Trans Mountain Expansion Project 2016

183

Trans Mountain committed to reclaiming all disturbed riparian habitat and instream habitat to, or trending

towards, pre-construction functionality. Trans Mountain said that it is committed to monitoring these areas,

post-construction, to evaluate the effectiveness of reclamation based on a comparison of post-construction

conditions to pre-construction conditions.

Participants raised concerns or made recommendations regarding Trans Mountain’s proposed watercourse

crossing methods, mitigation measures, reclamation, and post-construction monitoring. Salmon River

Enhancement Society indicated that the best way to mitigate impacts on fish and fish habitat from Project

construction is to implement trenchless crossing methods. It further noted that the B.C. Oil and Gas

Commission recommends trenchless methods as a means of protecting watercourses of high fish value.

Fisheries Act authorizations

In order to identify which crossings could result in serious harm and may likely require authorization under

paragraph 35(2)(b) of the

Fisheries Act

, Trans Mountain conducted a self-assessment of the potential

for serious harm to fish

57

which evaluated the risk from proposed watercourse construction activities.

The results of Trans Mountain’s self-assessment indicated that numerous proposed primary (26) and

contingency watercourse crossings (46), predominately timed to occur outside of least-risk windows, were

of high risk for serious harm. It committed to obtaining

Fisheries Act

authorizations when they are required,

which would include measures to offset any residual serious harm, as well as potential specific monitoring

requirements. Trans Mountain indicated that the types of offset measures would include habitat restoration

and/or enhancement, habitat creation, biological or chemical manipulations, and/or complementary

measures, including research-based projects, as defined in DFO’s hierarchy of preferences. It noted that any

Fish and Fish Habitat Offset Plan would be designed in consultation with regulators, fisheries managers,

Aboriginal groups and other stakeholders, and with specific consideration for the guiding principles outlined

in

DFO’s Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponents Guide to Offsetting

.

DFO indicated that the

Applications for Authorization under Paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations

establishes the time limits, totalling 150 days, within which the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the

Canadian Coast Guard must decide whether to issue a paragraph 35(2)(b) authorization, or refuse to do

so. DFO also said that when considering the potential issuance of a

Fisheries Act

authorization for a work(s),

undertaking(s) or activity(ies) which may adversely affect asserted or established Aboriginal or Treaty

rights, DFO would undertake consultation with potentially affected Aboriginal groups.

Salmon River Enhancement Society said that Trans Mountain’s self-assessment failed to quantify

the extent of serious harm to fish and fish habitat properly, and also questioned the adequacy of the

information used to support the self-assessment, including a lack of site-specific crossing locations

and mitigation. Participants also raised concerns about Trans Mountain’s self assessment of potential

serious harm in reference to riparian habitat, and said that Trans Mountain had not properly considered

riparian habitat under the

Fisheries Act

. Trans Mountain said that removal of riparian vegetation may

constitute serious harm if it has a limiting effect on the productive capacity of the watercourse, and if its

removal or disturbance represents a potential influence on fish communities. Trans Mountain said that

its understanding is based on precedent (i.e., previous DFO determinations on similar projects) and a

professional working understanding of the

Fisheries Act

and the associated policies and processes.

Trans Mountain used both field and desktop exercises to determine fish and fish habitat at proposed

crossing locations. Trans Mountain said that 95 per cent of the potential watercourses crossings identified

along the pipeline corridor had been investigated by a qualified fish biologist, with many sites receiving

multiple seasons of sampling. PIPE UP critiqued the watercourse crossing assessments by Trans Mountain,

identified information gaps, and proposed a fish sampling program. Trans Mountain said that the fish and

fish habitat data collection is more than adequate to support an environmental assessment and permitting

for pipeline construction and operation, as per provincial and federal regulatory requirements and

industry standards.

57 For the purposes of the

Fisheries Act

, serious harm to fish is defined as the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat.