News/Reports

Significant species table

Posted November 30, 2015 | Categories : Marine Reserves,Oil Spill Threat,Reports |

Table 5: Significant Species and Conservation Status in 19 Marine Ecological Reserves

ER# Name Species Scientific Name Species Common Name BC List Status COSEWIC Status SARA Status CF Prov. Priority
28 Ambrose Lake Oncorhynchus clarkii Coastal Cutthroat Trout, ssp. lewisi, S3S4 (2004) Blue Special concern  2
Gasterosteus aculeatus Threespine Stickleback Yellow Special concern 6
24 Baeria Rocks Lasthenia maritima hairy goldfields S2S3 (2000) Blue 3
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle S5B,S5N (2009) yellow  NAR (1984)  6
Haematopus bachmani Black oystercatcher S4 (2009) yellow  5
Zalophus californianus California Sea Lion S5N (2006) yellow  6
Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull S5B (2009)  yellow  5
Phoca vitulina Harbour seal S5 (2006) yellow  6
Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic cormorant S2B (2005) red  5
151 Ballingall Islets Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull  S5B(2009)yellow  5
Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant S3S4B(2013)Blue  NAR (1978)  2
Cepphus columba Pigeon guillemot  S4B (2009) yellow  2
121 Brackman Island (to GINPR) Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant  S3S4B(2013)Blue  NAR (1978)  2
Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull  S5B(2009)yellow  5
17 Canoe Islets Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull  S5B(2009)yellow  5
Zalophus californianus California Sea Lion  S4 (2009) yellow  6
Eumetopias jubatus Steller Sea Lion S3B,S3N(2014)Blue  1
Phoca vitulina Harbour Seal  S5(2006) yellow  6
Clupea pallasii Pacific Herring  SNR  NA
1 Cleland Island Uvia aalge Common Murre S2B,S4N (2005) Red 2
Fratercula cirrhata Tufted Puffin S3B,S4N (2011)   Blue 2
Ptychamphus aleutius Cassin’s Auklet S2S3B,S4N (2005) Blue  SC (2014) 2
Cerorhinca monocerata Rhinoceros Auklet  S4B (2005)yellow 4
Romanzoffia tracyi Tracy’s Mistmaiden  S3S4 (2006)  yellow  4
Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leach’s Storm-petrel  S4B (2005) yellow  4
Oceanodroma furcata Fork-tailed Storm-petrel  S4B (2005) yellow  4
Haematopus bachmani Black Oystercatcher  S4 (2009) yellow  5
Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic Cormorant S2B (2005) red  2
Cepphus columba Pigeon Guillemot,   S4B (2009) yellow  2
Aneides vagrans Wandering Salamander S3S4 (2010)   Blue listed  2
153 Francis Point Agrostis pallens Dune bentgrass S3S4 (2008) Yellow  2
Eumetopias jubatus Steller Sea Lion Blue SC (2013)  1-SC (2005)  2
Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet S3B,S3N (2010)  Blue  T (2012)  1-T (2003)  1
Thuja plicata Western redcedar S5 (2000)  yellow  5
Polystichum munitum sword fern  S5 (2000) yellow  6
Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii Douglas-fir S5 (2000) yellow  6
Pinus contorta var. latifolia lodgepole pine  S5 (2000)yellow  5
  grey rock-moss
sensitive mosses
& lichens on the shallow-soiled coastal bluffs
  reindeer lichens
137 Hudson Rocks Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorants  S3S4B(2013)Blue  2
Phoca vitulina Harbour seals  S5(2006) yellow  6
Haematopus bachmani Black Oystercatchers   S4 (2009) yellow  5
Cepphus columba Pigeon Guillemots   S4B (2009) yellow  2
Clupea pallasii Pacific Herring
4 Lasqueti Island Juniperus maritima Seaside juniper  S3 (2008)  blue  3
Allium acuminatum Hooker’s onion  S4 (2011)  yellow  4
Oncorhynhus spp. Salmon  S4 yellow  1
Mimulus breweri Brewer’s monkey-flower  S2S3 (2000)blue  2
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak  S2S3 (2000)blue  2
Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii Douglas-fir  S5 (2000)yellow  6
Mahonia nervosa dull Oregon-grape  S5 (2000)yellow
Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii Douglas-fir  S5 (2000) yellow  6
Arbutus menziesii Arbutus S4 Yellow(2014)  6
Glaucidium gnoma Northern Pygmy-owl, ssp. swarthi  S3 (2009)blue  1
Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl  S5 (2009)yellow  6
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture  S4 (2009)  yellow  5
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle  S5B,S5N (2009) yellow  6
105 Megin River Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon S4 yellow 2
Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon S5 yellow 2
Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon S4 yellow 2
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink Salmon S5 yellow 6
Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye Salmon S4 (2000)  Yellow
37 Mount Maxwell Unknown, 3.3 km of shoreline
16 Mount Tuam Unknown,1.25 km of shoreline.
94 Oak Bay Islands Rosa gymnocarpa Baldhip rose S5 (2000) yellow 6
Haematopus bachmani Black Oystercatcher S4 (2009)yellow 5
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken fern  (2001) yellow 2
Phalacrocorax penicillatus Brandt’s Cormorant SHB,S4N (2011) red 1
Opuntia fragilis Brittle prickly-pear cactus S5 (2000) yellow 6
Ranunculus californicus California buttercup red listed Endangered 2008 1
Fritillaria affinis Chocolate lily S5 (2000)  yellow 6
Phocoenoides dalli Dall’s Porpoise  S4S5 (2006)yellow NAR1989 4
Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant S3S4B (2013) blue NAR 1978 2
Spergularia macrotheca ssp. macrotheca Beach sand-spurry  S3S4 (2006)yellow 4
97 Race Rocks Orcinus orca Southern resident Killer whale S1 (2011)  Red T(2008) 1-E (2003) Endangered 1
Orcinus orca Northeast Pacific transient population S2 (2011)   Red T(2008)  1-T(2003) 1
Haliotis kamtschatkana Northern abalone S2 (2002) red T-(2000) 1-T (2003) Endangered 2
Sebastes maliger Quillback rockfish SNR T (2009) 1 -Threatened
Phalacrocorax penicillatus Brandt’s Cormorant  SHB,S4N (2011) red 1
Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorant  S3S4B (2013) blue NAR (1978) 2
Acipenser trnasmontanus white sturgeon S1 (2010) Endangered (2003) 1-Endangered (2006) 2
Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican SNRM (2009) 2
Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron S3B (2009)  2
Calidris canutus Red knot S1S2M (2009)  red  Endangered/
Threatened (2007)
1-T/E (2010) 1
Calidris alba   Sanderling S4S5M (2009) yellow 2
Calidris alpina Dunlin S4N (2009)  yellow 4
Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper S4S5M (2009) yellow 2
Calidris ptilocnemis   Rock Sandpiper S4N (2009) yellow 2
Calidris virgata Surfbird S4M (2009) yerllow 4
Charadrius vociferus   Killdeer S4B (2009)  yellow 2
Gavia pacifica   Pacific Loon S4S5B,S4N (2009)  yellow 5
Gavia stellata   Red-throated Loon S4B (2011) 6
Hydroprogne caspia   Caspian Tern S3B (2011)  Blue NAR (1999 2
Regulus satrapa   Golden-crowned Kinglet S5B (2009) yellow 5
Strix varia   Barred Owl S5B (2011)   yellow 6
Histrionicus histrionicus   Harlequin Duck S4B,S3N (2011) yellow 1
Romanzoffia tracyi Tracy’s Mistmaiden S3S4 (2006)yellow 4
Lathyrus japonicus var. maritimus Beach pea S5 (2000) 6
Phyllospadix scouleri   Scouler’s surf-grass S5 (2000) yellow 6
Sisyrinchium littorale   shore blue-eyed-grass S4 (2004)   yellow 3
Anthus rubescens American Pipit 35B (2009) yellow 6
Zonotrichia atricapilla   Golden-crowned Sparrow S5B (2011) yellow 6
Armeria maritima Thrift S3S4 (2001) yellow 6
Anas crecca Green-winged teal S5B, SSN (2009) yellow 5
Anas platyrhynchos   Mallard S5B,S5N(2009) yellow 5
Branta bernicla   Brant S3M (2009) Blue 2
Branta hutchinsii   Cackling goose S3M (2009) Blue 4
Cerorhinca monocerata   Rhinoceros Auklet S4B (2005) yellow 4
Haematopus bachmani   Black Oystercatcvher S4 (2009) yellow 5
Eschrichtius robustus Grey whale  S3 (2006) Special Concern (2004) 1-SC (2005) 4
Phocoean phocoena Harbour porpoise S3 (2006) Blue 4
Eumetopias jubatus Steller Sea lion S3B,S3N (2014) blue Special Concern (2006) 1-SC (2005) 1
Haematopus bachmani Black Oystercatcher S4 (2009) yellow NAR (2006) 5
Zalophus californianus California sea lion S5N (2006) yellow 6
Phocoenoides dalli Dall’s Porpoise S4S5 (2006) yellow NAR (1989) 4
Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull S5B (2009) yellow 5
Larus californicus California gull S3B (2013)   Blue     4
    Larus heermanni Heermann’s Gull S4N (2009)  yellow     4
    Larus occidentalis Western Gull S4N (2009)  yellow     4
    Larus thayeri   Thayer’s Gull S5M (2009) yellow     6
    Limnodromus griseus   Short-billed Dowitcher S2S3B (2011)  Blue     3
    Tringa incana   Wandering Tattler S3S4B (2013) Blue     4
    Troglodytes hiemalis   Winter Wren S5B (2009) Yellow      —
    Uria aalge   Common Murre S2B,S4N (2005)   red     2
Falco peregrinus pealei Peregrine falcon, (pealei subspecies) S3B (2010) blue Special Concern (2007) 1-T/E 2010 1
Enhydra lutris Sea Otter S3 (2010) blue SC (2010) 1-SC (2003) 1
Bucephala albeola Bufflehead S5B (2009) yellow 6
Synthliboramphus antiquus Ancient Murrelet S2S3B,S4N (2005) blue Special Concern (2004) 1-SC (2006) 1
Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet S3B,S3N (2010) Blue  Threatened (2012) 1-T (2013) 1
Melanitta perspicillata   Surf Scoter S3B,S4N (2005)   blue 4
Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow S5B (2010)   yellow 2
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle S5B,S5N (2009) yellow  NAR (1984) 6
Phoca vitulina Harbour seal S5 (2006) yellow NAR(1999) 6
Aechmophorus occidentalis Western Grebe S1B,S2N (2009) red SC(2014) 1
Mirounga angustirostris Northern Elephant Seal S1B (2014) red NAR (2006) 5
Callorhinus ursinus Northern Fur Seal S2M (2006) red Threatened (2010) 2
Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic Cormorant S2B (2005) red 5
Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher S4S5B (2009) yellow 2
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale S3 (2006) Blue SC (2011) 1-T (2005) 2
Sagina decumbens ssp. occidentalis western pearlwort S4 (2007) yellow 4
Amsinckia spectabilis Seaside fiddleneck S3S4 (2013)yellow 4
18 Rose Islets Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Cormorants Blue listed 2
Larus glaucescens Glaucous winged gull 5
Phalacrocorax pelagicus Pelagic Cormorant   S4B (2005)  yellow 5
Haematopus bachmani Black Oystercatcher S4 (2009) yellow NAR (2006) 5
Cepphus columba Pigeon Guillemot
141 San Juan River Estuary Mimulus dentatus tooth-leaved monkey flower S2S3 (2013)   Blue     3
Castilleja ambigua ssp. ambigua paintbrush owl-clover. S2S3 (2007) Blue     2
Prosartes smithii Smith’s fairybells, S3 (2000)  Blue     2
Cardamine angulata angled bitter-cress S2S3 (2000)  Blue     2
Pleuropogon refractus) nodding semaphore-grass. S3 (2001) Blue      2
Cervus canadensis rooseveltii Rooseveldt Elk S3S4 (2010)  Blue     2
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle S5B,S5N (2009) Yellow     6
Ursus americanus Black Bear S5 (2010)  yelllow     6
Neovision vision mink S5 (2011) yellow      6
Lontra Canadensis River otter S4S5 (2010) yellow     4
67 Satellite Channel Maldane glebifex genera Lumbrinereis and Nephtys
Sternaspis fossor Sedentary polychaete
Prionospio Sedentary polychaete
Compsomyax subdiaphana pelecypods
Macoma elimata pelecypods
Yoldia ensifera pelecypods
Ophiura sarsi brittle star
66 Ten Mile Point Haliotis kamtschatkana Northern Abalone S2 (2002) red T-2000 1-T (2003) Endangered 2
Artemisia alaskana Alaskan sagebrush S2S3 (2001) Blue 3
Haematopus bachmani Black Oystercatcher S4 (2009) yellow NAR (2006) 5
Phoca vitulina Harbour seal S5 (2006) yellow NAR(1999) 6
132 Trial Island Stumella neglecta Western Meadowlark (Georgia Depression population) SXB (2010) red 2
Coenonympha tullia ssp. insulana Common Ringlet, ssp. insulana S1 (2013) red 1
Alopecurus carolinianus Carolina meadow-foxtail S2 (2000) red 3
Castilleja levisecta golden paintbrush S1 (2009) red E (2007) 1-E (2003) Endangered 1
Limnanthes macounii Macoun’s meadow-foam S2 (2007) red T (2004) 1-T (2006) Threatened 1
Lupinus densiflorus dense-flowered lupine  S1 (2009) red E (2005) 1-E (2006) 1
Lotus formosissimus seaside birds-foot trefoil S1 (2000) E (2010) 1-E (2003) 1
Sanicula arctopoides snake-root sanicle S1 (2011)  red E (2001) E (2001) 1
Sanicula bipinnatifida purple sanicle S2 (2009) red T (2001)  1-T (2003) Threatened 1
Leymus triticoides creeping wildrye
Orthocarpus bracteosus rosy owl-clover S1 (2009) red E (2004) 1-E (2005) Endangered 1
Quercus garryana/Bromus carinatus Garry oak – California brome association
Silene scouleri ssp. grandis coastal Scouler’s catchfly S1 (2000) red E (2003) 1-E (2005) 4
Castilleja victoriae Victoria’s owl-clover S1 (2009) red E (2010) 1-E (2012) Endangered  1
Entosthodon fascicularis banded cord-moss S2S3 (2011) blue  SC (2005) 1-SC (2006) 2
Anagallis minima chaffweed S3 (2008) blue 2
Aster curtus white-top aster S2 (2008) red SC (2009) 1-SC (2003)  1
Isoetes nuttallii Nuttall’s quillwort S3 (2001) blue 2
Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson’s checker-mallow S3 (2001) blue 2
Crassula aquatica pigmyweed S4 (2008) yellow 2
Lupinus littoralis seashore lupine S3S4 (2005) yellow 4
Montia dichotoma dwarf montia S3S4 (2001) yellow  4
Fritillaria affinis var. affinis chocolate lily S5 (2000) yellow 6
Camassia quamash common camas S4 (2000) yellow 2
Poa macrantha dune bluegrass S3S4 (2001) yellow 4
Quercus garryana Garry oak S5 (2000) yellow 6

References:

BC Species  explorer http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/search.do

Species at Risk Act (SARA) Consultations – Pacific Region

Search Aquatic Species at risk
Friends of Ecological Reserves http://ecoreserves.bc.ca/

BC Parks Ecological Reserves http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/eco_reserv

4. Overview of NEB KM-TMX application process

 

The Board of Friends of Ecological Reserves (Board of FER) was pleased to have been admitted into the KM-TMX application process considering that 2,100+ applicants wanted to participate and only 400 were accepted. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) asked for an extension as they learned three days before the deadline and knew they could not process the application and meet internal US government protocols at such short notice. We believe the US EPA should have been granted their requested extension; instead it was denied.[9]

The US EPA exclusion, based on a procedural deadline, in our opinion, was a serious shortcoming as this project relates to oil tankers sailing through a shared international transport route between the USA and Canadian waters. The US EPA has considerable knowledge about management of oil tankers and marine ecosystems.[10] The US EPA has a response and restoration department, so Canadians and the NEB could have learned a great deal through their inclusion in this process.[11] Since the Canadian government departments such as Transport Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard and Environment Canada all had input at the national level, we believe the NEB KM-TMX process needed US Federal agency engagement to best integrate information and conditions in order to move the process forward. The list of participants shows there were no US Federal agencies informing this process and the single state agency informing the process was the Washington State Department of Ecology.[12]

A significant lesson that we learned was that there is a great deal of information posted during this NEB KM-TMX process and keeping up with the postings from NEB, KM-TMX and other intervenors is very time consuming. The volume of documents filed and made available through the KM-TMX process has made it impossible to delve into as much detailed reading as we would have liked or needed, to be remain fully informed.

Fortunately by taking a marine focus, the Board of FER was able to narrow the scope of our research. We took this focus because the risk to the marine Ecological Reserves (ERs) is very high and we also feel that the management of the marine system is the weakest and least well-defined link in managing risks in this project. However, once we became part of the process, all posts needed to be read and understood, simply to find out whether issues raised pertained to areas of interest held by the Board of FER with regard to marine ecosystems. Keeping up was very time consuming for volunteers.

Given time constraints, our first task was to have a strategic planning session to define the best outcome for Ecological Reserves and to get support from the NEB Participant Funding Program (PFP) in order to be able to adequately participate. We found as volunteers that we could not keep up with the volume of information and deliver useful, quality information back into the process. As a result, in May 2014, the Board of FER applied to the PFP. Meanwhile, we relied on volunteer time through 2014 and into January of 2105.

During the summer of 2014, FER learned other NGOs and First Nations had received funding but by December, 2014 (eight months after applying), we had not heard whether the PFP had made a decision in our case. This long delay provoked an internal discussion at the Board of FER on the benefits of continuing to participate and the need to withdraw due to lack of resources. We did make requests on the status of our application over the eight-month waiting period. We were informed in late January (nine months after applying for support), that FER could receive up to 66 per cent of what was originally applied for. We were pleased to have received reduced funding, even after a nine month waiting period, so we revised our work plan and resubmitted deliverables with a reduced scope.

The PFP accepted our revised work plan and we engaged at an appropriate level. The Friends of Ecological Reserves 2014 newsletter (called “The LOG”) detailed some of the FER involvement in the process up to and including IR #1. The article entitled “FER gains Intervenor status for New Review of Kinder Morgan’s Proposed Pipeline Expansion” [13] provides further background to the Board of FER involvement. Since 2014, the Board of Friends of Ecological Reserves has submitted two Information Requests (IRs) to KM-TMX for clarification of information.

IR #1 was made in May of 2014 and IR #2 in January of 2015. These information requests and the KM-TMX responses, as well as our assessments on the adequacy of the responses, our motions to compel better answers and the KM-TMX final conclusion to our IRs, are included in Appendix B (IR #1) and Appendix C (IR #2) of this report. The tables in these appendices show the entire communications between FER and KM-TMX.

We felt it was important to file motions to compel KM-TMX to provide full and adequate responses to our initial information requests. We did not do that without considerable thought and a careful review of the NEB direction to guide intervenors on whether to file a motion. It is repeated here:

“When considering such a motion, the NEB looks at the relevance of the information sought, its significance and the reasonableness of the request. It seeks to balance these factors to ensure that the purposes of the Information Request process are satisfied, while ensuring that an Intervenor does not engage in a “fishing expedition” that could unfairly burden the Applicant.”

We were not on a “fishing expedition” but in need of greater clarity and transparency from KM-TMX to understand the marine component of this project and receive clarity on KM-TMX’s commitment towards long-term monitoring, habitat restoration and spill preparedness over the life of the project.

We came to the conclusion in IR #1 that none of the 33 questions we asked had been fully and completely answered. This need to file a motion to compel more information was not unique to the Board of FER and does not reflect well on KM-TMX. When requesting information in the form of a motion, we did provided a rationale to KM- TMX as to why we thought KM-TMX needed to provide follow-up information. Our motion and rationale was not compelling to KM-TMX as little new information resulted. We did get a standard answer for all the questions from KM-TMX which we repeat here.

”The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain’s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.”

During the process, we also noted that a high profile intervenor, Marc Eliesen submitted a letter and rationale for withdrew from the process. This received considerable press.[14] Eliesen cited process flaws such as the absence of cross-examination and NEB panel bias. We too wondered if the KM-TMX was engaged to a minimal level simply to keep the process going with the aim to provide as little information as needed and “run the clock down” to the end of the process since the procedural directions from NEB set hard deadlines. The Board of FER decided, after discussion, that it was better to follow the NEB process and meet the deadlines. We agree with Marc Eliesen on his reasons for leaving but we also noted that there was not a big exodus by other intervenors from the NEB process and we did not have the stature or profile of Marc to make a statement on a flawed process. Mr. Eliesen’s withdrawal did, however, cause the Board of FER to step back and reassess the time and effort we contributed as unpaid volunteers and whether or not we were legitimizing a flawed process. When discussing whether to withdraw, the Board of FER noted that our only alternative once outside the process was to make concerns known through public media press releases. As we would be cut off from NEB information and the information to make such concerns known, we reluctantly voted to stay in the process.

Our IR #2 was submitted in January of 2015 with 32 requests for additional information or clarification. This was the second and final opportunity to seek information directly from the KM-TMX. We had, since our first IR in May of 2014, learned that there was new relevant information from agencies such as new Killer whale research information and draft species recovery plans. (See Chapter 3, “A Case for Whales,” outlining some of the newest information from government scientists.) This information was not available and had not informed the KM-TMX consultants when KM-TMX filed their Marine reports in support of the application. IR #2 made it possible to make known more current information and test whether more recent information would or could influence the process. We did not, however, get any new commitment from KM-TMX in light of new and important information.

The Board of FER received a better response from KM-TMX to our IR #2 and we were satisfied with information KM-TMX provided on 12 of the 31 requests. The KM-TMX response to our motion linked to IR #2 was puzzling , however, as even with 12 requests that we had clearly indicated met the standard of an adequate response, the Board of FER got a standard “boiler plate” response from KM-TMX which is repeated here. This standard response was unnecessarily applied to 28 out of the 31 questions filed with the motion. It is repeated here. It only need to have been applied to 19 of our requests.

“In accordance with Board Ruling No. 33 (Filing ID A63066), Trans Mountain’s response provided sufficient information and detail for the Board in its consideration of the application and no further response is required.”
or

In accordance with Board Ruling No. 33 (Filing ID A63066), the request is for new information. Seeking more specific information or more details in the motion to compel full and adequate responses is essentially a request for new information and is not permitted under Ruling No. 33. Rather than seeking to compel a further answer, the Intervenor may file its own evidence in response or provide its views during final argument.”

Since we were satisfied with 12 of KM-TMX responses, we were uncertain why we needed to be informed that no further information was required as we had already agreed with the KM-TMX response. We wondered if anyone was reading and taking in the dialogue or simply cutting and pasting the same standard response. This was disappointing and calls into question the engagement level of KM-TMX.

We did review the TERMPOL report from the agencies of the Government of Canada which was submitted in late December, 2014. It was not possible to find time to submit IRs specific to TERMPOL to KM-TMX (we had not heard if we had PFP support to participate and that was an influencing factor). We are thankful, however, to intervenors who did find the time to submit questions, but share their frustrations with regard to the inadequacy of responses and their need to also file motions to attempt to compel full and adequate responses, as well as their need to assess the follow-up responses to their motions. Truly we wanted to ask questions of Federal agencies and not what KM-TMX may do in response to Federal Agency reports. This goes to the heart of what is a world class standard and that is set in governments standards and companies comply. There is accountability when there is adequate enforcement and consequences. Some of these pieces are missing and we had not chance to ask agencies on their role and future intent.

We hope that the NEB will provide to all intervenors and to KM-TMX a summary showing the total number of IRs made to KM-TMX and the percentage of responses where intervenors had their information requests answered and the total number of unresolved information requests where the intervenors disagreed with the responses, and KM-TMX self-assesses on their adequacy of information.

Since the Board of FER did not engage with the requests to KM-TMX specific to TERMPOL, we hoped that we dealt adequately with some of the issues in IR #2 (which we had prepared in January even without knowing whether we had PFP support).

We appreciate the need in this process for KM-TMX, NEB and intervenors to call a halt to the introduction of new information and the need to corral the best, most recent data available on which to make a determination on whether to issue a permit. Based on best available information then the NEB can issue a permit knowing, what conditions should be added to it.

We have been concerned that KM-TMX has relied significantly on out-of-date information and not engaged on how newer and better information will influence this project when it is available. We have included our IRs with this report, and for the record and for the benefit of KM-TMX, more recent and better information, so that KM-TMX would be aware of shifting knowledge. See the example of Killer Whale science which has evolved significantly and was appended to our IR #2. The willingness of KM-TMX to rely, in their application, on older and significantly out-dated information is of concern.

This reliance on older information by KM-TMX as “good enough,” re-enforces our belief that KM-TMX sees no role for itself in the longer-term and has little interest in learning how their practices can and should be amended to mitigate impacts. Needed is a process to continue to add better up-to-date knowledge and information on environmental values and environmental impacts to amend and improve tanker traffic management, spill recovery and restoration/mitigation understanding.

Over the course of the project, an approval sets the stage for a 30 year tanker export period possibly beyond the year 2046 (if approved in 2016). We want to make sure that during this period, learning and adapting operating procedures to minimize impacts to environmental resources is an on-going process and includes knowledge from organization like the FER so that continuation of our input is supported and used to shape incremental improvements in practices.

We have learned that KM-TMX is not interested in participating in acquiring knowledge in the marine environment nor being involved in incremental improvements to tanker traffic and risk reduction strategies. KM-TMX has stated, in their answers to IRs, that others such as WCMR Corporation (a subsidiary of KM that is financed by tanker owners insurance), the Coast Guard and Environment Canada will have sole responsibility once oil is in a tanker. KM-TMX sees itself as having no responsibility beyond the Westridge Terminal. The Board of FER disagrees with this view of no responsibility and no involvement in marine transport, and hopes the NEB also supports the need for long-term KM-TMX involvement and financial support toward environmental research and monitoring over the life of their project. We also trust that the NEB supports the need for incremental improvements in marine transportation safety as part of the KM oil export business and that Kinder Morgan must be given long-term responsibility to continually make incremental improvements.

At the end of the two rounds of IRs, the Board of FER continues to contest issues with KM-TMX and now rely on our final report to influence NEB. We have not re-iterated our rationale and logic as provided in information requests; instead we have used some of the in the text of this report IR. We encourage a brief review of Appendices B and C to better understand the grounds of the conditions proposed in Chapter 5.

We think that without such conditions, it will not be possible for the Government of Canada, the Province of BC, First Nations, local municipalities, and NGOs such as FER to engage and work with the proponent over the life of the project. We see real benefit and need for this type of dialogue transparent accountability and the way to form partnerships . There is a need for monitoring to provide best available information and establish a formal link in order in future to amend plans and operating procedures as needed safeguard environmental values and create a learning process that addresses the elements in the Oceans Act. This type of involvement and leadership from KM-TMX has been absent.

Based on our IR and general level of understanding gained from participating in the process, the Board of FER has concluded that KM-TMX has not adequately demonstrated how they will address the following:

Issue 4: cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project;

Issue #5: potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur;

Issue 11: contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions, during operation of the project.

Based on what has been provided, KM-TMX is not ready and also possibly more importantly, not willing to take sufficient responsibility and adequately prepare, or pro-actively support, baseline environmental monitoring, habitat restoration and mitigation planning; nor has KM-TMX been able to demonstrate preparedness and operating procedures commensurate with a risk of a spill taking into account marine environmental values. If KM-TMX will not willingly become involved in management of marine ecosystems, it should be denied a permit or compelled by the NEB to engage through permit conditions.

4.1.1 Broad Implications of the NEB

Process

We note that the National Energy Board is seeking input on a number of issues. The following sections outline some of the broader issues that have raised concern for the Board of FER. Perhaps these will help in this broader public review.

The Board of FER believes that the NEB terms of reference (TOR) were set too narrowly. We acknowledge that the NEB is provided TOR and must comply with these. This disclaimer is not aimed at the NEB, but with frustration that the process has been restricted from addressing the larger issues that a project of this magnitude is subjected to. Canada lacks a National Energy Strategy to address oil exports verses building Canadian oil refining capacity, review of taxation and subsidies across the energy section and non-carbon energy alternatives more suited to the 21st century challenges. We hope that private, for profit proposals such as the KM-TMX will, in future, be cast within a broader National Energy Policy which is inclusive of non-carbon sustainable energy options and includes measures on how to transition to these, should that be beneficial for the National Interest.

Within the current NEB process, there remains a lack of clarity on the KM corporate entities and the corporate restructuring that has taken place over the life of the project. The questions that have been raised in this process on whether KM has paid sufficient taxes in Canada have not been answered. Whether KM has or will pay sufficient taxes to offset the demands on Canadian-supported infra-structure that enable their private enterprise remain unclear. The NEB appears to have avoided such fundamental questions and these are beyond the expertise of the Board of FER, but they are not beyond our interest as we are Canadians and support infrastructure such as the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and provincial infra-structures such as BC Ministry of Environment Provincial Emergency Response programs through our taxes. The extent to which KM has been exempted has not been adequately addressed, yet appears to be within the TOR. It is unclear if there has been sufficient diligence in light of tax evasion and restructuring of KM so that the extent to which the Canadian KM operations are sheltered and the extent to which KM has deliberately reduced corporate liability in Canada in the event of a Canadian oil spill. Intervenor Robyn Allen raised many concerns within the process that were dismissed by NEB, but appeared to have substance and remain unaddressed. We note she has withdrawn (May 19th) and her rationale for doing so causes us concern on whether our involvement and recommendations will have any influence on the NEB outcome and shape the TMX project.

Questions were raised that this NEB process is a seriously flawed process as there is no opportunity for intervenors to cross examine the proponent. This level of imbalance caused excellent intervenors like Marc Eliesen to withdraw fairly early in the process. There is also no social license from most of the impacted communities in British Columbia such as Victoria, Vancouver and Burnaby. For example the City of Victoria conducted its own public forum specific to the KM-TMX project and found a 90 per cent disapproval rating.

It remains unclear, however, why some of the First Nations, Ditidaht, Scianew (Beecher Bay), Penelakut and Esquimalt FN sent letters part way through the process stating that they had no objections to the KM TMX project. We trust FN along the tanker route will participate and contribute their Traditional Knowledge in the process for spill preparedness planning. In the permit conditions we recommend, many are patterned after the Northern Gateway conditions and are inclusive of FNs.

Within this process there is also no opportunity for intervenors to ask questions of Canadian government agencies which have the legal responsibility for oil response and environmental monitoring. The authors of the (TERMPOL) are above questioning and intervenors could only direct questions to KM about TERMPOL. It appears that the government agencies are far from being well -coordinated with regard to environmental and emergency monitoring of marine systems. We are hopeful that the recent spill in Vancouver’s English Bay and the response shows how badly the national government agencies are prepared, even for a relatively minor spill. A major shift will be needed in federal agencies and we sincerely hope that the NEB can be the catalyst moving west coast spill preparedness to a significantly improved condition.

We know that the NEB panel did not set the terms of reference for the scope of the review. The Board of FER chose to participate in a process even though it was restricted in scope. We have a narrow interest in Ecological Reserves and only through participation could we hope to influence the outcome. ERs do not exist in isolation of the larger ecosystems and management systems, so their management and contribution needs to be integrated and complementary to other monitoring initiatives and programs. We have proposed such a larger framework into which ERs can be accommodated.

We trust that in the future that there will be a national energy strategy with clear policies on how to meet carbon emissions within set time limits as are needed to mitigate unfettered climate change. We trust that in the future the NEB will include alternate energy investments to counter subsidies to oil energy as being in the national interest. We hope in the short term for transparency and multi-agency cooperation in environmental monitoring and emergency oil spill preparedness.

If this project is approved, the Board of FER sees that the best possible outcome will be to have permit conditions that shift some of the responsibility for costs directly to the private for profit companies and their shareholders who, without this shift, will have no obligation to manage the environmental impacts brought on by their investments. When environmental risks and impacts are separated from corporate responsibility, that responsibility is given to the people of BC and Canada. It is necessary, in the public interest, to ensure the risk bringer bears their fair share of the responsibility as part of their investment, and not at the expense of others. In our participation in this process, we believe the NEB has shown a bias towards such private interests as KM and their shareholders against the interests of Canadians who will, in essence, have to take the risks and absorb the costs in deferrant to KM’s private interests. We trust the NEB will achieve a fairer balance and we will wait to the end of the process to evaluate that.

Finally, on private investments and shareholder interest, the Board of FER is not opposed to private initiative or investment. We have, however, found KM-TMX and their corporate culture unworthy of trust, as they have expressed little goodwill towards us during the IRs. We note a real contrast when we reviewed the voluntary obligations put forward by Enbridge during the Northern Gateway Process and an absence of these from KM-TMX. There is a need to shift responsibility for environmental management to KM-TMX.

Board of FER seeks from the NEB support for the establishment of an Endowment Fund at arms’ length from KM-TMX to provide funds to offset the additional workload of KM-TMX’s projects, rather than simply assuming that tax-payer supported institutions such as the governments of Canada and BC, and NGOs such as the FER who care for the environment, will pick up the environmental management costs. We believe that KM-TMX, with direction from the NEB, can become a corporation that is engaged with the environment management and will pay its way commensurate with the risk of its projects. Since KM-TMX appears to have no interest in BC ecosystems and no commitment to a process for incremental improvement of environmental management, nor an interest in multi-stakeholder inclusion and shared cooperative decision making, so we see that an arms’ length and independent monitoring body will be needed.

Lastly, British Columbians live in ecosystems that most of the KM shareholders have long since lost, so there is a lack of comprehension of the benefits and values that these relatively intact ecosystems provide to British Columbians. We do not accept that our future prosperity on the west coast is dependent on economic agreements that result in the type of degraded and impoverished natural environments which dominate most of North America.

5. Recommended Permit Conditions for KM-TMX project

Many of the permit conditions recommended for KM-TMX by the Board of FER are based on conditions applied to the Northern Gateway Project when approved on June 17, 2014. The 209 Enbridge permit conditions are listed in Appendix 1 on the NEB website.[15]

5.1 Endowment Fund to Support Long Term Marine Environmental Research and Monitoring

5.1.1 Condition 1. Establish a Marine Environmental Research and Monitoring Endowment Fund

Table 7: Recommended Permit Condition 1. Marine Environmental Research and Monitoring Endowment Fund

KM-TMX must file with the NEB at least 1 year prior to commencing operations documents that confirm the placement of Funds of at least $450,000,000 (four hundred and fifty million dollars) are in place for a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Endowment Fund (MREMEF). This endowment fund will support independent science-based information to meet conditions 2 through 12 and over time provide 9 million annually.This Endowment Fund will be a permanent and directed to conduct, maintain and extend monitoring, research and shore zone inventory information for as long as oil is being transported in the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca.KM-TMX must file with NEB at least 2 years prior to commencing operations the Marine Research and Endowment Fund documents that confirm the arrangements are in place to build this fund and steering committee members are chosen to representing the interests of:1)     FN2)     KM TMX,3)     DFO and Environment Canada,4)     BC Environment,5)     State of Washington6)     Environmental Non-Government Organizations (FER and Pacific Salmon Foundation),7)     Three additional people appointed by the Board

5.1.1.1       Rational

Condition 1 ensures that long term funding will be in place over the duration of KM- TMX project to address unresolved issues identified by NEB. KM-TMX provided no solution on how to gather credible information to address information on Issues 4, 5 and 11 and how to make incremental science-based improvements over life of the KM TMX project. This condition will enable that.

Not only were these issues not adequately addressed in the KM-TMX Environmental Assessment reports but these reports are not based on best available and current knowledge. The Board of FER provided more up-to-date information to KM TMX during IR 1 and IR 2 but this resulted in no shift in commitments or acknowledgement of how better information would influence practices in marine environments.

KM-TMX wants NEB to accept that they have adequately addressed environmental impacts based on limited and dated information and a one-time review. KM-TMX wants no involvement over the next 30+ years and is content to dis-engage from monitoring and research if permitted to do so and focus on their oil export business solely. This conclusion is based response by KM-TMX to IR#1- 22. The Board of FER asked:

“Do you plan to support financially the on-going costs of marine ecological monitoring in ERs and other contiguous sensitive areas?”

And KM TMX responded:

“Trans Mountain is responsible for ensuring the safety of the terminal operations but does not own or operate the vessels calling at the Westridge Marine Terminal and therefore has no plans to fund on-going monitoring in marine ecological reserves along the existing shipping route.”

Chapter 3 of this report provides an ER specific summary of what knowledge exists for each reserve and identified knowledge gaps. This type of information is needed to address pre- and post-oil spill understanding and provide information to clarify how to deal with information needs raised in issue # 4, #5 and #11 (see Table 1 for full issue statements).

  • “on potential cumulative environmental effects including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions potential;
  • potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions;
  • contingency planning for (an oil spill).

The Board of FER is content with KM-TMX being relegated to participant rather than a lead role in marine environmental management. We base this on KM-TMX lack of long term interest the environment and with observation that KM-TMX’s interest is restricted to getting in the short-term approval for their project with no long term marine related obligations. This indicates KM-TMX will not do an adequate job if left in charge in future of matters relating to environmental management. KM-TMX cannot simply be permitted to step away and leave for others to address the complex issues identified and unresolved in issues posed by NEB 4, 5 and 11. KM TMX must be made to provide funding and support infra-structure and participate with other agencies and groups more motivated to address issues of how best to manage environmental values in light of such risk.

 The Board of FER also maintains that there is a serious flaw in the NEB process if approval for 30+ year projects is based on information provided only at the start of the project. Such logic wrongly assumes it is possible to address cumulative impacts and best practices needed for the management of environmental values solely based on limited information and understanding of how to do that at the start of a long term project. It also assumes operational procedures and restoration plans will be credible if developed on current knowledge at a point in time at the start of a project and remain robust three decades hence. To make this point more clearly is there anyone in NEB who today believes there has been no new knowledge and advancements made on environmental management since in 1985 (30 years ago)? We hope not. There really is a need for on-going investment to do the research, monitoring and up-date plans and shore zone inventories through incremental improvements practices as understanding increases throughout the life of the KM-TMX project.

The Board of FER also sees that extension of credible information is needed to build public confidence. An active focused on-going independent research program structured to learn how best to effectively manage complex problems of cumulative impacts to marine ecosystems and their recovery and how to make incremental improvements seems to be reasonable conditions to apply to KM-TMX who bring the risk to BC and Washington waters.

We are encouraged that Enbridge showed leadership and recognized and proposed a need for on-going commitments and financial support (corporate obligations) to constructively learn how to improvement marine environmental management. We are pleased that the NEB made binding obligations for Enbridge through permit conditions in favour or enhanced environmental management and accumulation of environmental information gained through research and monitoring. However on closer scrutiny the Enbridge research conditions end within a few years and there is no obligation to extend research and learning over the duration of their project. This is puzzling as it implies that within a few years there is no need acquire additional knowledge on which to base incremental improvements and that within a few years we will know all there know on how best to mitigate project impacts. We cannot see an end to monitoring and research programs with sunset provisions that will end in less than five years. Hence we propose something more lasting as appropriate.

5.1.1.2 Endowment Board and Reporting Structure

When considering how to structure an arms-length and credible marine research and monitoring program that encourages cross government, industry and stakeholder holder cooperation we are encouraged by the example of the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund (HCTF).[16] HCTF is supported by a surcharge on hunting and fishing licensees. HCTF focuses on projects that maintain and enhance fish and wildlife habitats, improve fish and wildlife management and support recreational and conservation opportunities. It is managed by a stakeholder board with representation from government, NGO, industry and others knowledgeable in conservation science. The HCTF board is comprised of:

  • two people appointed from the Ministry of Environment,
  • two people appointed from the BC Wildlife Federation,
  • one person from the Guide Outfitters Association of BC,
  • One person from the Trappers Association, and
  • Four additional people appointed by the Board

HCTF staff evaluates projects and recommend those that best address the strategic goals of the organization to their board for approval. HCTF is arms-length but complementary to government management agency for fish and wildlife and accountable to the stakeholders. The HCTF budget is independent of government and solely supported by hunting and fishing licenses.

Figure 36 outlines a board of Trustees for the Endowment Fund for research and monitoring.

 

Figure 36: Endowment Reporting and Multi Stakeholder Board.

 

A Board of stakeholders and agencies representing the following interests.

  • First Nations,
  • DFO
  • Environment Canada,
  • BC government,
  • State of Washington,
  • KM-TMX,
  • ENGOs (FER and Pacific Salmon Foundation),
  • Four representative groups/individuals as appointed by the Board.

5.1.1.3 Endowment Fund Size

The civil settlement that followed the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill was for $US900 million. This was to oversee restoration of the injured ecosystems and to manage the funds for which the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council was created in order to have oversight and to make decisions on funding and restoration. After 25 years this council spends approximately $8 million annually on projects related to the understanding and reporting on recovery in Prince William Sound.[17] The 2015 Annual Funding Overview lists projects such as; Pigeon Guillemot Restoration, Herring and Validation of Acoustic Surveys, Long Term Monitoring (LTM Program) — Seabird Abundance in Fall & Winter etc. The Board of FER sees the need for a governance structure established in a pre-spill environment. Need for baselines study and pre-spill activities are provided in the rational with Condition 2.

The Endowment Fund proposed is for $450,000,000. This is needed to provide stable secure funding and assumes a two per cent return can be maintained in perpetuity to provide an annual Research and Monitoring Program budget of nine million dollars. Table 8 shows that by using a one per cent environmental fee on KM-TMX oil exports , this Endowment can be accrued in six to eight years and thereafter be self-sufficient.

In IR#2 -5 the Board of asked what the export volume from this project would be. (See Appendix C for full dialogue). The more oil that is exported and the greater the tanker traffic, the greater the risk to marine ecosystems and more would be needed in an Endowment.

KM TMX stated in response to IR#2-5.

“Please note that the design capacity of future Westridge Marine Terminal is 630,000 bbls/day, not 890,000 bbls/day as noted (in the Board of FER) preamble).”

However this contrasts with earlier KM-TMX statements to NEB in the Application for Pipeline Facilities Certificate for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, May 23, 2013 which state:

“In response to growing market demand and customer contractual commitments, Trans Mountain proposes to expand the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline System by 93,800 m3/d (590,000 bbl./d) from 47,690 m3/d (300,000 bbl./d) to 141,500 m3/d (890,000 bbl./d).”

The Board of FER is unsure of why there are two different production figures but suggest that a per-barrel environmental fee of one per cent be applied to all oil exports from Westridge. Table 8 shows the time needed to accrue an Endowment based on a one per cent per barrel environment fee.

Table 8: Time Estimated to Accrue an Environmental Endowment Fund on a 1% per Barrel Environmental Fee

Daily Capacity Daily 1% environmental fee $0.25/bbl Annual accumulated environmental fee $0.25 / bbl Years to build the Endowment To 450 million
630,000/day $157,500 $57.5 million 7.8
890,000/day $222,500 $80.1 million 5.7

An Endowment Fund is needed so that monitoring and research have a sufficiently certain funding base that can be maintained for over a prolonged period. Several of the conditions outlined by the Board of FER go beyond what the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council show in their Annual Funding Overview 2015. The Board of FER for example includes a Habitat Compensation Plan and up-dating of shore zone inventory and maintaining shore zone inventory in the public realm. The proposal for a nine million dollar annual program is in fact modest. What is important however is a pre-spill fund for work in a pre-spill period. Once there are spill insurance claims and response organizations are already in place.

After the Exxon Valdez there was a great deal of acrimony during the post spill environment as detailed by Hunt 2009 and a distinct focus on litigation.[18] From this example the Board of FER understands that working on science to support environmental baselines and understand spill recovery is prudent in the pre-spill period. The pre-spill period is the time to build baselines and understand recovery and habitat compensation options. The Alaskan programs were borne out of legal settlements and not as well conceived as would have been possible had there been work done in a pre-spill environment. This is an important lesson for BC and the NEB has an opportunity to learn from the Exxon Valdez experience. The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council notes that:

“the Long-Term Monitoring Program, also known as GulfWatch Alaska are administrated under five-year contracts, which include annual Council and Public Advisory Committee meetings to review the past-year’s results and future year’s requested funding. The current Council contemplates the Programs to be twenty-years in length, concluding in 2032.”

In other industries there are surcharges of between two per cent and ten per cent are being applied for example to as gas sales and paint and bottle recycling to cover and manage impacts and support environmental management responsibilities. An Endowment can be built through a one per cent environmental surcharge ( $ 0.25 per barrel) that would be set aside for Trustee management. Oil price net[19] forecasts the price for a barrel of oil at approximately $70 for the coming year.

It is understood that in the past NEB worked with KM-TMX to structure accounts to enable KM-TMX to finance the back-ground reports in support of their application and that this arrangement provided $146 million in a manner acceptable to KM-TMX and the NEB. The Board of FER is not aware of the details but heartened that funds of this magnitude were jointly agreed to between NEB and KM-TMX. The concept behind an Endowment is once established it is independent and able to manage projects and infra-structure through investments of capital and maintain the program on returns on investments.

Periodically pre-spill findings need to be incorporated into operational practices so there needs to be a system in place to supply sound research and monitoring information to make incremental improvements over the next 30+years. The monitoring research framework needs government, First Nations, industry and NGO guidance and Trustee oversight for accountability. The Trustees also needs to remain independent sufficient independent to not be captured by any single organization. Researchers, from government, universities, private sector and NGOs can apply for access funds through proposals that address strategic research goals.

Since a majority of British Columbians live within 50 km of the Salish Sea oil tanker route and environmental values in these waters are Nationally significant and the zone currently identified by Tanker Safety Panel 2013 is the highest risk oil spill zone in western Canada this warrants a higher level of commitment to environmental management than currently is present and envisaged by KM-TMX. This is especially true as there would be a 360%+ increase in oil tanker traffic.

There is an absence of a multi-stake holder multi-agency industry FN forum able foster cross agency cooperation and build strong long-term working relationships. The proposed Endowment Trustees would help foster such collaboration. A coast wide research and monitoring program with funds outside of agencies will help to coordinate efforts as provincial, federal agencies, FN, industry and ENGOs are involved collectively to set strategic program direction and set research and monitoring priorities. This is not happening now so there is an expectation of synergy and efficiency expected through an established Endowment and Trustee Council.

There are a number of agencies provincial and Federal as well as private and NGOs that are currently doing monitoring. For example there are whale watch tour operators who keep logs on where and when sightings are made, Christmas Bird Counts,[20] surveys of Important Bird Areas, migratory bird census, Wild whales sighting network[21] Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team.[22] Marine Water Quality Monitoring[23] Marine health[24] Fisheries monitoring[25] etc. A review of existing government, industry and NGOs monitoring will help define what is currently in place for marine ecosystems. The BC government reviewed its monitoring initiatives to look for synergies and opportunities for cooperation between the 50+ monitoring programs (Fenger and Bradford 2012).

5.2 Program for Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

5.2.1

Condition 2. Establish a Long-Term Program for Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

Table 9: Recommended Permit Condition 2. Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

KM-TMX will support a Marine Research and Monitoring Endowment Fund as outlined in Condition 1. This fund will be used to support a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program(MREMP) that will conduct and report on:1)     Pre-spill monitoring of marine species and ecosystem indicators over the life of the KM-TMX project. This Long Term Ecological Effect Monitoring portion of MREMP will conduct periodic surveys to standardized protocols, retain and make available data over the long term to the public and government agencies.2)     Model oil spill and tanker drift as outlined in Conditions 5 and 9.3)     Research leading to a Habitat Compensation Plan, see Condition 6.4)     Research to inform Oil Spill Response Plan from increased tanker traffic and potential for species and ecosystems recovery from Dilbit oil spill impacts (toxicology) and ecosystem resilience recovery, see Condition 7.5)     Research to improve marine mammal protection, related to tanker speed, drift and weather, see Condition 9.6)    Participate and inform the Oil Spill Response Plan as developed and periodically updated, see Condition 10.7)    Other activities related to pre- and post-spill monitoring, plans and operational procedure up-dates needed to mitigate and recover ecosystems as needed.

5.2.2            Condition 3. Filing Progress on Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

Table 10: Recommended Permit Condition 3. Filing Progress on Environmental Monitoring

Kinder Morgan TMX must file with the NEB for approval, within 1 year after the certificate date information and recommendations from the MREMP and Endowment Trustee endorsement of the following :1.     A list of species or species groups, habitat parameters, and environmental parameters to be surveyed, including for species at risk, data standards and data management and access.2.     The survey methods that will be used for the species (including species at risk) and species groups, habitat parameters, and environmental parameters to be surveyed and the survey/monitoring locations and frequency.3.     A summary of the outcomes of collaboration with stakeholder groups represented by Endowment Trustees: participating Aboriginal groups, research organizations, and public stakeholder groups on the survey framework; and areas of agreement and delegation between KM and other groups.4.     A description of the ESSC recommendations in developing the survey/monitoring5.     Letters of support from environmental groups and others who have reviewed the surveys.

5.2.3           Condition4.
Reporting on Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

Table 11: Recommended Permit Condition 4. Reporting on Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

1.     KM-TMX must file with the NEB, within Quarterly activities completed for each of the Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program (MREMP) surveys and reports whether done by KM-TMX consultants or surveys delegated to other NGOs or FNs, the survey results and evidence that data and survey results have been provided to the appropriate federal and provincial authorities.2.     KM-TMX must file with the NEB, and make available to the public on or before 31 January of each year for the duration of the Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program, the following:a.     Monitoring results, trends stemming from survey/monitoring results and how those will be incorporated into the program or, if no further monitoring is planned for certain species or species groups, habitat parameters, or environmental parameters, a rationale and agreement of the ESSCb.     A summary of the outcomes of KM-TMX collaboration with relevant government authorities, participating Aboriginal groups, research organizations, and public stakeholder groups on the monitoring plansc.     A description of how KM-TMX has taken available and applicable NGO, ATK and TLU studies into consideration in developing the monitoring.3.     Implications and assessment of information from surveys/monitoring on tanker traffic whether trends indicate a need to review and change operating procedures or other measures to change undesirable effects linked to the project.4.     Statements from agencies, FN and others on interpretation of operating implications for tankers in general and KM related tankers specifically.

5.2.4            Rational for a Long Term Independent Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

FER recommends to the NEB, if this project is approved, that conditions be applied to the KM-TMX permit to compel support and maintenance of a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program (MREMP) over the life of their project.

From the IRs we conclude that KM has no interest or believes they have no obligation to support or collaborate with research and monitoring.

This permit condition would require KM-TMX to financially support and participate with others in a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program. We propose permits condition similar to those applied to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. There is a precedence set by the NEB for a research and monitoring. There are stronger reasons to support a similar or enhanced program in the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan De Fuca due to the much higher population density, greater concentration of shipping (risk of accidents) and the higher concentration of environmental values linked to the Fraser River Estuary and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Northern Enbridge permit conditions 36, 37 and 38 contain a significant level of detail and thought on which help craft the proposed Conditions for KM-TMX. The same acronym used by for this program has not been used here to avoid future potential confusion. Northern Gateway used the term Environmental Effects whereas this report refers more simply to a similar concept but used the Environmental Monitoring.

5.2.5 Insights from IRs on Environmental Monitoring

Table 12 shows the exchange of information between FER and KM-TMX. KM-TMX shows no interest in support for a long term environmental monitoring program The Board of FER contests the response provided by KM-TMX that it has no role or financial responsibility for research and long-term ecological monitoring. The Board of FER sees the need for KM-TMX to be compelled to fund and participate in a marine research and monitoring in order to gain knowledge and help others gain knowledge to minimize and mitigate impacts of their project. This is entirely missing from the KM-TMX dialogue and KM-TMX sees “others” as responsible and will take no responsibility for or involvement for research and monitoring. This would be an off load to volunteers and Provincial and Federal agencies and tax payers solely. We contend that it is a corporate responsibility and that local organizations like FER who work with BC Parks, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and others should not provide a free ride for KM-TMX. We see that environmental management is and needs to be a cost of doing business for KM-TMX. We are also encouraged because the NEB in the list of issues does extends KM-TMX responsibility to the marine shipping and the preparation in the pre-spill period. KM-TMX is comfortable with waiting for a spill knowing that there are provisions and no liability or responsibility to themselves at that point in time.

There are precedents on environmental surcharges for recycling and environmental surcharges on hazardous materials like paint and the costs of recycling is passed on to consumers. The cost of adequate marine research and environmental management also needs to be passed on to KM-TMX and their investors so it is not entirely borne by the general public on behalf of KM-TMX and their shareholders.

This off-loading of both environmental management cost and all KM-TMX responsibilities is also unacceptable as long-term ecological monitoring is central to accumulating information to address NEB’s list of issues. Specifically relevant is Issue # 4: potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project, and Issue 5: potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the proposed Project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur.

Table 12: Does KM-TMX Plan to Support Marine Ecological Monitoring?

IR # IR Wording Trans Mountain’s response to IR
IR#1-22 Do you plan to support financially the on-going costs of marine ecological monitoring in ERs and other contiguous sensitive areas? Trans Mountain is responsible for ensuring the safety of the terminal operations but does not own or operate the vessels calling at the Westridge Marine Terminal and therefore has no plans to fund on-going monitoring in marine ecological reserves along the existing shipping route.
IR#1-22 Intervenor’s Explanation for Claiming IR Response to be Inadequate
This is not an adequate response.   We question this response for two reasons.First. Though KM does not own tankers, its responsibility should not end at their terminal. This transfer of risk to tanker operators with no further involvement from KM or responsibility is not justifiable. As stated earlier KM brings a 400% increase in tanker traffic into a high oil spill risk zone. We do not support KM in its answer when it chooses to absolve itself entirely from marine traffic responsibilities. There is a great deal that KM can do with regard to contracts for oil transport from its terminal if it chooses to do so. KM does have a role and in light of the risk of their business venture, this involvement needs to be substantial, formal, transparent and binding with “contracted tankers”. KM does have influence in who it hires and whether they perform to standards that can be set and audited by KM.Our second reason to question the rationale that KM proposes to not support marine monitoring is that KM appears to already be doing just that – monitoring marine systems. After the 2012 spill into Burrard Inlet a long term monitoring program was begun as the KM TMX report on Risk Assessment of spills in . Section 6.2.4 Page 7-85 which states“as a result of the third-party damage to the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, approximately 100m3of heavy crude oil reached Burrard Inlet, of which approximately 5.6 m3 was not recovered. The spill affected 15 km of shoreline east of Second Narrows,”We are not sure if this spill which is described as heavy crude behaves the same way in a marine environment as Dilbit. KM summarizes what they learned with regard to mortality as a result of the oil release and remediation as follows,“this area experienced habitat loss and death or removal of marine plants (primarily Fucus) as well as a likely loss of intertidal fauna such as starfish, barnacles and limpets. An analysis of mussels collected throughout the eastern part of the inlet indicated that only in the Westridge Marine Terminal area was there an amount and distribution pattern (fingerprint) of PAHs that could be associated with the release. Subtidal organisms may also have been affected by the release, but these effects appear to have been limited and localized. Red rock crabs from the Westridge area showed elevated PAH levels and a similar pattern of PAH to the released oil. However, none of the Dungeness crabs sampled at Westridge or crabs of either species from Barnet Marine Park and Berry Point and elsewhere in the Inlet (Indian Arm and Port Moody Arm) showed evidence of having taken up oil from the release. There was no evidence for direct effects on fin-fish species, including resident and juvenile salmon. PAH were not detected in starry flounder collected from Westridge and Barnet Marine Park. PAH were not detected in starry flounder collected from Westridge and Barnet Marine Park. Following clean up, recovery endpoints were established and a long-term monitoring program was initiated. As of 2012, recovery endpoints for water quality, intertidal sediment, intertidal vegetation and crab tissue PAH concentrations were achieved. Monitoring of mussel tissue PAH concentrations continues in the Westridge area, as results are confounded by additional PAH sources in this area. Potential acute and chronic ecological effects of a hypothetical spill to Burrard Inlet during tanker loading at the Westridge Marine Terminal are discussed in Section 8.3.”We conclude that KM acknowledges the benefits of learning from oil spills and are willing to monitor to do this. This is exactly FER’s point on marine shore zone and indicator monitoring. What does not make sense in the KM response is that they will wait until after a spill has occurred before beginning any marine monitoring. This means that this type of monitoring will be inconclusive with regard to impacts as they have already occurred. What FER is seeking is support from the NEB to compel KM to help organizations like FER establish pre-spill conditions. The current post-spill approach is not defensible with regard to learning anything about big or small spills into the marine environment. Since KM is proud of their monitoring strategy, it is of interest to the public that they supply what is being monitored in this new program and what their financial contributions are towards this and who the principal researchers are that are leading this initiative.We commend this initiative but know setting up monitoring after a spill has occurred, is inadequate as there is no pre-spill baseline information. Apparently recovery targets are part of this new monitoring program. KM needs to share this information. We hope in the long term that NEB will compel KM to take responsibility for the risk they bring and enable a formal arrangement to allow organizations like FER to work with KM to establish world class environmental standards grounded in environmental baselines established before, not after a spill occurs. We believe that it is defensible scientifically and socially to be pro-active with regard to monitoring baselines rather than re-active on monitoring. We know that organizations like FER can and should play a major role once afforded the infrastructure to do so. This infrastructure and formal arrangements are in the public interest and can be facilitated by NEB. We look forward to the day when this will be the new business model.
IR#1-22 Trans Mountain’s response to Motion
The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain’s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.

In Table 12 we point out that KM-TMX is doing post-oil spill monitoring and are proud of their monitoring strategy. It is of interest to the public that they supply:

  • What is being monitoring in this new program.
  • What their financial contribution towards this is.
  • Who the principle researchers leading this initiative.

The point is that KM-TMX is doing monitoring but not supporting any pre-spill monitoring. We asked a similar but related question in IR#1-23 aimed at post spill monitoring. It is repeated in Table 13 below. We provide a rationale why post spill monitoring in itself is not adequate.

Table 13: Ecological Monitoring and Recovery of Ecological Reserves Post Oil Spills

IR # IR Wording Trans Mountain’s response to IR
IR#1-23 Can you provide an estimate for thorough ecological monitoring of ERs through a recovery period? Trans Mountain assumes FER is referring to recovery period after an oil spill in a marine environment. Long-term remediation of spill impacts is linked to monitoring plans agreed upon within the spill Incident Command structure and between participating entities in the response, including government authorities, Aboriginal communities, and scientific advisors. Those situation-specific plans are developed after emergency actions have been completed and take into account the actual post-emergency conditions, documented clean-up effectiveness, remaining areas affected, environmental and seasonal sensitivities, net environmental benefit analysis of remediation efforts, and numerous other considerations. As the emergency phase concludes, the net environmental benefit analysis could specify the need for remediation, followed by long-term monitoring. Each spill situation will be unique in this respect. Given the many variables and uncertainties surrounding any particular incident, there is no credible way of defining an expected monitoring time frame or cost at this time.
Intervenor’s Explanation for Claiming IR Response to be Inadequate
IR#1-23 This is an inadequate answer. This approach to an oil spill is reactive. It should not be acceptable to the NEB to allow an oil spill response to wait until after an oil spill incident. This wait and see may be expedient for KM but inadequate. Societally we do not approach fighting house fires in this manner, if we did we would wait for the fire to start and then begin to plan to assemble resources to fight the fire. Why is it acceptable to begin to plan to address an oil spill after it happens? This is not reassuring to safeguarding public resources. It will be cost effective to have a strategic plan in place to address a number of oil spill scenarios. KM does bear responsibility for formulating much of this oil response plans together with government agencies. KM appears to hold the belief that once their oil is on the tanker they are no longer involved.FER also knows that there is a need to identify resource values in order to deploy oil spill response to most effectively address values and mitigate impacts.The oil spill that occurred into Burrard Inlet in 2012 and mentioned in IR 22 does include long term monitoring but the approach is to establish the baseline after the spill has occurred. This reactive approach of making up the environmental baseline after the fact cannot be supported. Situation-specific plans are fundamental inputs needed to pre-determine where oil spill resources are needed and how to prioritize where to deploy resources. Any oil spill is really an adaptive management experiment from which we can learn if we are sufficiently prepared. We do not see any learning and any outcomes that will boost public knowledge coming from what is being proposed.
IR#1-23 Trans Mountain’s response to Motion
The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain’s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.

Enbridge developed and volunteered to do marine environmental effects monitoring during the course of the hearings and the NEB did take this voluntary commitment and shift it to a binding permit condition. KM-TMX during the review process, has volunteered nothing towards marine environmental effects monitoring or impacts research. This makes it necessary for NEB to compel a level of commitment onto KM-TMX.

The Enbridge Marine 2015 working draft of their Marine Environmental Effects monitoring program (MEEP) can be found at http://www.gatewayfacts.ca/~/media/GatewayFacts/documents/engagement/Marine_EEMP_WorkingDraft_10April2015.pdf?la=en.

5.2.6 Lessons on Pre-Spill Monitoring From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Robert B. Spies the key note speaker in the 1993 Symposium held four years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill titled his talk Why Can’t Science Tell Us More about the Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill? (http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/A/31970650.pdf). He goes on to answer his own question. Here are some excerpts on what was learned in the four years after the spill and regrets over lack of basic and relatively in expensive information. (underlining emphasis added by FER).

there was virtually no information on the status of the intertidal and subtidal communities in Prince William Sound”

“Because of the great variability in populations from place to place and at different times, scientists aim to have enough pre-impact data in a variety of areas and in enough years to be able to understand how populations change naturally. This allows a comparison of pre-impact population data to post impact population data in both affected and non-affected areas”.

This is a significant statement that places importance of sustained ecosystem and species baselines distributed along the tanker route and maintained over many years and this type of data is hugely beneficial in a post spill environment. He goes on to state: (underling emphasis added by FER).

The consequences of being un-prepared seem to be greater costs and greater uncertainty about the injured resources, their recovery and need for restoration. What should we be doing now in order to be better prepared to assess damages resulting from the next oil spill? The answer seems clear in retrospect – on-going monitoring programs collecting data on intertidal and subtidal zones, annual counts of sea otters, eagles, murres and gathering more information on toxicology of common species. A basic and relatively inexpressive monitoring program carried out over many years might tell enough …to get better injury information at lower cost. In the process we would also learn more about the natural resources we are trying to protect.

These statements of regret from senior government staff reviewing the Exxon spill, strengthens the rationale the Board of FER is putting to the NEB to begin a relatively inexpensive environmental monitoring program as a KM-TMX permit condition. Such a monitoring program can deliver three things:

  • we learn more about the environment we are trying to protect;
  • we will lay the foundation for damage assessment; and
  • we will develop creditable baseline data over the life of the project and against which to measure recovery.

Spies 1993 aptly notes there was very poor understanding of the many species and the natural fluctuation of populations in species in ecosystems and between years due to an absence of the baseline monitoring in Prince William Sound. After 25 years it is believed that some species like sea otter populations have recovered to pre-spill levels while species such as herring, crabs and salmon apparently have not. Had there been reasonable pre-spill monitoring in place, we would now know with much greater certainty just which species and what ecosystem elements of Prince William Sound have recovered and which remain at reduced levels and productivity. This is important in light of planning marine ecosystem restoration and recovery initiatives. Marine ecosystems and species vary naturally and a long-term monitoring program would establish elements of the range of natural variability against which to measure impacts and recovery. We believe that impacts to commonly shared resources need to be made known to those who not only enjoy the natural environment but to those who depend on it for their livelihood.

5.3 Boundaries for a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

5.3.1 Condition 5. Boundaries for a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program

Table 14: Recommended Permit Condition 5 . Boundaries of a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Area

KM-TMX must establish a Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program with boundaries coincident with the high risk spill area identified in the Oil Tanker Safety Panel 2013 report for the West Coast of Canada and shown in the map below.This boundary can be refined based on enhanced marine spill trajectory and fate modelling (Condition 6)

 

5.3.2

Rational

KM-TMX when applying for the permit, KM-TMX set the boundaries of their Regional Study Areas (RSA) boundary to focus their impacts studies. The Board of FER contests the size of the Regional Study Area (RSA). KM-TMX modelled hypothetical spills at three locations within the RSA boundaries and simulations show that oil will be distributed along the shore zones beyond the RSA both on the West Coast and in the Salish Sea. Figure 37 shows the modeling simulations used for the release site in the Strait of Georgia between Active Pass and Point Roberts. Figure 38 shows the modelling simulation from the release site near Race Rocks ER. Both figures show shore lines oiled outside of the RSA. Restricting the RSA meant that a number of ERs were not identified though they are at risk in the event of an oil spill. The Hypothetical release sites are also well within the RSA and no release sites were modelled for the western exit of tankers or closer to Vancouver. The need for additional spill modelling is discussed in Condition 6 which addresses the need for enhanced marine spill trajectory and fate modelling.

Figure 37: Probability of Shore to be Oiled Strait of Georgia Spill – Winter Spill Simulation

This worse case simulation shows that at the end of 15 day simulation it is predicted that oil will extend outside of the RSA (dark dashed line). This Figure is included to support the recommendation to establish and maintain pre-spill monitoring sites outside of the RSA.

Figure 38: Probability of Oil Spill at Race Rocks Reaching West Coast of Vancouver Island.

The Credible Worse Case oil spill simulation (modelled for release of 15 per cent of an Aframax tank or 16,500 tons). This simulation predicts that after two weeks 66 per cent of the oil spilled would reach the areas shown on the map (2.6 million gallons) and 4 per cent remain on the water the rest would evaporate of biodegrade. Most of the oil would reach the shore within 4 to 8 days. This simulation was from a hypothetical spill and release site was the Race Rocks ER. It is included as there is a high probability of oil occurrence along the west coast of Vancouver Island outside the RSA boundary. This map is from the KM-TMX spill simulations and did not have a RSA boundary shown. See previous Figure for the RSA boundary.

5.3.3            Insights from IRs on Regional Study Area Boundaries used by KM-TMX Project

IR#1-2 is shown in Table 15 (the entire dialogue is in Appendix B). As shown in Table 14, KM-TMX generated a new map showing ERs outside of the RSA boundary but made no commitment or acknowledgement that the projects has impacts beyond the RSA. Table 15 allows a comparison of Regional Study Areas (RSA) and High Risk Spill Area identified by the Tanker Panel.

Table 15: Which Ecological Reserves are Potentially Impacted by an Oil Spill?

IR # IR Wording Trans Mountain’s response to IR
IR#1-2. Can KM demonstrate that it knows the location of all 17 ERs by amending their project maps to include all potentially impacted ERs? Tanker Safety Panel Map of High Spill Risk www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tankersafetyexpertpanel/menu.htm GIS data sources used to identify the biological resources and protected habitats within the Regional Study Area (RSA) are presented in Table 4.4 of Technical Report 8B-7 of Volume 8B Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Transportation Spills Technical Report (Stantec Consulting Ltd. December 2013). The data identifying Ecological Reserves is publically available, and was provided by DataBC (2011); the website for DataBC access is provided in the attachment to this request. A figure showing the location of each of the Ecological Reserves listed in Table 1(DataBC 2011) is provided in the response to FER IR No. 1.01.01 (FER IR No. 1.01.01- Attachment 1).Reference: DataBC. 2011. BC Parks, Ecological Reserves, and Protected Areas. Website:http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/catalogue/detail.page?config =dbc&P110=recorduid:173844&recorduid=173844&title=BC Parks . Accessed May 2014
2 Intervenor’s Explanation for Claiming IR Response to be Inadequate
This is not an adequate response. Table 4.4 does represent biological data sources but this is only half the information needed to define the Regional Study Area Boundary. The other half is based on risk to marine resources. The KM Marine consultants did identify risk from this project in Table 3.2 in their report but limited this to “vessel wake and underwater noise and omitted oil spills”. MARINE CONSULTANT V8B_TR_8B1_MAR_RESOURCE_-_A3S4J5.pdf.The Regional Study Area (RSA) is inadequate to address oil spill impacts, as it is too small. Compare the RSA chosen by KM against that high oil spill risk zone identified by the Tanker Safety Panel cited above. As noted, the oil spill simulations also expand beyond the RSA boundaries. www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tankersafetyexpertpanel/ menu.htmMore work is needed to address the resources at risk from the anticipated 400% increase in tanker traffic linked to this project and the much larger area that is affected. Though there is a new map including all ERs in the high risk zone, these ERs remain outside the KM Regional Study Area. We support and hope the NEB will compel an expansion of a Regional Study Area to include all shore zones identified in the oil spill simulations and at high risk from oil spill identified by the Tanker Safety Panel.
Trans Mountain’s Response to Motion
The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain’s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.

 

We acknowledge that KM has no intention to redo or redefine the RSA at this stage in their permit application. As stated in their response to the FER motion, KM-TMX believes the NEB has enough information to make a decision. In the event that this project is approved, FER sees a need for a condition so that, in future, a monitoring framework and research includes all shoreline potentially impacted and not continue to restrict monitoring and research to the RSA boundary chosen by KM_TMX.

5.4 Enhanced Marine Spill Trajectory and Fate Modelling

5.4.1 Condition 6.

Enhanced Marine Spill Trajectory and Fate Modelling

Table 16: Recommended Permit Condition 6. Enhanced Marine Spill Trajectory and Fate Modelling (based on Northern Gateway Enbridge permit condition # 169)

KM-TMX must file with the NEB for approval, at least 3 years prior to commencing operations, a plan to prepare enhanced marine spill trajectory and fate modelling for the Westridge Terminal and marine tanker traffic from the terminal.Enhanced spill modelling is needed as part of the MREMP and is needed to inform the Boundary adjustments for MREMP program (Condition 5), Habitat Compensation Plans (Condition 7), Marine Research Program (Condition 10), and Oil Spill Response Plan (Condition 11).The plan must be coordinated with the MREMP and include:1.     A summary of KM-TMX consultation with Environment Canada regarding the scope of work to be undertaken. This summary must include issues or concerns raised regarding the scope of work and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;2.     A summary of KM-TMX consultation with the State of Washington regarding the scope of work to be undertaken. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised regarding the scope of work and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;3.     A summary of KM-TMX consultations with the stakeholders regarding the scope of the work undertaken. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised regarding the scope of work and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;4.     The membership of a Scientific Marine Modeling Committee and its Terms of Reference;5.     A schedule for completing the work and confirmation that it will be completed prior to commencing operations and in sufficient time to inform oil spill preparedness and monitoring programs;6.     The scenarios to be modelled, at minimum, must include Credible Worse Case (CWC) scenarios that define a Credible Worse Case Scenario on par with that used in the State of Washington (entire vessel cargo with a cap of 35,632t) with spill locations included in TMX modelling work (Race Rocks, Strait of Georgia, and Archane Reef) and with at least three additional locations: Oak Bay Islands, Spanish Banks, and J Buoy (Juan du Fuca entrance).7.     How the models will be used to inform decision-making during spill preparedness planning and response exercises and actual spill events.8.     Communicate and make available to stakeholders and the public the plans submitted to the NEB.9.     Clarification of how KM-TMX will include the following in its enhanced modelling:

a)     stochastic calculations and visual representations;

b)     how the model will be adapted to different physical and chemical characteristics of the oil that is intended to be shipped from the Westridge Terminal, with particular reference to density, viscosity, emulsion formation, adhesion properties, and evaporation rates;

c)     oil remobilization from the shorelines due to tidal or other influences, such as varying adhesion properties of the oil intended to be shipped from the Westridge Terminal, and oil retention times;

d)     submerged or entrained oil resurfacing;

e)     potential for oil to sink based on weathering and adhesion to sediment;

f)      how weathering and trajectory models will be integrated to provide an accurate representation of the potential fate of oil within the environment;

g)     how the models will be adaptable to any time of the year and to varying meteorological and hydrological conditions.

5.4.2            Rationale for Better Credible Worse Case Scenario

The computer simulations modelled numerous seasonal scenarios at three hypothetical release points: 1) Strait of Georgia (near the BC Ferry crossing Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay); 2) Archane Reef (near Swartz Bay); and 3) Race Rocks west of Victoria. Two different levels of hypothetical release were modelled. FER remains concerned with the Credible Worse Case Scenario (CWCS) that assumes only 14 per cent of an Aframax tankers capacity (16,500 T) would ever be spilled if there were a marine oil tanker accident. The extent of oil shores using this CWCS of 16,500 T is shown in Figures 37 and 38. The Board of FER remains concerned with size of spill used as the Credible Worse Case Scenario. FER is supported in our concern by the definition of CWCS set to total loss as modelling and planning assumption for a CWCS Nuka 2013 Vol. 3 page 35[26] (emphasis provided by FER).

But to accurately assess response capacity, it is also critical to have a clear understanding of worst-case spill risks (OGP, 2011). The “worst-case” should consider not only the total loss of fuel from a vessel, but also weather conditions, location, and the maximum quantity that could potentially be spilled from the cargo and fuel tanks of a vessel or shore based storage facility. But the timing of spill response is just as critical as the quantity of equipment, because the opportunity to contain and recover a marine oil spill diminishes quickly over the first few hours and days.

Another indicator that the KM-TMX spill simulations understates is the volume of oil that could be spilled compared to the CWC scenarios used by the US government and in effect in the State of Washington. The differences are shown in Nuka 2013 Vol. 3, Table 4.1 entitled Response planning standards in Canada, US, Washington, and Alaska. This table shows that the spill modelling and preparedness is based on the entire cargo being released but there is a cap set at 35,632 Ts. This amount of oil modelled for spill preparedness is more than double what was modelled by KM-TMX. To their credit KM-TMX did exceed the Canadian on-scene standard which Nuka indicates is 10,000Ts.

FER recommends a permit condition to include Worse Case Spill Modelling for KM-TMX and WCMRC be applied to KM-TMX to achieve parity of that used by the State of Washington. The tanker route is water shared between Canada and the US, so it is prudent for future cooperation that Canada be able to bring to the table modelling that will be needed to integrate with Washington State.

Table 17: Shows IR#2-6 Questioning the Definition of CWC

IR # IR Wording Trans Mountain’s response to IR
IR#2-6 Please clarify why the “credible worst case scenario” (CWC) modelled and referenced above assumes that only a relatively low percent of a medium size tanker capacity is spilled and provide equivalent modelling for informed risk management, using future potentials as has been done in the research from George Washington University, 2013. Context: In the VTRA 20Int 10 – SYNOPSIS OF RMM SCENARIO COMPARISON APPLIED TO CASE T: GW– KM – DP ( George Washington University, 2013),http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~dorpjr/VTRA/PSP/CASES/VT RA%202010%20Master%20Co mparison%20-%20T%20-%20RMM.pdf . A completely different set of models is presented because they do not follow from historical data but rather consider 2010 as the base Case year and a base case year is evaluated. Following that, What-if scenarios are developed from the base case by adding additional hypothetical traffic (upcoming if major vessel transport projects go ahead) and a “What-if” potential is evaluated and compared relative to the base case to inform risk management. The identification of credible worst case scenario follows direction from the NEB’s “Filing Requirements Related to the Potential Environmental and Socio-economic Effects of Increased Marine Shipping Activities, Trans Mountain Expansion Project” (Filing ID A3V6I2).[27] Please see Volume 8C, Termpol 3.15, Section 9 (Filing ID A3S5F8)[28] for more information on the credible worst case scenario. Robyn Allan, 28 May 2014, TheTyee.ca Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion Designed to Carry Much More Oil Trans Mountain would be built with room to largely increase expt capacity.
Intervenor’s Explanation for Claiming IR Response to be Inadequate
IR#2-6 This is not an adequate answer. Concern: Two references provided do not mention CWC scenario.We re-read the Hearing process order referenced in the answer (footnote 6). We find no reference to tanker capacity or limits on modelling credible worse case scenarios in the filing order. We are unclear where or who defined the size of the spill for the CWC scenario. It is implied that KM-TMX was directed by the NEB but that direction has not been provided. Where NEB has determined that a CWCS is 15 per cent of an Aframax tanker’s capacity?It is unclear whether the NEB could advise a risk strategy given the Ocean Act direction (End Note ii)We remain unclear about the size and number of tanks and capacity of the project. This concern is heightened by the article in footnote[29]The second reference (footnote 7) provides no mention of CWC scenario. It is a summary of observation and photos made by an observer on a passage of an out- bound laden Greek tanker. The reference appears to bear no relevance to the request.
Trans Mountain’s Response to Motion
IR#2-6 In accordance with Board Ruling No. 33 (Filing ID A63066), Trans Mountain’s response provided sufficient information and detail for the Board in its consideration of the application and no further response is required.There was an error in one of the NEB ID links. Please note that the corrected section of our IR round 2 response should read: The identification of credible worst case scenario follows direction from the NEB’s “Filing Requirements Related to the Potential Environmental and Socio- economic Effects of Increased Marine Shipping Activities, Trans Mountain Expansion Project” (Filing ID A3V6I2). Please see Volume 8C, Termpol 3.15, Section 9 (Filing ID A3S5F6) for more information on the credible worst case scenario.

5.4.3            Hypothetical Oil Spill Release Points

Three release points were modelled Strait of Georgia (near the BC Ferry crossing Tsawwassen – Swartz Bay), Archane Reef (near Swartz Bay) and Race Rocks west of Victoria. FER sought additional spill modelling through IR#2-8. Understanding and developing world class spill preparedness for a worst case scenario off Oak Bay Islands will be needed.

Though we do not know where and when an oil spill will occur, modelling is the only way to anticipate the potential magnitude and impacts and prepare where to monitoring and how to prepare to respond. Spill modelling is needed to guide future decision making and is forecasting tool that will be needed over the life of the project. It is needed to inform environmental monitoring framework, optimize emergency response preparedness plans and communication between agencies and the public.

Table 15 is an IR by the Board of FER to KM-TMX requesting modelling simulations of oil shores and time lapsed if there was oil release nearer Oak Islands ER. KM-TMX did not provide additional modeling. This type of modeling will be needed so a condition to compel this will be needed. By putting this off to the future it becomes the responsibility and a cost and obligation to others.

Table 18: Shows IR#2-8 Questions of Modelling Oil Spill Release Points

IR # IR Wording Trans Mountain’s response to IR
IR#2-8 Will KM provide a model that shows a release point closer to Victoria and the Oak Bay Islands ER to understand how much oil can potentially reach the shore in this section of the shipping route?Context. Three release points were modelled; Strait of Georgia, Archane Reef (near Swartz Bay) and Race Rocks west of Victoria. To understand and develop world class spill preparedness a worst case scenario off Oak Bay Islands will be needed. New modelling has to reflect a new Worst Case oil spill based on increases in tanker sizes and daily output to be considered credible. From a practical perspective, the strength of the stochastic approach is that it shows where spilled oil could go in the event of an accident, but the resulting probability contours are not a reliable guide as to where crude oil would go in the event of a single unique accident. However the probability contours generated through stochastic modelling are valuable for informing spill response and preparedness planning. They also provide a transparent and defensible basis for describing the range of environmental effects that could result from a spill along the marine shipping route.   It is not practical to assess every conceivable accident and malfunction scenario. Evaluation of potential environmental effects at other sites would not have changed assessment conclusions or identified the need for additional preparedness and response planning measures. Therefore a model that shows a release point closer to Victoria and the Oak Bay Islands ER is not contemplated. Trans Mountain is confident that the evaluation of potential environmental effects at representative locations fulfills National Energy Board filing requirements (Filing IDA3V6I2) and describes the range of environmental effects that could result from an oil spill along the marine shipping route.
Intervenor’s Explanation for Claiming IR Response to be Inadequate
IR#2-8 This is not acceptable answer.We understand that KM may not wish to complete additional modelling of oil spills having completed modelling for Archane Reef and Race Rocks. However there remains a need to model an oil spill closer to Victoria and the Oak Bay Island Ecological Reserve.We believe this to be true first because the report by DNV advising TMX did identify several potential accident sites one of which is off the Victoria water front.   [see end note for a map of accident sites iii] DNV anticipated an accident off the Victoria waterfront but none was modelled. This is not appropriate.In addition Archane Reef is 32 km east of Oak Bay Islands ER and Race Rocks ER is 23 km west of Trial islands. FER does not understand why an oil spill off Oak Bay Island and impacting the shoreline of the most densely populated stretch of tanker route on Vancouver Island was not modelled.Therefore we believe it is a responsibility of KM to model a CWCS close to where most of the people on Vancouver Island live.
Trans Mountain’s Response to Motion
IR#2-8 In accordance with Board Ruling No. 33 (Filing ID A63066), Trans Mountain’s response provided sufficient information and detail for the Board in its consideration of the application and no further response is required.

 

5.5 Marine Habitat Compensation Plan

5.5.1            Condition 7. Marine Habitat Compensation Plan

Table 19: Recommended Permit Condition 7. Marine Habitat Compensation Plan (based on Northern Gateway Enbridge permit condition # 122)

KM-TMX must file the MREMP developed Marnie Habitat Compensation Plan with the NEB, at least 30 days prior to commencing construction. With this plan, the following must be included:

  1. A letter from Fisheries and Oceans Canada indicating its approval of the plan.
  2. A summary of consultations with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, BC Ministry of Environment, other appropriate stakeholders, and potentially-affected Aboriginal groups regarding the Marine Habitat Compensation Plan. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the plan and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them.
  3. Letters of endorsement of the plan from other Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and provincial Ministry of Environment and stakeholders engaged with the MREMP.
  4. This plan must be reviewed and refiled with the NEB file at least every five years to identify incremental improvements possible through the MREMP program and in cooperation with government agencies and stakeholders.
  5. KM-TMX must make the Habitat Compensation Plan publically available if not done so by MREMP.

 

5.5.2 Rational: Northern Gateway Habitat Compensation Plan Precedent

The marine habitat compensation/mitigation plan is based on the Enbridge Northern Gate Project Condition 122. There are lessons on restoration versus mitigation that can be learned from oil spills and there is a need to identify enhancement opportunities pre spill. It may not be possible to restore some ecosystems after an oil spill, so enhancing others areas is often the next best option to compensate for lost biological productivity, diversity or harm to endangered species habitats. Given the nature of Dilbit it may sink to the ocean floor and so may persist there for an unknown length of time. FER sees this as a realistic scenario for a Dilbit spill along the BC tanker route. The tanker route is over or through Rock Fish Conservations Areas as shown in Figure 24. Impacts on Rock Fish and their recovery or resilience of their habitat is not currently known. FER advocates for baseline monitoring to assess what was lost and we advocate for pre-spill identification of habitats that could be enhanced as is required of the Northern Gateway project.

5.5.3

A Lesson from the Gulf of Mexico and Habitat Compensation Plans

The 2005 sinking of an oil barge in the Gulf of Mexico was followed by a Net Environmental Assessment which concluded that removal of oil from the ocean floor and returning the ocean floor habitat to pre-spill productivity and diversity was not practical. Instead enhancement of habitat in other areas was identified as best approach to compensate losses of productive from the marine environment. Figure 39 provides some background on this double hulled tanker and resulting sunken oil.

Figure 39: Damaged Tank Barge DBL 152 after a Hurricane in Gulf of Mexico in 2005

Double-hull Tank Barge DBL 152 collided with the submerged remains of a pipeline service platform that collapsed during Hurricane Rita. As a result of the incident, an estimated 1,925,532 gallons of a blended mixture of heavy oil were discharged into federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico, West Cameron Block 229. The majority of the released oil was denser than sea water causing it to sink to the seafloor.
From http://subseaworldnews.com/2013/03/19/noaa-proposes-plan-to-address-environmental-injuries-from-tank-barge-dbl-152-gulf-oil-spill/

“Sometimes effects of oil spills are immediate and clearly visible, but often the effects are less obvious and require expertise and time to properly evaluate,” said Troy Baker, NOAA’s Assessment and Restoration Division acting southeast branch chief who has been leading this project,

In March 2013, NOAA released the Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan [PDF] for the DBL 152 incident, which demonstrates that restoration is possible for this oil spill period for it is the next step in an ongoing process. The plan outlines injuries to natural resources and proposes a restoration project to implement estuarine shoreline protection and salt marsh creation at the Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Galveston Bay, Texas. The preferred shoreline protection and marsh restoration project proposed in the draft plan is designed to replenish the natural resources lost due to the oiling during the period both when they were injured and while they recovered.

FER notes that the phrase restoration is possible applied to shoreline habitat which will receive enhanced protection as the oil is being left on the ocean floor but restoration is not practical on the ocean floor.

This same approach for enhancement of a different habitat was also applied to the Enbridge spill in the 2010 on the Kalamazoo River.[30] These Habitat Compensation Plans support the need for identification of Habitat Compensation options as part of permit conditions. It is understood that until there is a spill, the details and appropriate plan for implementation cannot be finalized. The Habitat Compensation Plan will inform and set expectations before a spill occurs (Nuka 2013 Vol 3). This is a prudent step and superior to postponing the compensation/restoration discussion to a post spill period (Hunt 2009).[31]

This condition ensures that environmental assets are identified and options for enhancement understood should restoration prove untenable and compensation for habitat occur on a different site than the one damaged. A Habitat Compensation Plan grounded in the concept of ‘no net loss of habitat’, aims to retain productivity lost. This approach has been used on fish and wetland habitat but applies equally well to marine and oil spill damaged habitat. If habitat is damaged it is either restored or investments are made in alternate site and maintain overall productivity.

5.5.4 Shore Zone Biological Classification

The Board of FER reviewed all of the Shore Zone Sensitivity Ratings for all ERs that can be potentially oiled by the KM-TMX project. Some examples of shoreline sensitivity maps are included in Figures 41 to 44. The factors used and the relative weighting behind these shoreline oil sensitivity ratings is unclear and does not align with known environmental values for ERs as outlined in Chapter 3.

Figure 42 shows the Oak Bay/Chain Islands ER, a sea bird colony and an Important Bird Area rated as low sensitivity to an oil spill and Figure 43 of the Megin River ER, a pristine west coast estuary, is ranked as moderate to low sensitivity to an oil spill. We are not sure why these biologically areas are ranked on oil sensitivity maps are low or moderate. Therefore there is have no confidence in the shore zone oil spill sensitivity maps for the entire BC coast, the rankings need be up dated and reviewed. We are unsure of how interpretative maps housed at GEO BC we made. There is in the BC government no longer any dedicated shore zone staff to keep the information up dated.

We are fearful on how they may potentially be used to mis-inform spill preparedness plans and emergency spill deployment and Habitat Compensation plans.

The Board of FER believes that more thorough rating system is warranted and it also needs to be ground-truthed before there could ever be acceptance as a planning aid.

We submit that a comprehensive analysis of shoreline sensitivity to Dilbit in the Ecological Reserves, including marine and terrestrial organisms, is a minimum requirement of adequacy in terms of environmental impact assessment.

Figure 40: Legend for Analysis of Shoreline Sensitivities to Bunker C Spills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.5.4.1 Examples of the Geo BC analysis of Shoreline sensitivities to bunker C spills

The following maps show the sensitivities as being moderate and very low on several of the Ecological Reserve shorelines. The ratings in no way reflect the biological sensitivity of the depicted areas in our opinion. We submit that a much more thorough rating system has to applied and ground-truthed before acceptance as a legitimate analysis of ecosystem sensitivity.

 

Figure 41: An Example of Sensitivity to Bunker C in the Mount Tuam Ecological Reserve

 

Figure 42: An Example of Sensitivity to Bunker C in the Oak Bay/Chain Islands Ecological Reserve.

 

Figure 43: An Example of Shoreline Sensitivity to Bunker C in the Megin River Ecological Reserve

 

Figure 44: An Example of Shoreline Sensitivity to Bunker C in the Ten Mile Point Ecological Reserve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Board of FER in our IR#2-17 asked for clarification on productive and sensitive ecosystems. Our question was:

What baseline studies of sensitive ecological areas does TMX plan to establish or use as scientific evidence to quantify ecological restoration or recovery trends, in the event of an oil spill? Context: A fundamental tenant of restoration or recovery is to understand reference ecosystems which is why Ecological Reserves have been designated and exist within the Salish Sea and along the tanker route

KM-TMX answer:

In 2013, WCMRC initiated the development of a new coastal mapping system. This new system, still under development, will house not only coastal sensitivities and associated Geographic Response Strategies (GRS) but also all associated logistical support information. Shoreline sensitivities, as noted above, form part of WCMRC’s mapping database. GRS is a plan used for the initial nearshore response in an emergency situation. The program utilizes local knowledge to assist in shoreline sensitivity classification to possible oiling. As for shoreline protection strategies, these are built, in conjunction and/or reviewed with local stakeholders (e.g., Emergency Planners/First Nations) to address the sensitivities that have been identified as part of the coastal mapping project. Each sensitivity has a corresponding geographic response strategy and protective assignment developed and ready to be implemented in the event of a spill. Each feature is then field- tested and a two-page reference document is developed and reviewed with government agencies. The goal of a GRS is to protect sensitive natural and cultural features while reducing decision-making time during an actual spill. GRSs are designed to provide all the necessary information required to carry out an efficient and rapid shoreline response. Cleanup endpoints and post-spill monitoring regarding ecological restoration or recovery are typically set to best restore habitat use. These incident-specific goals are determined by a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis as detailed in the response to FER IR No. 2.01/

The response designed to be reassuring the Board Response was:

“This is not an adequate response.

Have the documents provided on June 16 been made available? If so please provide a hyperlink.”

No further information was provided.

The Board of FER has not been invited to review and comment on the work of WCMRC and the development of a new coastal mapping system but we are aware of the history of the shore zone mapping information held at GEO BC and that the oil industry considers this information proprietary as they provided funds towards the inventory when it was done in the 1990’s. It is hard to accept that information on public assets is privately held and considered and treated as proprietary especially in light of oils spills.

We see history repeating itself with regard to shore zone maps as KM-TMX stated during the proceedings.

emergency management plans are proprietary and of a sensitive nature and due to security concerns are not publicly available nor will they be made available.”

See Appendix A for the Board of FER letter of support for the BC government motion calling for disclosure of spill preparedness information.

The Board FER contests the need for shoreline inventory to be proprietary. There should be no corporate secrecy over what is an inventory of public assets.

This is why the Board of FER has placed the shore line mapping into preview of the proposed MREMP and seeks NEB support to transfer shore zone inventory to management under a wider stakeholder organization at arms-length from KM-TMX and their WCMRC subsidiary. This is in the public interest. We are pleased WCMRC is working to develop a new coastal mapping system but the information must be available in the public realm and must be developed to serve a wider interest and so requires broader multi agency and stakeholder input. There is no indication this is occurring.

Manuals for the process for gathering and recording baseline data in British Columbia were completed in 1997 by the Resources Inventory Committee (RISC).

  1. The BC Biological Shore-Zone Mapping System : https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/risc/pubs/coastal/bioshore/index.htm
  2. The Physical Shore-zone Mapping in British Columbia : https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/risc/pubs/coastal/pysshore/index.ht
  3. British Columbia Estuary Mapping System Version 1.0:
    https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/risc/pubs/coastal/estuary/index.htm

These manuals in their introductions state the shore zone inventory was a database and mapping system for the descriptive biota of the British Columbia shoreline designed to include the following details:

  1. The biotic mapping system was intended to provide a structure for the description and mapping of the marine shore zone of British Columbia.
  2. It was developed as a means of recording the distribution of biological resources along the coast and as a tool for identifying biological communities and community-based relationships with physical and oceanographic processes.
  3. As with the physical shore-zone mapping system, the biotic mapping system was essentially independent of scale and lends itself to data collected at all levels of detail.
  4. It was intended to meet a wide-ranging need for resource information including land-use planning, oil-spill response and management, resource conservation and management and environmental impact assessment.

The system integrates directly with the physical shore-zone mapping system for British Columbia by linking data tables in the biological database with data tables in the physical database.

  1. The boundaries for units and components in the physical system, based on geomorphological parameters, are used to define boundaries for species assemblages (bands) in the biological system.
  2. The biological database is designed to accept data collected by a range of sampling methods and levels of effort. This is accomplished without the loss of information by the inclusion of a methods code.
  3. The biological database intentionally does not include a hierarchical structure above the shore unit level so that users can summarize shore unit data within areas of their choosing. Summary areas can be added to a digital map at any time.
  4. A hierarchical coding system for biota is included and is based on taxonomic groupings. A more versatile code which includes other groupings requires further development and user consultation.
  5. Two new fields, freshwater influence and land use, are suggested for inclusion in the physical database. Also, modifications and additions are suggested for the physical database to compliment the biological database.

This BC Estuary mapping System manual (Howes, Morris and Zacharias 1999) provides a mapping and database system and methodology for large scale (typically 1:5,000) mapping of estuaries. This standard provides an overview of the mapping system, and describes the methodology, database structure and mapping procedures of the system. The system builds upon an estuarine classification developed by the Ministry of Environment in 1983 (Hunter et al 1983) and integrates components from the other RIC standards. This standard is composed of seven databases that separate biotic from abiotic attributes and point from polygon attributes. The design of this system permits the comparison of estuaries throughout the province, and can easily be updated to incorporate changes in any of the existing standards this work is based upon. It has been developed and structured in a manner that facilitates the incorporation of data from this standard into a GIS. Lastly, this standard is applicable for research or scientific applications, as data collection methods are rigorous and the database and mapping structure has been designed with research needs in mind.

 5.6               Marine Effects and Restoration Research

5.6.1            Condition 8. Marine Effects Research Program

Table 20: Recommended Permit Condition 8. Marine Effects Research Program (based on Northern Gateway Enbridge permit condition # 169 and 170)

KM-TMX must file with the NEB, at least 3 years prior to commencing operations, a research plan from the MREMP for improving understanding of Dilbit impacts on the natural marine environment. This research plan is to focus on:The Dilbit toxicology research in the marine environment and lethal dosages for species and the degree to which research priorities clarified in Table 18 Table 21: Research Recommendation from the Dupuis, A., and Ucan-Marin, F. 2015 publication will be addressed.1.     Understanding resilience and recovery of a variety of marine ecosystems from varying levels of hypothetical spills. The program is to test the hypothesis that ecosystems and species will fully recover from a Dilbit spill and clarify expected recovery periods.With this MREMP research, KM-TMX must include:1.     A letter from Fisheries and Oceans Canada indicating its approval of the research plan and any role or commitment for participation provided;2.     A letter from the Environment Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service indicating its approval of the research plan and any role or commitment for participation provided;3.     A summary of KM-TMX consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, BC Ministry of Environment, other appropriate stakeholders, and potentially-affected Aboriginal groups regarding the Marine Habitat Compensation Plan. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the plan and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;4.     KM-TMX must file with the NEB annual progress reports on projects under the marine MREMP research program.5.     The MREMP program must establish and support a science advisory panel to review the Research planKM-TMX must make Research plan and project findings program publically available when reporting to NEB or indicate where the MREMP Program has made available Research Program

5.6.2 Condition 9. Marine Mammal Protection, Tanker Speed, Drift and Weather Conditions Research

Table 21: Permit Condition 9. Marine Mammal Protection, Tanker Speed, Drift and Weather Conditions

KM-TMX must demonstrate how the research is mitigating impacts on marine mammals that is linked to the Marine transport from the Westridge terminal and what has changed with regard to operating procedures related to:1.     Tankers’ speed and reduced risk of marine mammal strikes and noise;2.     The tanker drift study and appropriate mitigation based on the results of the study;3.     Establishing vessel operational safety limits that address visibility, wind, and sea conditions;4.     Sensitive areas for oil spill response in Geographic Response Plans developed in consultation with the Province of British Columbia and communities, FN and NGOs that could be affected in the event of a spill;5.     Community Response Plans for participating coastal communities in the Salish Sea an Strait of Juan de Fuca.

 

5.6.3 Condition 10. Marine Research Program Progress Reporting

Table 22: Permit Condition 10. Marine Research Program Reporting

KM-TMX must file the MREMP research program progress reports with the NEB and make public, on or before 31 January of each year for the duration of the research program if this has not been done by the Program. This includes an overview of the progress on the toxicology and resilience and recovery of marine habitats and the extent to which the objectives of the research program have been achieved. This includes:

  1. An update on timing and the status of the work undertaken that year;
  2. Results from research conducted during the calendar year prior to filing;
  3. Work plan budget estimates and partnership contributions to be undertaken in the upcoming year;
  4. Research findings and implications for incremental improvements in spill response and monitoring;
  5. Any other matters that the MREMP and KM-TMX want to bring to the NEB’s attention related to the research project and recovery of ecosystems.

5.6.4            Rationale for Research into Environmental Impacts and Ecosystem Resilience

The Northern Gateway Project was approved June 17, 2014 and with an obligation (condition) for a research program as described in (Conditions 169 and 170). Since then, the ground work for this program has been laid and progress can be reviewed on the Northern Gateway site.[32] The action and focus of the science team are shown in Table 23.

Table 23: Royal Society of Canada (RSC) Mandate – The Behaviour and Environmental Impacts of Crude Oil Released into Aqueous Environments

Research Program Mandate: accessed at https://rsc-src.ca/en/expert-panels/rsc-reports/behaviour-and-environmental-impacts-crude-oil-released-into-aqueousThe Expert Panel was set-up in response to a request from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). The panel is asked to address the following questions:

  1. How do the various types of crude oils compare in the way they behave when mixed with surface fresh, brackish or sea waters under a range of environmental conditions?
  2. How do the various crude oils compare in their chemical composition and toxicity to organisms in aquatic ecosystems?
  3. How do microbial processes affect crude oils in aquatic ecosystems, thereby modifying their physical and chemical properties and toxicity?
  4. Is the research community able to relate, with reliable predictions, the chemical, physical and biological properties of crudes to their behaviour, toxicity and ability to be remediated in water and sediments?
  5. Given the current state of the science, what are the priorities for research investments?
  6. How should these scientific insights be used to inform optimal strategies for spill preparedness, spill response and environmental remediation.

The results of the Enbridge-led research will be to improve industry understanding on whether it is possible remove different types of oil products from the environment, how to do this and to suggest additional research. These are worthwhile research aims and it is important for the oil industry to learn and adapt through research and shared finding for greater public understanding. But Enbridge research conditions do not address effects of Dilbit in ecosystems and resilience and toxicology of Dilbit to organisms. Therefore additional research is needed and this is what is proposed for a research program linked to a KM TMX permit condition.

The Board FER is a strong supporter of natural ecosystems research and believes that Enbridge condition addresses important knowledge gaps primarily to inform the oil industry and secondarily to inform the public, national and provincial interest.

The Board FER does not see benefit in a permit condition for KM-TMX addressing the same questions addressed by Enbridge Research as shown in Table 23.

The Board FER does see benefit for additional research/studies to address environmental impacts of oil and recovery on ecosystems and species. We see this as a knowledge gap about which the public and FNs are interested and concerned. The Enbridge research condition ends in a few years. After the science panel turns in its report(s) there is no remaining research infra-structure or framework and no obligation to support further research. It is inconceivable that at that time there will be no need to learn how to make incremental improvements to practices, plans and operations based on better information. An on-going marine oil spill restoration and resilience research program is needed as a KM-TMX obligation focused on recovery over the life of the project.

The Board of FER sees a real distinction between what the public wants to know with some certainty and what the industry wants to know with some certainty. Northern Gateway Research is designed for the benefit of industry first and the issue of environmental impacts and recovery are not addressed at all. It is also troubling that research terms of reference were solely set by the oil industry. This is not to demean this oil-industry research initiative even if motivated to comply with a NEB permit condition. We do need to know how and whether there are opportunities not known now removal of Dilbit from water and how and over what time period microbes alter Dilbit for a toxic to a benign substance.

After study of the Northern Gateway Research Program, the Board of FER sees that it will not lead to accelerated learning and collaboration between agencies, stakeholders and industry and it will not increase public confidence through understanding with regard to oil tanker transport and add insight on recovery and resilience of marine systems post oil spills. This remains a huge gap. A natural areas marine research is needed. We recommend a permit condition to ensure this gap in understanding will be filled. This research does not duplicate what is being addressed by the now established studies initiated by Northern Gateway a Research Program.

The permit condition for research though modelled after the Enbridge Northern Gate Way condition 170 is different because in has a focus on the impacts from oil on the marine environment, resilience and recovery of the marine environment. This resilience of the environment is a matter of highest public and First Nations interest.

Some of the work begun by DFO in their 2015 report has a focus consistent with issues of public concern on impacts of oil on elements of the natural marine ecosystems. Table 18 shows what DFO has recommendation on additional research needed to address Dilbit toxicology. This table is from Research Recommendation provided by Dupuis, A., and Ucan-Marin, F. 2015 and in a DFO Can. Sci. Advisory document[33] states that:

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the biological effects of petroleum oil on aquatic biota. The majority of the information presented pertains to finfish but also includes information on other aquatic biota such as shellfish and marine mammals. The review includes crude oils and petroleum products derived from crude oils but does not include natural gas and natural gas liquids or processed waters resulting from exploration and production activities. Throughout the review the term “oil” is used as a general term to describe a wide variety of petroleum oil.

Table 2 from Dupius et al. 2015 below includes research results for a wide range of petroleum products but does not include research results on any of the Diluted Bitumen products that will be used in this project.

The report concludes by looking at the oil sands products and their toxicity and makes recommendations for research that needs to be done in this area:

“3.7 TOXICITY OF OIL SANDS PRODUCTS

There is currently a lack of research assessing the potential effects of diluted bitumen and synthetic crude oil (upgraded bitumen) on aquatic organisms. In contrast, work is ongoing for monitoring the environment near oil sand activities. In 2012, the Governments of Canada and Alberta implemented an environmental monitoring and research plan for the oil sands region which was designed to enhance existing monitoring activities. As part of this program, monitoring of aquatic biota (i.e., fish and invertebrates) health is ongoing upstream and downstream of oil sands developments and also, in mining development areas. Also, laboratory- based experiments on fish were conducted to test the toxicity of melted snow collected from sites near oil sands mining and upgrading facilities and from reference locations away from the influence of mining activities. Activity summaries and data are made available via a publically accessible web portal. (http://www.ec.gc.ca/pollution/EACB8951-1ED0-4CBB-A6C9-84EE3467B211/Final%20OS%20Plan.pdf)

As with other oils, the primary component of concern in oil sands products are PAHs and particularly alkylated PAHs (Colavecchia et al. 2004). Several studies have investigated the toxicity of natural oil sands deposits on fish (Tetreault et al. 2003; Colavecchia et al. 2004; Colavecchia et al. 2006; Colavecchia et al. 2007). In the Athabasca oil sands region, these natural bitumen deposits can be found exposed in the banks of rivers where natural erosion processes can allow leaching of these compounds. In the laboratory, these natural oil sands deposits were shown to cause toxicity in early-life stages of fish (Colavecchia et al. 2004; Colavecchia et al. 2006). In these experiments, fathead minnow and white sucker eggs and embryos were exposed to oil sands sediments. Compared to controls, the fish eggs and embryos showed increased mortality, reduced hatching success, delayed timing of hatching, abnormal embryo development, larval deformations and reduced size of larvae (Colavecchia et al. 2004; Colavecchia et al. 2006). Larval deformities included exposure-related increases in the prevalence of spinal defects, edemas (pericardial, yolk sac, and sub-epidermal), and hemorrhages (Colavecchia et al. 2004; Colavecchia et al. 2006). These toxicological responses were noted by the authors to be similar to that previously described for other weathered crude oils.

Studies of wild fish in the oil sands region found that exposure to natural bitumen caused sublethal biochemical and hormonal responses (Tétreault et al. 2003). Common species in the Athabasca watershed such as slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and pearl dace (Margariscus margarita) showed reductions in steroid production and increases in EROD activity compared to fish in reference areas (Tétreault et al. 2003). For early-life stages of fish, it is suggested that these biochemical responses can be related to the observed deformities in embryos and larvae following exposure to oil sands affected waters (Colavecchia et al. 2007). “

Table 24: Research Toxicology Gaps Identified by DFO (Dupuis and Ucan-Marin. 2015)

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS Research recommendations were developed based on the existing knowledge gaps on the biological effects of oil on aquatic organisms. This section was developed as a result of discussions with participants at a Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) workshop for identifying research requirements for the biological effects of oil on aquatic ecosystems (DFO 2015).Oil Toxicity Research Recommendations 1.   Toxicological studies on oil sands-related products such as natural bitumen, diluted bitumen, synthetic crude oil and bitumen blended with synthetic crude oil. a. Determine appropriate study species for standardised testinga.     Conduct lethal and sublethal toxicity tests, early-life stages testsb.     Compare the toxicity of Dilbit, synbit, and syncrude relative to other products; if they are uniquely toxic, determine mechanisms of effectc.     Establish a reference Dilbit product for standardised toxicity testing using a standard suite of chemical analyses and effects endpoints2.   Assessment of fate and behaviour of diluted bitumen following a spill in aquatic environments a. Identify areas and habitats of greater risk of oil spill, and fate of oil within these systemsa.   Improve modelling capacityb.   Developing clean-up methods appropriate to unique ecosystem characteristicsc.   Ecotoxicology of conventional and unconventional crude oil products in ice-covered Canadian waters3.   Assessment of potential consequences of a condensate spill to aquatic organismsa. Validation of existing acute toxicity models and/or development of new models as requiredb. Determine exposure potential – fate and behaviour in the aquatic environment

4.   Improved ecological relevance of oil and gas toxicity studies

a.     Establish cause and effect in field-based studies

b.     Validate laboratory studies using field-based approaches

c.     Identify susceptible life-history traits and relate to oil fate characteristics

d.     Extend research beyond individual-effects to population, community, ecosystems

e.     Develop the capacity to assess biological effects during and after spill events, especially recovery times

5.     Demonstrate mechanisms of chronic toxicity in support of improved predictive models

a.     Identify characteristic exposure responses

b.     Identify unique biomarkers of exposure to bitumen

c.     Conduct pharmacokinetic studies

d.     Identify unique chemistry profiles of oil products, including geochemical markers

e.     Determine the role of oil droplets (residual oil) in estimating toxicity

f.      Establish the relative importance of photo-toxicity after an actual oil spill.

6.     Assessment of biological effects of chemically dispersed bitumen

7.     Potential effects of metals in bitumen to benthic organisms if sinking occurs

 

The Board of FER supports the recommendations of this report to do research to fill the gaps of knowledge on finfish and other aquatic biota such as shellfish and marine mammals as well as marine birds and recommend it be accepted by the NEB and we have recommended this a part of the research condition needed by KM-TMX project. We also recommend to the NEB that this research is best done through a research program and framework as outlined in our recommended condition. We lack confidence as should the NEB in KM-TMX when it comes to interest and commitment in marine ecosystems.

The Board of FER appreciates the focus on Dilbit on ecosystems and need for better toxicology on species critical to understand ecosystem resilience and set the context for recovery. The Board of FER strongly recommends the work be included under the independent research program over the life of the project this understanding that we are recommending.

5.6.5 Rational for Research into Mammal Protection, Tanker Speed, Drift and Weather Limitations

Board of FER sought information in IR#2-32 of KM TMX and their understanding and solution to mitigating the impacts on Marine mammals and address cumulative effects.

Board of FER notes the Northern Gateway condition 18 addresses operational measures on tanker speed and noise to mitigate marine mammal strikes. Despite mention of tanker speed and marine noise reported by KM TMX in their filing documents, we are unable to find commitments to reduce speeds nor windows of inoperability due to visibility, wind and sea conditions. We also believe that this is a subject that needs further study and monitoring to arrive at a tanker speed and noise levels that favour marine mammal’s safety from strikes and noise reductions to allow for whale communications. The pre-amble to the Oceans Act states that a precautionary approach needs to be taken. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-2.4/FullText.html. The Northern Gateway condition 18 also addresses the need for tanker drift studies under different conditions due to a need to establish vessel operational safety limits that address visibility, wind, and sea conditions and that also address conditions for enhanced oil spill response capabilities.

5.7 Spill Preparedness Plans

5.7.1 Condition 11. Oil Spill Response Plan

Table 25: Permit Condition 11. Oil Spill Response Plan

KM-TMX must file with the NEB, at least 30 days prior to commencing construction, a plan for preparing the following documents:1.     Marine Oil Spill Response Plan including a net environmental benefit analysis framework;2.     All related and accompanying plans, such as Pre-SCAT (Shoreline Clean-Up Assessment Technique) and Marine Reserves Substrate Surveys, Response Tactics for Floating Oil, Response Tactics for Submerged and Sunken Oil, Control Points, Access Plans, Geographic Response Plans, an Oil Pollution Prevention Plan, and an Oil Pollution Emergency Plan;3.     How the plan will be informed by Enhanced Spill Monitoring (Condition 5) and other MREMP monitoring and research projects;4.     The plan must include the following information in relation to the above documents and steps to be undertaken in completing them; including consultation with the interested parties; and included in review of plans such as: Fire Departments, police, marine related industries, NGOs, police, staff from Federal Environmental agencies (DFO, TC, DND, Environment Canada) and staff from provincial Ministry of Environment and Emergency Management BC (the Provincial Emergency Program), willing First Nations and independent scientists). The consultation must include a cross section of public, private, FNs similar to Area Committee representatives involved with emergency planning in the marine environment.5.     Approximate timing for the Emergency plan completion and a date for completion no later than a year prior to increasing tanker traffic;6.     A description of all federal and provincial regulations that need to be adhered to;7.     A list of interested individuals and stakeholder groups willing to review and provide improvements in Spill Plans;8.     How the review by independent non-government individuals has influenced the spill plan;9.     Enhanced oil spill response capabilities, including identification and prioritized sensitive areas for oil spill response in Geographic Response Plans developed in consultation with the Province of British Columbia and communities that could be affected in the event of a spill; and Community Response Plans for participating coastal communities in the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan De Fuca;10.    KM-TMX through its subsidiary WCMR Corp. must plan for thorough simulations and drills for a Worse Case Oil Spill equivalent to that in the State of Washington, and maintain equipment on scene equivalent to the on-hand resources called for in the State of Washington. KM-TMX must submit these for public and stakeholder input and revision.

 

5.7.2 Condition 12. Consultation with Interested Parties on Emergency Preparedness and Marine Spill Response Framework

Table 26: Condition 12. Consultation with Interested Parties on Emergency Preparedness and Marine Spill Response Framework

KM-TMX or its subsidiary WCMR Corp must file with the NEB, at least 3 years prior to commencing operations, a plan for consulting on emergency preparedness and response for marine oil tankers:1.     The consultation plan’s scope;2.     The consultation plan’s objectives include the marine spill response framework;3.     A preliminary list of regulatory authorities to be consulted;4.     A preliminary list of communities and Aboriginal groups to be consulted;5.     A preliminary list of consultation locations and timing;6.     The methods to track commitments made during consultation and incorporation of them into final Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans;

5.7.3            Response Times for Emergencies

The Board of FER is concerned about the stated response times for the WCMRC to get to areas of oil spills. This concern was heightened due the recent Vancouver oil spill and Coast Guard statements that the response times we “World Class”. WCMRC has published the following information for response times for oil spill emergencies on the BC coast. http://wcmrc.com/response-time-standards/.

Primary Area of Response (PAR)

Because a majority of large spills (>1,000 tonnes) occur outside port boundaries where vessels converge, the Coast Guard identified Primary Areas of Response (PARs) as areas associated with Designated Ports that require a specific level of response capability and mobilization within designated times. The PAR for the Port of Vancouver is defined as “All of the Canadian waters between the northern boundary of a line drawn from the point 49º 46.5’N, 124º 20.5’W on the mainland, through Texada Island, to the point 49º 22.5’N, 124º 32.4’W on the shore of Vancouver Island and the southern boundary consisting a line running along the 48º 25’N parallel from Victoria, eastward, to the Canada-United States border.”

  • UNDER 2500 TONS: Deployed On Scene Within 18 Hours
  • OVER 2500 TONS: Deployed On Scene Within 72 Hours

Enhanced Response Area (ERA)

Marine areas not covered under the above designation, but holding a higher risk of oil spills due to traffic convergence and volume of shipping were identified as Enhanced Response Areas (ERA). The Strait of Juan de Fuca ERA comprises “All the Canadian waters between the western boundary of a line drawn from Carmanah Point on Vancouver Island to Cape Flattery, Washington State, and the eastern boundary consisting of a line running along the 48º 25’N parallel from Victoria, eastward, to the Canada-United States border.”

  • UNDER 2500 TONS: Deployed On Scene Within 18 Hours
  • OVER 2500 TONS: Deployed On Scene Within 72 Hours”

Figure 45: Area Map from WCMRC site

The WCMRC shows the marine response equipment currently in Esquimalt is as follows:

From (http://wcmrc.com/vessels/)

Burrard Cleaner (BC) #9 : A skimming vessel of 105.3 Tons (speed 11knots =20 km/hr)

Burrard Cleaner #10 : A barge of 889 Tons

Burrard Cleaner (BC) #11: A response Vessel of 19.9 Tons (speed of 18 knots =32 km/hr)

Figure 46: An Example of the Ecological Reserves on the Southern and Western parts of Vancouver Island with the Approximate Distance by sea from Esquimalt and Travel Times

Distance from WCMRC equipment in Esquimalt to some ERs S. Vancouver Is. Travel distance Travel Time For Burrard Cleaners in Esquimalt Mandated Response Time to be on scene Based spill size Response time needed compared to response time required by government
BC#9 BC#11 <2500 >2500 BC #9 and BC #11
Race Rocks ER 16 km 0.8 hr 0.5 hr 18 hrs 72 hrs ~ < 5% of the time
Oak Bay Islands ER 19 km 1 hr 0.6 hr 18 hrs 72 hrs ~ < 5% of the time
San Juan River Estuary ER ~115 km 5.75 hr 3.6 hr 18 hrs 72 hrs ~ 33% of the time
Baeria Rocks ER ~ 150 km 7.5 hr 4.6 hr No limit No limit No standard to get to scene
Cleland Island ER ~ 290 km 14.5 hr 9.0 hr No limit No limit No standard to get to scene

Why are larger the spills allowed a 5 times longer response time? Currently there are only two boats in Esquimalt that can response. The size of the spill would seem to be irrelevant but the speed of response is critical. No response is available for these areas shown in Figure 45 red band on outer Vancouver Island.

Figure 46 shows the actual time needed to motor Esquimalt to Oak Bay Islands ER and Race Rocks. Why is this 72 hours allowed for a location of extreme vulnerability such as Race Rocks ER that is only 16 km away from the response resources and the actual travel time needed is less than an hour. This is why we advocate for involvement and review of spill preparedness plan and the need. Figure 47 shows a map and distances used in 46.

Figure 47: Map showing distances to Race Rocks and Oak Bay Island ERs from Esquimalt

West coast ERs from Race Rocks to Baeria Rocks are in the “enhanced response times.” This means that they will get a response within 18 hours if under 2500 tons and 72 hours if over 7200 Tons. These times and distances shown are the absolute folly of such an inadequate commitment from the WCMRC coupled with inadequate standards of the federal government and Coastguard.

We submit that the National Energy Board must not accept these response times with such an increase in tanker traffic. Clearly this is not a “World Class Response System“ even on paper. Changes need to be implemented immediately so that appropriate response times are developed. These examples are provided on why their needs to be inclusion of the wider public with development of spill preparedness.

5.7.4            The Spill Response Framework: Consultation, Collaboration and Transparency

It is encouraging to know permit conditions for Northern Enbridge require the company to prepare and disclose their Emergency preparedness and response plans. The following permit condition for KM-TMX are modelled after the Enbridge Northern Gateway permit Conditions 117-119 and aimed at providing an equivalent or better preparedness between these two projects. Because of the tanker route is shared with Washington State there will need to added information on coordination across the international boundary.

The frustration we had with NEB and KM and the example that KM believes spills plans are proprietary to itself and WCMRC. Appendix A is our letter of support for the BC Government motion.

 

6.

Summary

of

recommended

permit

conditions

This chapter summarizes permit conditions recommended by the Board of FER to the NEB in Table 27. The rationale and evidence provided to support these conditions are provided in Chapters 5 and 6. Most of the permit conditions were modelled on conditions that have been applied to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Permit and available on the NEB site.[34] The Board of FER sees the precedent of the NEB approval of the Enbridge project as significant and expects, at a minimum, parity for the KM-TMX project. We present arguments in earlier chapters that KM-TMX will need to support a higher level of obligations due to higher nationally significant environmental values in the Salish Seas (Fraser River estuary and salmon) as well as the population density of the Lower Mainland that will potentially be impacted by the KM-TMX project. We estimate that >50 per cent of the population of BC live within 50km of tide water from the tanker route and will suffer negative impacts.

The funding structure and delivery of the program differs between what is required of the Enbridge project and what the Board of FER deems as more appropriate to the KM-TMX project. This difference is an “arms-length” funding structure is necessary because KM-TMX has offered nothing tangible and appropriate for monitoring and research proportional to the scale of their project, and has not addressed some of the issues identified by the initial NEB statement of issues. If these issues are to be pushed off to the future and the permit issued by NEB without clarity on how issues that were identified at the start of the hearings will be dealt with. There is a long term need to address environmental impacts and fill knowledge gaps and this means significant investment is required to be maintained over the life of the project by KM.

Ecological Reserves are small but highly productive and environmentally important areas legally designated for the strongest environmental protection. The conditions proposed and the programs of research and environmental effects monitoring provided in Table 27 are not solely for the benefit of ERs but would provide a framework for research and monitoring that is sufficiently robust for the entire KM-TMX impact area. We acknowledge that ERs are a minor but important player across the broader marine ecosystems. If conditions proposed by Board of FER to the NEB are accepted and applied, FER, like others who manage and contribute to environmental management, can propose projects for monitoring and research within the proposed Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program (MREMP) supported by the Marine Research and Monitoring Endowment Fund (MRMEF). FER would be a participant able to propose projects and eligible for funding based on merit, cost effectiveness and how well project proposals address priorities for research and monitoring within the lens of oil and tanker impacts and as agreed to by a multi-stakeholder board of Trustees. The conditions in Table 27 set out a framework to allow a number of researchers and those interested in monitoring to do projects based on merit, and the ability to address high priority questions of public interest. It would seem fair and appropriate that KM-TMX be expected to support marine research and long term monitoring in light of the risk they bring to endangered species and marine ecosystems in general.

Table 27: Summary of Recommended Permit Conditions

Condition Title of Condition Measurable outcomes for each condition and time lines.
1. Endowment fund to support Long term Marine Research and Monitoring KM-TMX must file with the NEB at least 1 year prior to commencing operations documents that show the placement in trust of $150,000,000.00 (one hundred and fifty million dollars) to support an arms-length Marine Research and Environmental Effects Monitoring Endowment Fund to support MREMP and contribution credible independent science based information to conditions 2 through 12.This Endowment is to remain as a permanent endowment to serve monitoring and research for as long as oil is being transported in the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan De Fuca.KM-TMX must file with NEB at least one year prior to commencing operations a list of agencies and organizations willing to guide the Endowment Fund to its intended purpose as stated in Condition 1.Funds for the Endowment Trust Funds can be establish over a few years but must be fully in place one year prior to completion of the project.
2. A Marine Research and Environmental Monitoring Program (MREMP) These proposed conditions were inspired by Northern Enbridge condition 36, 37 and 198 [35]KM-TMX will support a Marine Research and Monitoring Endowment Fund as outlined in Condition 1. This fund will be used to support a MREMP that will conduct and report on:1.     Pre-spill monitoring of marine species and ecosystem indicators over the life of the project. The Long Term Ecological Effect Monitoring portion of MREMP will conduct periodic surveys to standardized protocols, retain and make available data over the long term to the public and relevant agencies.2.     Model oil spill and tanker drift as outlined in Condition 6 and 11.3.     Research leading to a Habitat Compensation Plan, see Condition 7.4.     Research to inform Oil Spill Response Plan, see Condition 11.5.     Research on impacts to marine ecosystems from increased tanker traffic and potential for species and ecosystems recovery from Dilbit oil spill impacts (toxicology) and ecosystem resilience recovery, see Condition 8.6.     Research to improve marine mammal protection, related to tanker speed, drift and weather, see Condition 9.7.     Participate and inform the Oil Spill Response Plan as developed and periodically updated, see Condition 10.8.     Other activities related to pre- and post-spill monitoring, plans and operational procedure up-dates needed to mitigate and recover ecosystems as needed.
3. Filing progress and details on MREMP MREMP is arms-length from KM-TMX, government agencies, FNs and NGOs. It has a management structure inclusive of these multi- stakeholders. Since it is being established as permit condition, KM-TMX will within one year after the certificate date, file the outcomes of KM-TMX collaboration with relevant government authorities, participating Aboriginal groups, research organizations, and Environmental NGOs.KM-TMX must file the MEEPR management framework with the program goals, 5 year work plan and budget estimates. It will obtain letters of support and willingness to participate from agencies, NGOs and FNs.
4. Reporting on Marine Research Environmental Effects Monitoring Program (MREMP) The NEB and the public need to know the MREMP program progress and effectiveness.1.     KM-TMX must file with the NEB, quarterly activities completed by the Marine Research Environmental Effects Monitoring Program surveys and reports outlined in the management plan.2.     KM-TMX must file with the NEB, and make available to the public on or before 31 January of each year for the duration of the Marine Research Environmental Effects Monitoring Program, the following:o   Monitoring results, trends stemming from survey/monitoring results and research projectso   A summary of the collaboration within MREMP with relevant government authorities, participating First Nations groups, research organizations, and public stakeholder groups3.     Implications and assessment of research and monitoring information will be reported, and whether trends indicate a need to review or change operating procedures if there are manageable but undesirable effects linked to the KM-TMX project. This would include statements from agencies, FN and others on the interpretation of implications for tankers in general and to KM-TMX related tankers specifically.
5. Boundaries of Marine Environmental Effects Monitoring[36] KM-TMX must establish the MREMP Marine Research and Ecological Effects monitoring Program (Condition 2) with boundaries coincident with the Oil Tanker Panel High Risk Zone for the West Coast of Canada as shown below. This boundary can be refined based on Enhanced marine spill trajectory and fate modelling (Condition 6).
6. Enhanced marine spill trajectory and fate modelling KM-TMX must file with the NEB for approval, at least 3 years prior to commencing operations, a plan to prepare enhanced marine spill trajectory and fate modelling for the Westridge Terminal and marine tanker traffic from the terminal.Enhanced spill modelling is needed as part of the MREMP and is needed to inform the Boundary adjustments for MREMP program (Condition 4), Habitat Compensation Plans (Condition 7), Marine Research Program (Condition 8), and Oil Spill Response Plan (Condition 11).The plan must be coordinated with the MREMP and include:1.     A summary of KM-TMX consultation with Environment Canada regarding the scope of work to be undertaken. This summary must include issues or concerns raised regarding the scope of work and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;2.     A summary of KM-TMX consultation with the State of Washington regarding the scope of work to be undertaken. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised regarding the scope of work and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;3.     A summary of KM-TMX consultations with the stakeholders regarding the scope of the work undertaken. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised regarding the scope of work and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;4.     The membership of a Scientific Marine Modeling Committee and its Terms of Reference;5.     A schedule for completing the work and confirmation that it will be completed prior to commencing operations and in sufficient time to inform oil spill preparedness and monitoring programs;6.     The scenarios to be modelled, at minimum, must include Credible Worse Case (CWC) scenarios that define a Credible Worse Case Scenario on par with that used in the State of Washington (entire vessel cargo with a cap of 35,632t) with spill locations included in TMX modelling work (Race Rocks, Strait of Georgia, and Archane Reef) and with at least three additional locations: Oak Bay Islands, Spanish Banks, and J Buoy (Juan du Fuca entrance).7.     How the models will be used to inform decision-making during spill preparedness planning and response exercises and actual spill events.8.     Communicate and make available to stakeholders and the public the plans submitted to the NEB.9.     Clarification of how KM-TMX will include the following in its enhanced modelling:

a.     stochastic calculations and visual representations;

b.     how the model will be adapted to different physical and chemical characteristics of the oil that is intended to be shipped from the Westridge Terminal, with particular reference to density, viscosity, emulsion formation, adhesion properties, and evaporation rates;

c.     oil remobilization from the shorelines due to tidal or other influences, such as varying adhesion properties of the oil intended to be shipped from the Westridge Terminal, and oil retention times;

d.     submerged or entrained oil resurfacing;

e.     potential for oil to sink based on weathering and adhesion to sediment;

f.      how weathering and trajectory models will be integrated to provide an accurate representation of the potential fate of oil within the environment;

g.     how the models will be adaptable to any time of the year and to varying meteorological and hydrological conditions.

7. Marine Habitat Compensation Plan KM-TMX must file with the NEB, at least 30 days prior to commencing construction, a Marine Habitat Compensation Plan as outlined by MREMP. With this plan, the following must be included:1.     A letter from Fisheries and Oceans Canada indicating its approval of the plan;2.     A summary of consultations with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, BC Ministry of Environment, other appropriate stakeholders, and potentially-affected Aboriginal groups regarding the Marine Habitat Compensation Plan. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the plan and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them.3.     Letters of endorsement of the plan from other Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and provincial Ministry of Environment and stakeholders engaged with the MREMP.4.     This plan must be reviewed and refiled with the NEB file at least every five years to identify incremental improvements possible through the MREMP program and in cooperation with government agencies and stakeholders.5.     KM-TMX must make the Habitat Compensation Plan publically available if not done so by MREMP.
8. Marine Research Program KM-TMX must file with the NEB, at least 3 years prior to commencing operations, a research plan from the MREMP for improving understanding of Dilbit impacts on the natural marine environment. This research plan is to focus on:

  1. The Dilbit toxicology research in the marine environment and lethal dosages for species and the degree to which research priorities clarified in Table 18 Table 28: Research Recommendation from the Dupuis, A., and Ucan-Marin, F. 2015 publication will be addressed.
  2. Understanding resilience and recovery of a variety of marine ecosystems from varying levels of hypothetical spills. The program is to test the hypothesis that ecosystems and species will fully recover from a Dilbit spill and clarify expected recovery periods.
  3. With this MREMP research, KM-TMX must include:
  4. A letter from Fisheries and Oceans Canada indicating its approval of the research plan and any role or commitment for participation provided;
  5. A letter from the Environment Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service indicating its approval of the research plan and any role or commitment for participation provided;
  6. A summary of KM-TMX consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, BC Ministry of Environment, other appropriate stakeholders, and potentially-affected Aboriginal groups regarding the Marine Habitat Compensation Plan. This summary must include any issues or concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the plan and how KM-TMX has addressed or responded to them;
  7. KM-TMX must file with the NEB annual progress reports on projects under the marine MREMP research program.
  8. The MREMP program must establish and support a science advisory panel to review the Research plan
  9. KM-TMX must make Research plan and project findings program publically available when reporting to NEB.
9. Mammal protection, tanker speed, drift and weather limitations operational measures KM-TMX must demonstrate how the MREMP research is mitigating impacts on marine mammals that is linked to the Marine transport from the Westridge terminal and what has changed with regard to operating procedures related to:1.     Tankers’ speed and reduced risk of marine mammal strikes and noise;2.     The tanker drift study and appropriate mitigation based on the results of the study;3.     Establishing vessel operational safety limits that address visibility, wind, and sea conditions;4.     Sensitive areas for oil spill response in Geographic Response Plans developed in consultation with the Province of British Columbia and communities, FN and NGOs that could be affected in the event of a spill;5.     Community Response Plans for participating coastal communities in the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca.
10. Marine Research Program Progress Reports KM-TMX must file the MREMP research program progress reports with the NEB and make public, on or before 31 January of each year for the duration of the research program an overview of the progress on the toxicology and resilience and recovery of marine habitats and the extent to which the objectives of the MREMP program have been achieved. This includes:1.     An update on timing and the status of the work undertaken that year;2.     Results from research conducted during the calendar year prior to filing;3.     Work plan budget estimates and partnership contributions to be undertaken in the upcoming year;4.     Research findings and implications for incremental improvements in spill response and monitoring;5.     Any other matters that the MREMP and KM-TMX want to bring to the NEB’s attention related to the research project and recovery of ecosystems.
11. Oil Spill Response Plan KM-TMX must file with the NEB, at least 30 days prior to commencing construction, a plan for preparing the following documents:1.     Marine Oil Spill Response Plan including a net environmental benefit analysis framework;2.     All related and accompanying plans, such as Pre-SCAT (Shoreline Clean-Up Assessment Technique) and Marine Reserves Substrate Surveys, Response Tactics for Floating Oil, Response Tactics for Submerged and Sunken Oil, Control Points, Access Plans, Geographic Response Plans, an Oil Pollution Prevention Plan, and an Oil Pollution Emergency Plan;3.     How the plan will be informed by Enhanced Spill Monitoring (Condition 5) and other MREMP monitoring and research projects;4.     The plan must include the following information in relation to the above documents and steps to be undertaken in completing them; including consultation with the interested parties; and included in review of plans such as: Fire Departments, police, marine related industries, NGOs, police, staff from Federal Environmental agencies (DFO, TC, DND, Environment Canada) and staff from provincial Ministry of Environment and Emergency Management BC (the Provincial Emergency Program), willing First Nations and independent scientists). The consultation must include a cross section of public, private, FNs similar to Area Committee representatives involved with emergency planning in the marine environment.5.     Approximate timing for the Emergency plan completion and a date for completion no later than a year prior to increasing tanker traffic;6.     A description of all federal and provincial regulations that need to be adhered to;7.     A list of interested individuals and stakeholder groups willing to review and provide improvements in Spill Plans;8.     How the review by independent non government individuals has influenced the spill plan.9.     Enhanced oil spill response capabilities, including identification and prioritized sensitive areas for oil spill response in Geographic Response Plans developed in consultation with the Province of British Columbia and communities that could be affected in the event of a spill; and Community Response Plans for participating coastal communities in the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan De Fuca;10.  KM-TMX through its subsidiary WCMR Corp. must plan for thorough simulations and drills for a Worse Case Oil Spill equivalent to that in the State of Washington, and maintain equipment on scene equivalent to the on-hand resources called for in the State of Washington. KM-TMX must submit these for public and stakeholder input and revision.
12. Consultation with interested parties on emergency preparedness and marine spill response framework KM-TMX or its subsidiary WCMR Corp must file with the NEB, at least 3 years prior to commencing operations, a plan for consulting on emergency preparedness and response for marine oil tankers:1.     The consultation plan’s scope;2.     The consultation plan’s objectives include the marine spill response framework;3.     A preliminary list of regulatory authorities to be consulted;4.     A preliminary list of communities and Aboriginal groups to be consulted;5.     A preliminary list of consultation locations and timing;6.     The methods to track commitments made during consultation and incorporation of them into final Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans;7.     How the elements of a world class spill response as outlined in the Nuka report 2013 Volume 3 have been addressed;8.     How the spill preparedness framework and spill response plan and resources are equal to those State of Washington, and are equally accessible to the interested public.

 

 

7. References

  • Note all references cited in this report are not in this reference section. Reports for specific ERs noted in Chapter three are accessible on the FER website http://ecoreserves.bc.ca/ within each ER and are not repeated here. Also note that many references appear in footnotes with web links. Many are not repeated here.
  • The KM-TMX reports we reviewed are on the NEB site and more specific references were made to these in the IRs and not repeated here.
  • Most significant references are repeated here.

Appendix

A: Letter of Support for BC Motion to Release Oil Spill Preparedness Plans to Intervenor

National Energy Board                                                                       Sent Dec 17 2014

444 Seventh Avenue SW

Calgary, AB T2P 0X8

ATTN: Sheri Young, Secretary

Dear Ms. Young,

RE: Notice of Motion by the Province of British Columbia submitted December 5, 2014 OH -001-2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (“Trans Mountain”) Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the “Project”) File Number OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 02

As an Intervenor in the above mentioned application, the Board of Friends of Ecological Reserve’s (Board of FER) provides the following comments in support for BC’s Motion submitted by the Province of British Columbia on December 5, 2014.

Please be advised that the Board of FER supports the order sought in the Province of British Columbia’s Notice of Motion dated December 5, 2014:

  1. An order that, by a fixed date, Trans Mountain file the information, identified herein, that was redacted from the Emergency Management Program documents filed on October 17, 2014;
  1. An order that Trans Mountain file the Oil Spill Response Plan of Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, by a fixed date;
  1. An order that, by a fixed date, Trans Mountain file responses to the outstanding items in Information Request No. 1 of the Province of British Columbia, as committed to in its response to the Notice of Motion of the Province of British Columbia dated July 4, 2014;
  1. Such other relief as the Board may consider appropriate in the circumstances.

The Board of FER supports the BC Government Order of Motion for the following reasons:

There are 17 Ecological Reserves along the tanker route with significant ecological values that are potentially impacted by an oil spill. Ecological Reserves (ERs) are managed by BC Parks and have the highest protection in the BC Parks System. For the BC government in general and in the case of ERs in particular we believe it is in the public interest to understand the state of preparedness and the role that KM together with the subsidiary company Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) intend to perform and what their emergency spill plan(s) looks like. We believe that organizations like FER and the ER wardens should be consulted on emergency planning with regard to oil spills and ERs. Silence or a lack of disclosure implies a lack of preparedness to respond in a timely and effective manner. As has been experienced in the past in BC, the public care deeply about their local environment. Whether First Nations or local residents, we share a common future and it is part of our west coast identity as well as how many draw their livelihood.

When the Nestucca oil spill occurred in Gray’s Harbour Washington it was the residents of Tofino and Ucluelet together with other volunteers who did the oil removal from Long Beach. The Board of FER believes when there is an oil spill along the tanker route it will be the residents of Mayne Island, Galiano Island, Pender Island, Saltspring Island, Saanich Peninsula, Victoria, Metchosin, Sooke, Port Renfrew, Ucluelet and Tofino and the many First Nations whose traditional lands border the tanker route who will suffer the impacts and who will desperately want to restore the marine ecosystems to a semblance of their former productivity. It is uncertain for example that the three days provided in the WCMRC handbook for response to a spill at Race Rocks is adequate and should be accepted. (Source http://wcmrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/WCMRC-Information-Handbook-2012.pdf) Without disclosure of the emergency spill plan the knowledge of how to augment a recovery is not possible

FER does not accept the statements that “emergency management plans are proprietary and of a sensitive nature and due to security concerns are not publicly available nor will they be made available.” Nor can we accept the approach advocated by Trans Mountain (TM) that TM can dictate who is allowed to see the level of preparedness and even then only if those allowed by TM through signed confidentiality agreements.

There is also a serious disconnect between what WCMRC professes to be as a Corporation and as stated in their 2012 handbook (link above).

We (Western Canada Marine Response Corporation) value:

  1. Open and honest communication that fosters a climate of trust.
  2. Integrity in all our business practices
  3. Being a steward of the environment
  4. Success through competency, creativity and teamwork
  5. Celebrating individual and team successes.

To have these good values announced as the corporate culture does mean a great deal with regard to social license. There is a serious level of duplicity by TM when they seek to deny access through the NEB process to emergency plans on how a spill may be managed.   To keep this from the government of BC who represent the citizens shows these as hollow pledges to the public and undermines public trust including that of Board of FER.

On the December 11th TM made their intentions known with regard to information when they asked NEB to dismiss the BC motion seeking discourse. The BC government in our opinion is correctly following a course of due diligence with regard to understanding risk and liabilities for all British Columbians. We trust that the NEB will be able to support the BC government’s request and force disclosure. We believe this is needed so all intervenors as well the general public understand what level of preparedness now exists, what will happen when there is an oil spill. This can only occur if there is a thorough review of adequacy in an open and transparent manner within the NEB process.

In the filing of Dec. 11 by Trans Mountain B296-1 – Response to Province of British Columbia Notice of Motion dated December 5, 2014 – A4F9H5 we see the following: “ Numerous other intervenors, as well as the Board (NEB), submitted IRs regarding various aspects of Trans Mountain’s existing and future emergency management and emergency response plans for the land and marine aspects of the Project. In Intervenor IR round 1 Trans Mountain responded to over 1000 IR’s regarding this issue.”

The Board of FER was one of those Intervenors who did indeed submit IR’s in round one on that subject. See Trans Mountain Response to Board of Friends of Ecological Reserves Round 1Intervenor IR Motion (https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/Open/2487006)

For instance we submitted the following IRs and two examples are repeated below with TM answers to illustrate why we support for the BC government motion.

The Board FERs Information Request (#14) sought information on emergency planning and the TM role. Our IR stated “What does KM plan for euthanizing and disposal of oiled marine animals? Removal of contaminated birds from Ecological Reserves may be needed. We are concerned that if they remain in the marine ecosystem they will continue to pass their toxicity through the food web. These contaminated animals will need to be removed and we are unsure of training and resources for this. We are concerned with public safety around possible contact with toxic contaminated wildlife”.

Trans Mountain replied “The Responsible Party (RP) will work through the Incident Command System (ICS) to manage an oil spill; this includes procurement of wildlife rehabilitation organizations through the Logistics Section and demobilization of those resources through the Demobilization Unit. Within the ICS, wildlife rehabilitation efforts are organized under the Wildlife Branch Director; those activities are permitted and supervised by the resource trustee agencies. It is common practice worldwide to remove oiled wildlife mortalities from the environment”.

When Trans Mountain was challenged on the adequacy of this answer TM responded with the boiler plate answer that we understand was used for many other the intervenor’s as well: ”The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain’s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.”

Our second example of the TM response to emergency planning is from IR (#15). We asked, “What are the plans for public education to avoid hazard to human health? We are concerned that information regarding chemical make-up of products transported at sea is not known to the public and that there will be insufficient time and resources on hand to address a worst case toxic spill.”

 

Information about the products that are shipped on Trans Mountain Pipeline is publicly available and can be found as per the response to City Burnaby IR No.1.25.05b. Section 5.7 of Volume 8 discusses a hypothetical oil spill scenario in the marine environment. Included in this section is an analysis and summary of effects on marine shoreline habitats, marine birds, marine fish and marine mammals. Please refer to Section 8.8.2 of Volume 5B of the Application for a summary of the anticipated human health effects assessment resulting from spills at Burnaby or Westridge Terminals. A detailed Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) will be completed and submitted to the NEB on June 16, 2014 to corroborate these conclusions and inform mitigation and emergency response plans. Also refer to Section 6.3.2 of Volume 7 which highlights the HHRA completed for past incidents of oil spills.”

This response effectively said to us that it was someone else’s responsibility and not theirs. When TM was challenged on the inadequacy of this answer, they responded with the same generic boiler-plate answer often used for many of the Intervenors.

The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain’s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.”

We have interpreted the responses to our questions on what will TM do about emergency oil spills to mean that there will be no TM resources made available and in the case of toxic wildlife that the Ministry of Environment will need to deal with this problem under the Wildlife Act. We do not support this cost if transferred to BC. Similarly on public safety and education TM is prepared to do nothing so it will transfer costs to emergency responders and local governments.

The Board of Friends of Ecological Reserves sought and received Intervenors standing. We understood this would be a transparent and open process. We have used volunteer time without financial compensation, to ensure that there would be minimal risk of oil spills contaminating the 17 Marine Ecological Reserves of Southern. Vancouver Island and an emergency and restoration plan in place prior to project approval was publically transparent and understood. We look to the NEB to provide openness and transparency and to making a ruling to support the government motion and make spill plan available to all concerned intervenors.

In the months of the past year, we have witnessed refusals by Trans Mountain to provide information in a transparent manner but to rather obscure or withhold information. Intervenors like Robyn Allen are to be commended in trying to ensure public accountability of TM and challenge the NEB to be even handed and fulfill its mandate. We are perplexed by the continual efforts to withhold information from BC citizens through non-cooperation with the Province of British Columbia who are on paper a supposed partner.

The BC government has the ability to require an independent Environmental Assessment 2 it be unable to obtain the information through the NEB process so they can assess whether this project is in the BC’s public interest. The Board of FER believes that BC government is concerned about its role and the role of Kinder Morgan/Trans Mountain in oil spill response and the extent to which it will be required to pick up oil spill liability. It seems reasonable for the Province of BC to conduct its own Environmental Assessment if the NEB process is incapable of supporting a call for this information from the proponent. This information is needed to assess the liability and risk and the question of whether or not the public interest of BC citizens is being served by this project.

In conclusion:

The Board of the Friends of Ecological Reserves fully supports the Province of British Columbia’s Notice of Motion and requests an order that :

  • Requires Trans Mountain to file on or before January 12, 2015, the information that was redacted from the Emergency Management program documents filed on October 17, 2014.
  • Trans Mountain file, on or before January 12, 2015, the Oil Spill Response Plan of WCMRC and any other outstanding WCMRC information:

The Deadline for round 2 Information Requests shall be extended by at least three weeks .We must have a reasonable opportunity to review and consider Trans Mountains EMP documents, WCMRC’s oil spill response plan, as well as the other information requested in order to develop information requests relating to these documents.

Such relief as the Board deems appropriate in these circumstances

Respectfully yours and on behalf of the Board of the Friends of Ecological Reserves.

 

Mike Fenger                                                                Garry Fletcher                                                ‘

RP Forester                                                                 Board member

President

Friends of Ecological Reserves

Cc: Marilynn Lambert (Board member

[1] NEB terms of reference and issues in scope (http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/pplctnflng/mjrpp/trnsmntnxpnsn/index-eng.html (accessed May 8, 2105 )

[2] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-2.4/page-1.html.

[3] Ecological Reserves Act. http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96103_01 (accessed March 2015)

[4]. The Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference is the largest most comprehensive event of its kind in the region. The purpose of the conference is to assemble scientists, First Nations and tribal government representatives, resource managers, community/business leaders, policy makers, educators and students to present the latest scientific research on the state of the ecosystem, and to guide future actions for protecting and restoring the Salish Sea Ecosystem. http://www.imber.info/index.php/Meetings/IMBER-Relevant-Meetings/meetings-2014/April-2014/2014-Salish-Sea-Ecosystem-Conference-30-April-2-May-2014-Seattle-Washington.

[5] http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/toolintro.html

[6] http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/conservationframework/

[7]Loughlin T. 1994. Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez Spill. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Marine_mammals_and_the_Exxon_Valdez.html?id=74oRAAAAYAAJ&hl=en

[8] Esler, D., et al. 2010. Cytochrome P4501A biomarker indication of oil exposure in Harlequin Ducks up to 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29:1138–1145.

[9] Ruling #2. https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/LL-ENG/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2394379/2419423/National_Energy_Board_-_Ruling_No._2_-_United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency_Request_for_Deadline_Extension_regarding_Application_to_Participate_-_Trans_Mountain_Expansion_Project_-_A3U7E2.pdf?nodeid=2419012&vernum=-2

[10] US EPA emergency response to Exxon Valdez http://www2.epa.gov/emergency-response/exxon-valdez-spill-profile

[11] US EPA Spill Response and Restoration. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/oil-and-chemical-spills/significant-incidents/exxon-valdez-oil-spill

[12] A14-3 – Appendix I – List of Participants – Part A – Intervenors – Revised 16 April 2015 – A3V6I6

[13] http://ecoreserves.bc.ca/2014/07/15/fer-gains-intervenor-status-for-new-review-of-kinder-morgans-proposed-pipeline-expansion-compiled-by-louise-beinhauer/

[14] http://planetsave.com/2014/11/12/former-bc-hydro-ceo-calls-pipeline-hearings-public-deception/

[15] Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel Appendices. http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/dcmnt/rcmndtnsrprt/rcmndtnsrprtvlm2ppndx-eng.html

[16] http://www.hctf.ca/

[17] Exxon ValdezSpill Trustee Council. http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/

[18] Joe Hunt 2009. “Mission Without a Map,” rev. 2009, by Joe Hunt (spill history & restoration perspective).
[19] http://www.oil-price.net/ used to obtain current forecasts on a bbl of oil

[20] http://www.audubon.org/conservation/science/christmas-bird-count.

[21] http://wildwhales.org/sightings-network/cetacean-and-turtle-research-in-bc/.

[22] http://depts.washington.edu/coasst/what/vision.html

[23] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/mar_wat/index.html

[24] http://pmel.noaa.gov/

[25] https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/

[26] West Coast Spill Response Study BC Ministry of Environment. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/west-coast-spill-response-study/

[27] Hearing Order https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2449981/2445930/A15-3_-_Hearing_Order_OH-001-2014_-_A3V6I2.pdf?nodeid=2445615&vernum=-2

[28] Route Segments. https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/548311/956726/2392873/2451003/2393359/B21-3_-_V8C_TR_8C_12_03_OF_03_TERMPOL_3.15_RISK_ANAL_-_A3S5F8.pdf?nodeid=2393795&vernum=-2

[29] 28 May 2014, TheTyee.ca Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion Designed to Carry Much More Oil Trans Mountain would be built with room to largely increase export capacity. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/05/28/Kinder-Morgan-Pipeline-Expansion/

[30] Enbridge, Michigan reached a settlement over 2010 oil spill – See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/enbridge-michigan-reach-settlement-over-2010-oil-spill-1.1933173#sthash.Dotou7o4.dpuf .

[31] Hunt 2009. Mission without a map. http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Store/FinalReports/2002-02535-Final.pdf .

[32] http://www.gatewayfacts.ca/Engagement.aspx#research

[33] http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2015/2015_007-eng.pdf

[34] Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel Appendices. http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/dcmnt/rcmndtnsrprt/rcmndtnsrprtvlm2ppndx-eng.html

[35] http://www.gatewayfacts.ca/en/Engagement/Phase-1/Marine-Environmental-Effects-Monitoring-Program

[36] http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/file-downloads/131-17593-00_ERA_Oil-Spill-South_150116_pp1-124.pdf

Recent Posts