Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Terms of Reference

Technical Review of Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace (EwE) Ecosystem Productivity Model application to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental Assessment

Science Response Process – Pacific Region

July 2016
Nanaimo, British Columbia

Co-chairpersons: Ian Perry and Lesley MacDougall

Context

Port Metro Vancouver is proposing to construct and operate the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (the project), a new three-berth marine container terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, British Columbia. The Project is located next to the existing Deltaport and Westshore Terminals.  In addition to construction of the new terminal, the north side of the existing Roberts Bank causeway will be widened from its east-end connection with the mainland to the entrance to the new terminal. The existing tug basin, connected to the north side of Deltaport Terminal, will be expanded.  The new marine terminal is expected to process up to 260 container ship calls per year at full capacity, with the assistance of two or three large berthing or escort tugs to manoeuver ships into or away from assigned berths. The terminal is designed to operate 24 hours per day year-round. 

The main project components have a proposed combined marine footprint area of approximately 179 hectares (ha), listed below by specific component:

Roberts Bank, in the Fraser River estuary, consists of complex intertidal and subtidal habitats, including intertidal eelgrass beds, which are an important stopover area for migrating shorebirds, and productive feeding and rearing habitats for many commercially valuable fish and invertebrate species, as well as providing habitat for endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales and other marine mammals.  The environmental conditions at Roberts Bank are dynamic, and are influenced by a variety of oceanographic and atmospheric factors including the Fraser River freshwater and sediment plume discharge, diural tidal cycles and currents, and prevailing and storm-generated wind and wave activity.

The proponent assessed future ecosystem productivity at Roberts Bank using the Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace (EwE model). These models are informed by a hydrodynamics and sediment transport model forecasting the impacts of the development on surrounding sediment due to changes in wind, wave and current patterns and intensities, to 2050.  The outcomes of the Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace models are then incorporated into the analysis of the potential project- related effects on the ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries.

The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project is subject to an environmental assessment by a Federal Review Panel pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. As an federal authority in the environmental assessment for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) will be asked to present evidence to the review panel and at public hearings in relation to its expertise on the effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat including aquatic species at risk, and the adequacy of mitigation and offsetting measures and monitoring/ follow-up programs proposed by the Proponent.

DFO’s Pacific Region Fisheries Protection Program (FPP) has requested DFO Science Branch provide an evaluation of the proponent’s characterization of project-related effects using the EwE ecosystem productivity model. The assessment and advice arising from these Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Science Responses (SRs) will be used to assist in the development of DFO’s submission to the Federal Review Panel during their review of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project.

In response to the broad scope of biotic and abiotic data included in the Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace model, including the coastal geomorphological model outputs incorporated in EwE, the SRs will be developed through collaboration between DFO, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Environment Canada (EC) - Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). Science Response 1 will be a collaborative response, with NRCan providing scientific advice regarding sediment transport as described within the coastal geomorphology sections of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and DFO providing scientific advice regarding hydrodynamics as described within the coastal geomorphology sections of the EIS.  Science Response 2 will be a collaborative response, with EC CWS providing scientific advice regarding bird species and habitat components of the EwE model as described in the EIS, and DFO providing scientific advice regarding fish species, productivity, and habitat components of the EwE model as described in the EIS. 

Objectives

Science information and advice will be prepared based on a review of the information contained in the following sections of the EIS, provided by the Proponent:

Additionally, there are relevant sections of the EIS that refer to information that may aid in the evaluation of the EwE model, but may not require full review.  They include:

Two Science Responses will be developed, to address the following objectives:

Science Response 1: Review Section 9.5 (Appendix 9.5-A), Coastal Geomorphology, and

  1. Determine if the proposed models are appropriate for the purpose of projecting the impacts of the project development on currents, waves, water quality and sediment transport in this environment, to inform the use of the Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace models.
  2. Assess whether the parameters used by the hydrodynamics and sediment transport models are valid and defensible for this environment and this project.
  3. Assess whether the limitations and uncertainties of the hydrodynamics and sediment transport models are identified and appropriately considered when determining the model’s representation of current and possible future conditions.
  4. Provide advice regarding whether the model results related to the potential effects of the project on hydrodynamics and sediment transport patterns are credible and defensible.

Science Response 2: Review the remaining Sections and Appendices as listed above and

  1. Determine if the functional groups and abiotic factors used in the model adequately represent the ecosystem at Roberts bank.
  2. Assess whether the parameter estimates used by the model are valid and defensible for this system.
  3. Assess whether the limitations and uncertainties of the model are identified and appropriately considered when determining the model’s representation of current and possible future conditions.
  4. Provide advice regarding whether the model results related to the potential effects of the project on fish and fish habitat, and migratory birds and their food resources are valid and defensible.
  5. If possible, provide advice regarding the validity of using the EwE model framework to quantify large scale impacts to fish habitat and fish productivity, and migratory bird productivity.

Expected Publications

Expected Participation

 

Date modified: