pristine and/or ecologically fragile The level of confidence associated with the assessment is expressed. The relative contribution of the STS Project to the overall significance of the cumulative effect is discussed. The CEA concludes with a discussion of the likelihood of there being a significant cumulative effect of the STS Project. 4

Past, Present and Future Planned Projects and Activities for CEA Consideration

Section 16(1)(a) of CEAA requires that every screening study shall include a consideration of any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the STS Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out. Therefore, it is necessary to decide which projects and activities will be addressed as part of this cumulative effects assessment. 4.1

Past and Present Projects and Activities

The biophysical information provided in the Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project Application already considers as ambient conditions, projects and activities that have been carried out. These ambient conditions reflect changes to the environment that have occurred as a result of historical development and activities and have created the current “baseline conditions”. The following is a summary of the most obvious elements of the human footprint on the study area which have contributed to the ambient conditions affecting environmental resources described in the Application: Entire Corridor Entire Corridor Entire Corridor Most of Corridor West Vancouver West Vancouver

BC Rail right-of-way Highway 99 BC Hydro transmission line corridors parallel Highway 99 Timber harvesting within Soo Timber Supply Area extending the length of the corridor north of the West Vancouver District Municipal Boundary Residential and commercial development of the Horseshoe Bay area, plus Ansell Place and Sunset Beach. BC Ferries terminal 2

Lions Bay Brunswick Beach Porteau Cove Furry Creek Britannia Woodfibre Darrell Bay Squamish Squamish Daisy Reservoir Pinecrest North of Pinecrest Whistler

Residential development Residential development Provincial park and emergency ferry facility Residential and recreational development Abandoned mine, residential and commercial development, and wharf facilities Western Forest Products pulp mill Ferry wharf connecting to pulp mill at Woodfibre. Residential, commercial, and harbour development including Garibaldi Highlands, Brackendale, and Cheekye Dyking of lower reaches of Squamish, Cheakamus, and Mamquam rivers Daisy Lake Dam, constructed in 1957, impounds the Cheakamus River Residential development Forestry roads. The Whistler Resort Municipality border extends south as far as Brandywine Provincial Park, and includes residential and commercial development in the area of Function Junction

The ambient conditions along the Sea-to-Sky corridor also include the human footprint from recreational activities, as described in the Recreation component of the Application. 4.2

Future Planned Projects and Activities

The following projects and activities are identified as foreseeable future projects that have a high level of certainty that they will occur, although not all are under review or approved. The environmental effects of uncertain or hypothetical projects or activities are not considered. Timber Harvesting — Timber harvesting will continue in the Sea-to-Sky corridor. The Squamish Forest District is approximately 1,100 000 hectares in size and extends from just south of Lions Bay, past the Resort Municipality of Whistler and Pemberton, to the upper headwaters of the Lillooet River in the north (Figure 1). It is made up of the Soo Timber Supply Area (TSA) and Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 38 (International Forest Products Ltd.). For purposes of this CEA, it is sufficient to use the following estimates of logging in the Squamish Forest District per year: 1000 hectares per year in the TSA and 400 hectares per year in the TFL (Greinacher, N., MoF pers. comm. 2003). Whistler – the northern limit of the STS Project – is located approximately mid-way in the Squamish Forest District. The larger forest district boundary is appropriate for use in this CEA when considering the loss of common natural habitat but is not appropriate for use in this CEA when considering ecosystem components of more limited range, specifically marbled murrelet and band-tailed pigeon. The MoT initially requested the annual allowable cut and Timber Harvest Land Base information for the area within 10 km of the STS Project from the Ministry of Forests (MoF). MoF are unable to provide 3

this information because this arbitrary boundary does not correspond with any MoF planning areas. Useful timber harvesting data are available for the East Howe Sound Landscape Unit (EHSLU), Lower Squamish Landscape Unit (LSLU), and Indian Landscape Unit (ILU). The available data for these landscape units (LUs) includes the Timber Harvest Land Base (all of the area that is available for harvest) and the age class of the timber within the Timber Harvest Land Base (THLB). These units are within the southern part of the Sea to Sky Land and Resource Management Plan, which is also where the STS Project is located (see Figure 1). While the LUs include only a portion of the area in the vicinity of the STS Project, the data for the LUs provides a meaningful sample that can be applied to the relevant ecosystem component study area. Other Planned Developments — The locations of the following planned projects are shown in Figure 2: Horseshoe Bay

Furry Creek Furry Creek Britannia Beach Britannia Beach Britannia Beach

1

The District of West Vancouver will be constructing a new public safety building along Marine Drive south of Glen Eagles school and west of the STS Horseshoe Bay Overhead structure. The Glen Eagles Fire Hall/ Police Office and Golf Maintenance Facility will include the construction of 14 gravel parking stalls. The building permit has been issued and start of construction is imminent. Construction will be completed before the end of 2004 (1000 m). Two water quality sample sites with low pHs or metal exceedances overlap with proposed rock cuts, but neither of these sites are associated with sensitive water features (i.e. they have aquatic habitat class ratings of 2 or less). Furthermore, these water features do not flow directly into fish/amphibian habitats that would be impact sensitive. These include: • Strip Creek (AHC of 2), which doesn't have any downstream fish bearing reaches and flows into Howe Sound; and • Water features at SW 139 (ditch with AHC of 1)/SW 140 (indistinct channel with no AHC applied), which eventually drains into Daisy Lake. Another 3 water features with AHC ratings of 2 or less were located between 100 and 500 m from proposed rock cuts. These included: • Cosmo Creek (AHC of 1), which doesn't have any downstream fish bearing reaches and flows into Howe Sound; • Water feature at HS 31 (indistinct channel with no AHC applied), north of Cosmo Creek alongside Howe Sound; and • Water feature at SW 124 that has a AHC of 1 (flows into the fish-bearing waters of Brew Creek, but proposed rock cut is on opposite side of Brew Creek therefore no risk) On review of the list of future planned projects and activities that have the potential to act cumulatively with the STS Project with respect to acid rock drainage and metal leachate, the MoT expects that the Britannia Mine remediation project will overwhelmingly result in a cumulative improvement in the acid rock drainage and metal leachate conditions in the corridor. This remediation project is discussed further in Section 6.1.2. The only other future planned projects that might include rock cuts are the access road to the Garibaldi at Squamish Resort and the planned upgrading of the Callaghan Valley access road to the Nordic Centre. MoT has no information to suggest acid rock drainage and metal leachate would actually be a concern on these access roads. Field measured pH 7

at the Cheekye River and nearby sample sites are above 7.0 (within BCWQG Aquatic Life standards) but water quality tests indicate copper exceedance. The Garibaldi at Squamish Resort access road could connect to Highway 99 somewhere in this area. Water quality tests from the vicinity of Callaghan Creek (south of the Callaghan Valley access road) indicate no exceedence of Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQG) for metals and a pH of 7.4 (within BCWQG Aquatic Life standards). The are no rock cuts planned along the Sea-to-Sky highway in the vicinity of the Cheekye River, therefore no potential PAG/ML effects of the STS Project are expected to overlap with the spatial area affected by the Garibaldi at Squamish Resort access road. None of the rock cuts along the Sea-to-Sky highway in the vicinity of the Callaghan Valley access road are considered to be acid rock drainage generating. The closest proposed rock cuts of potential concern are in the Greenstone rock near Daisy Lake more than 5km south of the Callaghan Valley access road in PA15, where sampling and analysis of the rock indicates low concern for acid rock drainage. In the worst-case, aluminum and copper concentrations in water accumulating in ditches at the base of these rock cuts could exceed CEQG. However, there are no water features in the vicinity of this proposed rock cut and drainage off the cut will be into a highway ditch, through a highway cross culvert and then dispersed onto forested land. The elevation difference between the road and Daisy Lake is approximately 40 m and the lake is more than 80 m down slope. Therefore, it is unlikely that any effects from this rock cut could overlap with the spatial area of effects or incrementally add to effects from the Callaghan Valley Nordic Centre access road. There will be no adverse cumulative effect as a result of proposed rock cuts in potentially acid generating/ metal leaching material. 6.1.2 PAG Material Disposal As indicated earlier, the total volume of PAG rock excavation between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish based on preliminary design is 40,000 m3 of which 3,500 m3 is within the very distinct zone of alteration south of Lonetree Creek. Between Squamish and Whistler, the total volume of the PAG rock cut is approximately 100,000 m3, although further testing is underway to confirm whether the rock is actually acid generating. As indicated in the Application, PAG rock cut material from the southern part of the project (Horseshoe Bay to Squamish) will be disposed of at the Britannia mine site and/or disposed of at the federally regulated Point Grey Ocean Disposal Site or Watts Point Ocean Disposal Site. All of the rock cut material, except the Lonetree Creek rock cut material, is considered inert, inorganic, geological matter and is suitable for Disposal at Sea. Submergence of this material will prevent “oxidation” and resultant acid formation. Disposal of this material at sea requires a permit from Environment Canada. The suitability of the rock cut material for ocean disposal is subject to permitting requirements.

8

While it is expected that the greenstones of the Daisy Lake area will not prove to be PAG when testing is complete, should this not be the case, mitigative options are available and would be applied. These options include reducing the cut volumes by realigning to the East and encapsulating any PAG materials within embankment fills or other locations such as Callaghan pit, employing impermeable materials for the encapsulation. Typical designs for encapsulation are presented in Golder Associates D3 Report “Environmental Assessment of ARD/ML Effects from Bedrock Excavation, Reuse and Disposal, Proposed Sea-to-Sky Highway”. The face of the Lonetree Creek rock cut is already “weathered” or “oxidized rock”. It can not be technically considered “inert” geological matter and therefore is unsuitable for disposal at sea. The STS Project plans to dispose of this 3,500 m3 of altered rock in the Jane Basin area at Britannia. The disposal of this material is considered in the context of the potential for cumulative effects when combined with the ongoing Britannia Mine remediation effort. The Britannia Mine Remediation Project is currently being implemented to address the acidic effluent originating from the abandoned mine. The Crown, represented by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) Contaminated Sites Program, has taken on the task of remediation at the Britannia Mine site. The program includes removal of contaminated soils, etc., from the Britannia Beach Fan and Britannia Mine site bench areas and hauling of the material to Jane Basin for bulldozing into the East Bluff Glory Hole. Any leachate from the contaminated waste will drain into the tunnel complex, and ultimately be collected into the 4100 tunnel. A water treatment plant will be constructed by December 31, 2004, which will treat the discharge from the 4100 tunnel. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) is the regulator with respect to environmental laws under the Waste Management Act. MSRM has applied to WLAP for a permit for the disposal of the waste soils in Jane Basin and a permit to construct and operate the water treatment plant. Issuance of both permits is imminent. MoT will apply to WLAP for a permit to dispose of the Lonetree Creek rock cut material in the Jane Basin area. Environment Canada is a primary reviewer of the permit application for the federal government with respect to water quality issues. The rock slope at Lonetree Creek will be cut and hauled to Britannia in 2005, once the water treatment plant is operational. There will no adverse cumulative effect as a result of this proposal because: the “Glory Hole” has the capacity to accommodate the STS Project’s acid generating material; there is a commitment from the Province to construct the water quality treatment plant; there is very little potential that the mine water will be affected by the contribution of material from the STS Project; and the water treatment plant will be capable of treating the STS Project materials because it is likely that any metals present in the STS Project material are already found in the mine (see February 6, 2004 letter to EAO from WLAP and http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/pdf/bmwt_rfei_final.pdf for the Province’s RFEI for DBFO contract).

9

6.2

Loss of Common Natural Vegetation

In the Application MoT concluded that there are no likely measurable or demonstrable residual adverse effects on the Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) plant communities (i.e., there are no adverse effects predicted following the implementation of mitigation measures) because they proposed to compensate for impacts to red- and blue-listed plant communities. Common natural vegetation was not identified as a VEC during the preApplication stage. However, the Responsible Authorities felt that, since the STS Project will result in the clearing and grubbing of approximately 113 ha of natural habitat, this in itself could be an adverse environmental effect not considered by the MoT. The MoT did consider the loss of natural vegetation through the lens of the VEC wildlife that use this habitat, although the loss of common vegetation was not considered to be adverse in and of itself. At the request of the Responsible Authorities, this loss is considered in this cumulative effects assessment. For the purposes of this assessment common vegetation is defined as follows: - all forested habitats not listed as Red or Blue by the Conservation Data Centre (CDC) - all anthropogenic habitats along the edge of the highway (e.g. maintained grassy rights-of-way) - non-forested, but non developed habitat (e.g. cliffs) The STS Project’s effects on common vegetation are considered in combination with the combined effects of projects planned along the STS corridor and timber harvesting in the Squamish Forest District (Figure 1). These projects and the vegetated areas they affect are listed in Table 1. The Ministry of Forests’ plans for the Squamish Forest District call for the harvest of approximately 1400 ha of timber annually (N, Greinacher, pers. comm.). In the 22 years between now and 2025 (the planning horizon for the STS Project) an estimated 30,800 ha could be harvested if the AAC remain unchanged. Given the tunnel option at Horseshoe Bay, the project will result in the clearing and grubbing of approximately 106 ha of common vegetation. Vegetation will re-establish in cleared areas outside of lanes, shoulders and clear zones, thus the area of permanent vegetation loss is estimated at approximately 78 ha over the construction period (20042009). This calculation overstates the loss because it assumes a permanent loss of 10 m of common vegetation throughout the Lions Bay to Furry Creek section even though little upgrading is expected within this section. This cumulative effects assessment considers the temporary loss of 28 ha and the permanent loss of 78 ha of common vegetation within the context of the projects and activities listed above.

10

Table 1

Summary of Impacts to Common Vegetation

Project Type and Location

Description

Timber Harvesting Squamish Forest District

total harvest to 2025

Other Planned Developments Horseshoe Bay Furry Creek Furry Creek Britannia Beach Britannia Beach Britannia Beach Squamish Squamish Squamish Squamish Callaghan Whistler Whistler

public safety building 60 to 100 homes small hydro project 400 homes remediation Britannia Centre Sea-to-Sky University Outdoor Centre 400 homes Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Nordic Centre sewage treatment plant 3000 beds

Sea-to-Sky Project

highway widening

Total Vegetation Impact

Vegetation Impact (approximate ha)

% of Total

30,800

94.6

2 years (Cooper and Stevens 2000). Clutch size ranges from 2-4 eggs with 80-94% of nesting attempts producing at least one fledgling. Laying of a replacement clutch after nest failure does occur but is rare due to the long incubation and post-fledgling periods (Cooper and Stevens 2000). The most significant threat to the northern goshawk in BC is the loss and/or fragmentation of old growth breeding habitat as this results in the decreased availability of suitable nest sites and a decrease in prey availability (Cooper and Stevens 2000). Major prey species (e.g. medium-sized mammals and birds) are associated with old growth forests and/or forest edges (www.for.gov.bc.ca). Northern goshawk are territorial and defended territories containing the following “subhabitats”: nest sites, nesting area, post-fledgling area and foraging area. - The nest site is defined as the nest site and the surrounding 1ha of habitat. Nest sites are located in old growth/mature forests with dense canopy cover (www.for.gov.bc.ca). Nesting sites usually contain the largest trees in an area with nests being located in the largest tree. - The nesting area (8-20 ha area) may contain several nest trees and has the following attributes canopy closure > 60%, open understory, slope < 40%, lower slope location, near water and near abundant prey base (Cooper and Stevens 2000). The nesting area is the epicenter of a pair’s breeding activity. - The post-fledging area occupies 120-240 ha and is used by the pair and fledged young prior to dispersal. - The foraging area is considered the entire area used by a northern goshawk pair for hunting. Foraging areas are structural and seral mosaics with the following attributes: an adequate prey base, cover to conceal approaching northern goshawk from prey and hunting perches (Cooper and Stevens 2000). Critical habitat attributes of breeding territories are the presence of: snags, coarse woody debris, forest openings and extensive canopy cover. Understoreys must be open enough to facilitate hunting (Mahon et al. 2003). The STS Project has the potential to remove 25.78 ha of habitats that were assigned a high value for northern goshawk nesting habitat based on a comparison of habitat assigned a high capability for nesting (McIntosh et al. 2003), ecosystem mapping and the proposed project footprint. This is an overestimate of the amount of habitat that will be lost as no adjustments to ratings were applied to take into account proximity to the existing highway and development. In reality, much less habitat will be lost as most of the above total includes edges of polygons along the existing road, which are not suitable for northern goshawk nesting. Habitats such as those along the edge of the Sea-to-Sky highway, may make up a small portion of a breeding pair’s territory.

20

The primary impact of the STS Project will be the adjustment of the current edge along the highway. Post construction the “new” edge will, in some areas, extend into areas that supported forest edge communities prior to construction. This will result in an extension of the edge effect into areas that supported interior forest conditions and may increase disturbance (due to proximity of the road) and change prey availability due to changes in habitat attributes. This may have an affect on northern goshawk territories, but it is not anticipated to produce any measurable change in the northern goshawk population along the Sea-to-Sky corridor. The Project’s effects on northern goshawk are considered in combination with the combined effects of projects planned along the Sea-to-Sky corridor and timber harvesting in the Squamish Forest District (Figure 1). These projects and the vegetated areas they affect are listed in Table 1. The Ministry of Forests’ plans for the Squamish Forest district call for the harvest of approximately 1400 ha of timber annually (Greinacher, N. pers. comm.). In the 22 years between now and 2025 (the planning horizon for the STS Project) 30,800 ha will be harvested. Due to the planned rotation of 60-120 years these forests will not be allowed to reach a mature/old growth state and will be permanently lost as potential northern goshawk breeding habitat. Habitats in the vicinity of the Callaghan Valley Nordic Centre are classified as superior northern goshawk habitat within the watershed (LRMP Mapping 2001). Habitats around Furry Creek are classified as marginal northern goshawk habitat while habitats around Britannia Beach are not classified on the LRMP (LRMP Mapping 2001). The proposed developments at Furry Creek, Squamish, Garibaldi at Squamish and Callaghan will result in the introduction of human disturbance adjacent to previously undisturbed old growth and riparian habitats. Several studies have found that northern goshawk nest further away from human habitation than expected, based on available data (Speiser and Bosakowski 1987 in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Potential for impact from these projects will be greater than potential impacts from the STS Project due to their location (e.g. off the existing developed corridor) and nature. Where these developments impact mature/old growth forests the potential for displacement of one or more breeding pair is high. The STS Project will result in the loss of a maximum 25.78 ha of potential northern goshawk nesting habitat along the length of the corridor. This loss is 0.08% of the total 32,568 ha planned loss that will result from planned developments and timber harvesting to 2025. The STS Project will protect old growth forest through covenants or provincial park additions and in doing so may increase the amount of suitable northern goshawk breeding habitat preserved. Even if protected habitats are not of high value to northern goshawk in regards to breeding, they will increase the size of the old-growth habitat retained and in so doing, may maintain and/or increase the habitat value through buffering. This 21

buffering will increase in importance as the corridor is increasingly developed in the future. The location and size of the old growth forest areas to be protected has yet to be finalized. Retention of old growth habitat under the Forest Practices Code (e.g. parks, WHAs and OGMAs) should also protect northern goshawk breeding habitat despite the fact they are not the target species. The degree to which this will occur is unknown. As noted in the Application, the Project’s impacts on the northern goshawk population are not expected to be significant because the area of habitat lost is small and already compromised by its proximity to the highway. The combined effect of the project and other future developments, including timber harvesting will be the loss of 32,568 ha of potential northern goshawk habitat. Assuming the regulatory regime in place in the future will adequately protect northern goshawk habitat from the effects of the future projects, and assuming decisions to proceed with those projects will be made with due consideration to the STS Project’s impacts, the cumulative adverse effects will not be significant. The criteria used to reach this conclusion are summarized in Table 8. Table 8

Summary Evaluation of Significance: Cumulative Impact to Northern Goshawk

Criteria magnitude (severity) geographic extent duration and frequency reversibility ecological context probability of occurrence (likelihood) level of confidence

6.4

Impact value low (small fraction of regional habitat) local and regional one time and ongoing some reversible, some not evidence of human impacts certain high

Air Quality

The STS Project air quality impact assessment (Application Volume 2, Section C) assesses the impacts of the Project on ambient air quality when combined with existing emission sources and other projects likely to proceed within the same time frame (Schutte, A., Levelton, pers. comm. 2003). The existing air shed emissions were characterized in Vol 2, Sec C, Section 5.1 of the Application. A number of mobile, point and area emission sources were identified that contribute to ambient air quality in the air shed. Ambient air quality monitoring at Squamish, Whistler, Langdale, and Horseshoe Bay for a variety of pollutants was used to characterize the current air quality in the air shed (Vol 2, Sec C, Section 4) including the current contributions from the Sea-to-Sky highway. When assessing the potential air quality impacts from the proposed STS Project, the 98th percentile concentration from these monitors was added to the maximum predicted 22

modelled contribution from the highway. This represents a conservative approach to assessing contributions to cumulative air quality, as the maximum predicted concentration from the highway occurs adjacent (1m) to the highway and the monitors represent air quality that would include a more significant contribution from other sources. It is also highly unlikely that both the 98th percentile concentration from the monitors would occur at the exact same time (or location) as the maximum concentration resulting from the vehicle sources on the highway. Nevertheless, even when the ambient concentrations were added to the predicted emissions from the highway for the baseline and in future years (see Table 9), the resulting concentrations remained below the applicable air quality objectives. Table 9

Maximum Predicted Concentrations of CACs for Each Scenario

(Source: Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project Application, Vol C, Sec C, Section 8.1, Table 8-1) 2010 2025 Background 2000 Status Status 2010 2025 plus 2000 Ambient BackAveraging ground(1) Baseline Quo Quo Improved Improved Baseline Guideline Pollutant Period (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) 1-hour 37 7.9 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.7 44.9 450 SO2 24-hour 22.6 2.76 0.10 0.16 0.33 0.43 25.4 160 Annual 6.8 1.81 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.61 8.6 25 1-hour n/a 256.9 113.4 107.7 134.8 144.2 n/a n/a VOC 24-hour n/a 102.7 45.1 42.8 53.5 57.5 n/a n/a Annual n/a 58.4 25.8 24.5 30.7 32.8 n/a n/a 1-hour n/a 334.0 156.0 123.1 185.3 164.8 n/a n/a NOX 24-hour n/a 133.6 62.0 48.8 73.8 65.6 n/a n/a Annual n/a 76.0 35.5 28.0 42.1 37.5 n/a n/a 1-hour 74 133.4 115.6 112.3 118.5 116.5 207.4 400 NO2 (2) 24-hour 58 113.4 62.0 48.8 73.8 65.6 171.4 200 Annual 20 32.6 28.5 27.8 29.2 28.7 52.6 60 24-hour 36 3.1 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.9 39.1 50 PM10 Annual 15 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 17.0 n/a 24-hour 12 2.9 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 14.9 30 PM2.5 Annual 6.1 1.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 7.9 n/a 1-hour 1000 2299.6 1106.1 1015.9 1314.0 1359.9 3299.6 14300 CO 8-hour 750 1318.8 634.1 582.4 753.5 779.9 2068.8 5500 1-hour n/a 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.4 5.5 n/a n/a NH3 1 Based on maximum 98th percentile concentration of STS ambient stations 2 NOx converted to NO2 using the Ozone Limiting Method (0.1*concentration + 100 g/m3 )

23

As part of the air quality assessment, Levelton conducted a search to identify other future projects or activities that are highly likely to occur (not hypothetical). Within the Sea-toSky air shed, no proposed or publicly disclosed future projects that require EAO approvals were discovered that are associated with direct emissions to atmosphere that could cumulate with the STS Project impacts. A number of regional developments and activities were identified that could potentially lead to vehicle emissions along the corridor in the future. The latent demand and the additional population generated by the STS Project will result in a combined traffic increase of approximately 7.5 percent relative to the Base Case in the absence of the Project (Miyasaki, G. SNC Lavalin, pers. comm. 2003). In terms of the air quality assessment, the associated traffic increase was included in the forecasts of the Sea-to-Sky Highway Scenarios for 2010 and 2025. Thus the potential impacts from foreseeable future projects were considered within the air quality assessment. Based on the addition of ambient monitoring data characterizing current sources in the air shed, and the inclusion of foreseeable contributions of potential future sources, the assessment of air quality as provided in the project Application serves as a cumulative impact assessment. The assessment of the significance of the predicted changes in local and regional air quality was completed for all the prescribed average periods relevant to each criteria air contaminant. The criteria are defined in Table 10. Table 10 Air Quality Impact Assessment Criteria (Source: Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project Application, Vol C, Sec C, Section 9, Table 9-1) Parameter Direction of Impact

Rating Positive

Net benefit or gain to the resource/receptor

Neutral

No net benefit or gain to the resource/receptor; or benefits and losses are balanced

Negative Geographical extent

Site Local

Magnitude of Impact

Significance Criteria

Net loss to the resource/receptor, or a diminution in quality of a resource Impact on site only Impact confined to the immediate area

Sub-Regional

Impact extends beyond the local airshed or in areas near where the project disturbances occurs

Regional

Impact extends beyond the sub-regional boundary and within the study area boundaries

Nil

No noticeable change in environmental impact

Low

disturbance expected to be somewhat above typical background conditions and concentrations, but within established or accepted protective standards (e.g. provincial air quality objectives), or to cause no detectable change in biological, social, or economic parameters.

Medium

disturbance expected to be considerably above background conditions or concentrations but within established criteria or scientific effects thresholds (e.g. provincial Level B or federal Acceptable air quality objectives), or to cause a detectable change of parameters within the range of natural variability.

High

disturbance expected to exceed established criteria or scientific effects thresholds associated with potential adverse effects (e.g. All known air quality objectives), or to cause a detectable change beyond the range of natural variability.

24

Parameter Duration of Impact

Frequency of Occurrence

Rating Immediate

Effect extends for less than one day

Short-term

Effect extends for one day or longer but less than one year

Medium-term

Effect extends through the length of the project

Long-term

Effect extends beyond the length of the project

Isolated Occasional Regular

Reversibility

Likelihood of Adverse Effect

Level of Confidence

Impact occurs during a specified period Impact occurs intermittently and sporadically over assessment period Impact occurs regularly (episodically) over assessment period

Continuous

Impact occurs continuously over assessment period

Short-term

Impact can be reversed in less than one year

Medium-term

Overall Consequence

Significance Criteria

Impact can be reversed in one year or more, but less than the duration of the project

Long-term

Impact can be reversed after the duration of the project

Irreversible

Impact is permanent

Negligible (n/a)

The effect is expected to have a negligible consequence (positive or negative). Accordingly, further management is not required.

Low

The effect is expected to have a low consequence (positive or negative). Accordingly, further management is likely not required for this effect.

Moderate

The effect is expected to have a moderate consequence (positive or negative). Accordingly, additional management of this effect is likely necessary

High

The effect is expected to have a high consequence (positive or negative). Accordingly, additional management of this effect is necessary.

Unlikely

Likelihood that activity will result in an adverse effect is not expected

Possible

Likelihood that activity will result in an adverse effect is unknown, but not expected

Probable

Likelihood that activity will result in an adverse effect is unknown, but expected

Certain

Likelihood that activity will result in an adverse effect is expected

Low Medium

High

Assessment based on poor understanding of cause-effect relationships and data from elsewhere Assessment based on good understanding of cause-effect relationships using data from elsewhere or poorly understood cause-effect relationships using data pertinent to the study area. Assessment based on reliable sub-regional or regional data and well documented causeeffect relationships.

Table 11 and Table 12 assesses the criteria air contaminant predicted impacts in accordance with the assessment significance levels for two cases: (1) effects for the future improved highway (with consideration to other future projects) compared to the current baseline (which considers the ambient conditions and past projects); and (2) effects for the future improved highway (with consideration to other future projects) compared with the highway without improvement in future years (with consideration to other future projects).

25

In the first case, overall air quality impacts are projected to improve (except ammonia) in future years regardless of whether the highway improvement will occur. In the second case, the projected increased of future auto demand due to the improved highway, would cause a slight increase in ambient concentrations. An overall rating of “Neutral” to “Low” was deemed to be the most appropriate for this case, as the changes are incrementally low and are limited to the validity of the projected increase in traffic volumes. In conclusion, it is unlikely that there will be a significant adverse cumulative air quality effect.

26

Frequency of Occurrence

Occasional Occasional Continuous Occasional Occasional Continuous Occasional Continuous Occasional Continuous Occasional Continuous Occasional Occasional Occasional

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative

SO2 1-Hour

SO2 24-Hour

SO2 Annual

NO2 1-Hour

NO2 24-Hour

NO2 Annual

PM (PM10) 24-Hour

PM (PM10) Annual

PM10 24-Hour

PM10 Annual

PM2.5 24-Hour

PM2.5 Annual

CO 1-hour

CO 8-hour

NH3 24-hour

Occasional Occasional

Negative Negative

PM10 24-hour

PM2.5 24-hour

Fugitive Dust

Parameter

Direction

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Magnitude

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Geographic (Spatial) Extent

Medium-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Short-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Short-term

(Temporal) Extent

Duration

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Overall Consequence

(Source: Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project Application, Vol C, Sec C, Section 9, Table 9-2)

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

Likelihood of Adverse Effect

Medium

Medium

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

27

Level of Confidence

Table 11 Assessment of Ambient Air Quality Impacts of the STS Project (2010 and 2025) Relative to the 2000 Baseline

Frequency of Occurrence

Occasional Occasional Continuous Occasional Occasional Continuous Occasional Continuous Occasional Continuous Occasional Continuous Occasional Occasional Occasional

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Negative

SO2 1-Hour

SO2 24-Hour

SO2 Annual

NO2 1-Hour

NO2 24-Hour

NO2 Annual

PM (PM10) 24-Hour

PM (PM10) Annual

PM10 24-Hour

PM10 Annual

PM2.5 24-Hour

PM2.5 Annual

CO 1-hour

CO 8-hour

NH3 24-hour

Occasional Occasional

Negative

Negative

PM10 24-hour

PM2.5 24-hour

Fugitive Dust

Parameter

Direction

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Magnitude

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Local

Geographic (Spatial) Extent

Medium-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Short-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Short-term

Short-term

(Temporal) Extent

Duration

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Low

Overall Consequence

(Source: Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement Project Application, Vol C, Sec C, Section 9, Table 9-3)

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Unlikely

Likelihood of Adverse Effect

Medium

Medium

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

High

Level of Confidence

28

Table 12 Assessment of Ambient Air Quality Impacts of the 2010 and 2025 STS Project Relative to 2010 and 2025 Status Quo

6.5

Stormwater and Water Quality

The STS Project will result in an increase impervious surface area of approximately 53%. This is based on the assumptions that the impervious surface area of the existing Highway 99 is approximately 95 ha and that there will be an additional impervious surface area of approximately 50 ha added by the STS Project. An increase in impervious surfaces can affect hydrology by increasing the volume and velocity of surface runoff and by preventing infiltration. It can also affect water quality since runoff can function as the transport mechanism for nonpoint sources of pollution and since vegetation, which mitigates against this has been removed .Vegetation serves to filter, adsorb and settle out pollutants, and slow down water velocity, which in turn prevents the destabilization and erosion of soils and encourages infiltration. The MoT has committed to mitigating the effects of the increased impervious surface by implementing current best management practices (BMPs) that are designed to slow down the velocity of runoff, encourage infiltration and improve water quality. These BMPs will provide practicable stormwater treatment for the entire roadway, not just the lane that is being added. This existing highway was constructed without the benefit of these new BMPs. All new ditch designs will incorporate swales, check dams, drop structures, lined channels, etc. Highway best management practices are designed to enhance the removal of solids and any associated sorbed pollutants through adsorption, filtration and settlement. Given the increased impervious surface, there will be an increase in the quantity of deicers and abrasives used on the highway during the winter. In the Application the MoT estimated that, once the Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project is operational, the quantity of de-icers used will increase 41.5% and the quantity of abrasives used will increase 31.1% over the length of the project (Application, Volume 3, Section D). This does not necessarily translate into increased sodium, magnesium and chloride concentrations in streams. These numbers assumed that current application practices and rates will continue, which is unlikely. Currently, the trend is towards the use of anti-icers for winter maintenance, which means that less chemical will be applied to the highway surface, and it will be applied in a diluted form. Highway maintenance contractors indicate that with the use of anti-icers, fewer passes using winter abrasives are required, which reduces potential siltation problems. Use of anti-icers at rates of approximately 40-50% of de-icers (road salt) reduces the positive ions (Sodium - Na and Magnesium - Mg) by 40-50% and reduces negative ions (Chloride – Cl) by between 0 – 5%. A further reduction in ion availability results from less road salt entering the system through reduced use of the winter abrasive materials which contain 5% road salt. Therefore, the combination of the trend towards the use of anti-icers as opposed to deicers (road salt); the fact that the concentrations should remain close to the existing because of the increased amount of water coming off the larger highway surface; and the 29

improvement in drainage design (including swales, check dams, drop structures, lined channels, etc.,) all contributed to the MoT’s conclusion that water quality will not differ markedly from the current situation, and will remain well within the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines. It is noted, however, that the runoff salt concentration pulse will last longer because there will be a greater volume of water coming off the new road surface. The MoT tested the water quality in the streams along the Sea-to-Sky highway in December, 2002. These ambient conditions reflect activities associated with the application of de-icing chemicals and winter abrasives that have been and are currently being carried out in the corridor. As noted in the Volume 3, Section D of the Application, “sodium, magnesium and chloride levels are very low except in marine influenced sample sites. For example, sodium content in the streams tested did not exceed 8.56 ppm and averaged less than 2.0 ppm over the length of the project.” These numbers are well below the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines of 200 ppm and 250 ppm respectively. Although the sampling was only done once for the STS Project, data from elsewhere in the province confirm that the results are typical. MoT has undertaken water quality analyses throughout BC to evaluate the impacts of salt and winter abrasives. Measurements were taken at the edge of pavement, mid-slope of the road shoulder and in the ditch adjacent to the road surface. As illustrated in Table 13, the sodium and chloride concentrations continue to decrease as the water leaves the highway and enters the ditch. It is expected that if samples were then taken in the adjacent streams, the concentrations would be quite comparable to those found on the Sea-to-Sky highway. The sampled locations are similar to STS Project locations in terms of salt and abrasive application rates (the data are based on application rates of 85 kilograms per two-lane kilometre – the normal rate for Highway 99), surface area, and traffic volumes. For comparison, in 2001 the Sea-to-Sky highway had an Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) of 13,500 north of Horseshoe Bay, 10,800 AADT south of Squamish at Murrin Park, and 7,700 AADT at Cheekeye River, with slightly higher peak month ADT two ways (e.g., 16,000 ADT North of Horseshoe Bay) (Volume 3, Section A – Socio-Community/Economic Assessment). As noted above, water quality will not differ markedly from the current situation, and will remain well within the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines. This conclusion considers the STS Project in combination with the projects and activities that have and are occurring in the corridor to date. On review of the future planned projects and activities, the subdivisions planned for Furry Creek, Britannia Beach and Squamish, the Sea to Sky University and the access roads to the Garibaldi at Squamish Resort Project and the Callaghan Valley Nordic Centre could require the application of de-icing chemicals and winter abrasives and therefore, could operate cumulatively with the STS Project. It is assumed that the application rates of all these projects combined would be negligible to extremely small in comparison with the highway application rates. Therefore, it can be concluded that, even with the combined effects of the other future planned projects, there will be no significant adverse effects from the application of de-icing chemicals and winter abrasives. The criteria used to reach this conclusion are summarized in Table 14.

30

Table 13 Water Quality Results from Highway Elsewhere in the Province Location Highway 17 @ 34B – Ave. 1 – pass salt 2 – pass WAB Salmo-Creston Highway 3 2 – pass salt 6 – pass WAB

ADT’s 17,000

10,450

Lanes

Sodium mg/L

Chloride mg/L

TSS mg/L

4

L240 S123 D47

L453 S228 D51

5 4 2

L860 S676 D62

L1343 S831 D121

24 12 21

First Flush

L751 S441 D36

L1421 S547 D47

11 10 12

2.9

4 hr 4 hr 4 hr

L943 S776 D154

L1347 S1060 D223

9 8 6

6.5

3 hr 3 hr 3 hr

L101 S---D7

L269 S---D16

3

Turbidity (NTU)

3.2

Time 24 hr 24 hr 24 hr

*Hydrocarbons were less than laboratory detectable limits

Highway 19 New Alignment 2 – pass salt 2 – pass WAB Highway 19A Old Alignment 2 – pass salt 2 – pass WAB Coquihalla Hwy Ladner Creek Br. 3 – pass salt 2 – pass WAB

8400

7980

8000

4

2

4

12 hr 12 hr 12 hr

*Hydrocarbons were less than laboratory detectable limits

Trans-Canada 7850 Lake of the Woods 2 – pass salt 3 – pass WAB

3

L665 S445 D31

L1234 S523 D101

14 10 3

8 hr 8 hr 8 hr

*Toluene – 11 µg/L – other hydrocarbons were below laboratory limits. --- LSD – L is at edge of pavement, S is mid-slope of the road shoulder and, D is in the ditch --- WAB – Winter abrasive --- Summary information is based on 3 – 7 sampling sites at each location --- Time is based on number of hours after rainfall or melting has started

During construction, suspended sediment levels in watercourses may be temporarily increased. Water quality will be continually monitored during construction to ensure that induced suspended sediment in watercourses is below allowable threshold levels. Sediment and drainage management measures will be adjusted and augmented as water quality approaches threshold levels. As noted by Natural Resources Canada in their review letter dated October 16th, 2003, “BCWQG are designed to protect the most sensitive species in the most sensitive water and typically include an appreciable safety factor”. Creek sedimentation above threshold levels is not a planned activity of the STS Project and is considered an exceptional accident or malfunction event. Although the STS Project itself will strive to be below threshold levels, future planned projects and activities have been reviewed to see if a change resulting from the STS Project that is 31

within guidelines could combine with the effects of other projects and activities to collectively result in an adverse effect. Future projects that could contribute sediments to streams that could subsequently be affected by the STS Project include: timber harvesting, residential development at Furry Creek and Squamish, Squamish University, the Garibaldi at Squamish Resort, and the Callaghan Valley Nordic Centre. These projects may occur at the same time as the STS Project construction and may temporarily increase suspended sediment levels with which STS Project-induced sediments could combine. It is reasonable to assume that these projects will be required to maintain water quality within allowable threshold levels. Suspended sediments originating from projects or activities upstream of the STS Project would be accounted for in the STS Project’s routine water quality monitoring program,– the allowable sediment increase is a function of the ambient sediment levels which include sediment from all upstream sources. Similarly, it is assumed that downstream projects and activities would have to measure and accommodate STS Project related suspended sediment loads. Therefore, measures are in place to ensure that there are no significant cumulative adverse effects associated with temporarily increased suspended sediment levels in watercourses. The criteria used to reach this conclusion are summarized in Table 14. Table 14 Summary Evaluation of Significance: Cumulative Impact to Water Quality Criteria magnitude (severity) geographic extent duration frequency reversibility ecological context probability of occurrence (likelihood) level of confidence

Impact value: de-icers low local short repeatedly during winter reversible human-modified certain high

Impact value: sediment low local temporary one time reversible human-modified certain high

32

References Burger, A. E. 2002. Conservation assessment of marbled murrelets in British Columbia: review of the, population, habitat associations and conservation (Marbled murrelet conservation assessment, Part A0. Technical report series No. 387, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, BC. Braun, C.E., 1994. Band-tailed Pigeon. Pp. 61-74 in Migratory shore and upland game bird management in North America (T. Tacha and C.E. Braun, eds.). Int. Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencies, Washington, D.C. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I.McT. Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser and M.C.E. McNall. 1990b. The birds of British Columbia: Volume II. Royal British Columbia Museum. CMMRT (Canadian Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team). 2003. Marbled murrelet conservation assessment 2003, Part B: Marbled murrelet recovery team advisory document on conservation and management. Canadian Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team Working Document No. 1. CEAA 1999, Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, ISBN 0-660-17709-0, ceaacee.gc.ca/0011/0001/0004/guide_e.htm. Cooper, J.M and V. Stevens. 2000. A review of the ecology, management and conservation of the northern goshawk in British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-101. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C. Keppie, D.M. and C.E. Braun, 2000. Band-tailed Pigeon. The Birds of North America A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), No. 530. LRMP. 2001. Sea to Sky LRMP: Wildlife Species of Concern, Birds-Mature/Old Growth Forests. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks Region 2. Mahon, T, D. Morgan and F. Doyle. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) habitat in the North Coast Forest District. Foraging area and nest area habitat suitability models. Report prepared for the North Coast Forest District. Manley, I. And S. Cullen. 2002. Marbled murrelet occurrence in the Squamish and Chilliwack forest districts: Results of reconnaissance radar surveys in 2002. Report prepared for Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection Biodiversity Branch, Victoria BC and Lower Mainland Region, Surrey, BC. McIntosh, K.A., I. Robertson, and C.S. Schaefer, 2003. Sea to Sky Highway Improvement Project Wildlife and Vegetation Assessmment. Robertson Environmental Services Ltd. report to the Ministry of Transportation, Victoria, B.C. 33

Ricker, N., V. Troup, and B.M. Gotz, 1996. Checklist of Whistler Birds. Birdbrain Photography. Ross, W.A. 1998, Cumulative Effects Assessment: Learning from Canadian Case Studies”, J. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal Vol. 16, No. 4, Dec. Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. The birds of North America: Northern Goshawk. Number 298, 1997. www.for.gov.bc.ca. Northern goshawk species account. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Dunbar, D. Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Surrey: phone conversations and e-mails. Greinacher, N. Ministry of Forests, Squamish: e-mails December 2003. Greinacher, N. Stewardship Officer, Squamish Forest District, Ministry of Forests. Personal communication – email dated December 16, 2003 to Doug Kelly, Par Terre Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. Heppner, D. Ministry of Forests, Nanaimo: phone conversations and e-mails, November and December 2003. Miyasaki, G. SNC Lavalin, Personal communication with A. Schutte, Levelton Engineering Ltd. 2003). Roberts, J. Coast River Environmental Services Ltd., Personal communication – email dated October 20, 2003 to Isobel Doyle, Par Terre Environmental Consulting Services Ltd. Schutte, A. Levelton Engineering Ltd., Personal communication – memo dated November 17, 2003 to Isobel Doyle, Par Terre Environmental Consulting Services Ltd.

34

FIGURES

35

36

37