Stantec Report.pdf

APPENDIX D REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT – Baseline Characterization of the Fish and

Fish Habitats on Flora Bank and Adjacent Habitats

Report on Fish and Fish Habitats

Baseline Characterization of the Fish and Fish Habitats on Flora

Bank and Adjacent Habitats

Prepared for:

Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership

Oceanic Plaza, Suite 1900 – 1066 West Hastings Street,

Vancouver, BC V6E 3X1

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

4370 Dominion Street, 5th Floor

Burnaby, BC V5G 4L7

Tel: (604) 436‐3014

Fax: (604) 436‐3752

May 4, 2015

REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS

i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ IV

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................. VI

AUTHORSHIP ..................................................................................................................................... VII

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION SOURCES .......................................................................... 2

3.0 MARINE PROCESSES ................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 PHYSICAL FEATURES AND PROCESSES ............................................................................................. 6

3.2 BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES .................................................................................................................. 9 3.2.1 The Marine Ecosystem of Chatham Sound .................................................................. 9 3.2.2 Local Trophic Levels .................................................................................................... 12

4.0 VALUE OF MARINE HABITATS ................................................................................................ 34

5.0 SUMMARY ‐ MARINE BIOPHYSICAL PROCESSES ..................................................................... 38

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 40

FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................. 46


ii

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1 Trophic Associations Across Six BC Regions ............................................................... 11 Chart 2 Comparison of Satellite Imagery between SST, Turbidity and Chlorophyll for 2001,

2004 to 2014 .............................................................................................................. 15 Chart 3 Association between Long‐Term Measures of Turbidity and Chlorophyll a from

Satellite Imagery ......................................................................................................... 16 Chart 4 Eelgrass Patch Maximum Depth and Depth Range (Lowest to Highest Observed

Growth) in Chatham Sound ........................................................................................ 19 Chart 5 Eelgrass Flora and Fauna Species Richness On and Around Patches in Chatham

Sound .......................................................................................................................... 20 Chart 6 Relative Abundance of Eelgrass Epiphyton in Chatham Sound ................................. 21 Chart 7 Leaf and Shoot Length of Flora Bank Eelgrass with Distance from Sheltered Shoreline

Patches to Flora Bank ................................................................................................. 22 Chart 8 Total Benthic Invertebrates at Survey Sites around Lelu Island and Flora Bank ........ 23 Chart 9 Summary of the Migratory Timing of Juvenile Salmon Species Based on Catch per

Unit Effort (Fish/Set) from April to August ................................................................. 25 Chart 10 Number of Individuals Observed Using a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) at

Multiple Depth Ranges across Four Habitat Areas in the Spring of 2013 .................. 28 Chart 11 Catch per Unit Effort from Crab Trap Sites in Four Habitat Categories from October

2014 to March 2015 for both PNW LNG and Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) .................................................................................................................................... 30

Chart 12 Summary Catch per Unit Effort from Seine Sites on Flora and Agnew Bank and in Porpoise Channel from December to March 2015 .................................................... 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Fish and Fish Habitat Surveys within the Project area ................................................. 4 Table 2 Aerial Imagery Quantifying the Extent, Intertidal Channels and Sand Bars/Bedforms

of Flora Bank between 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2014 .................................................... 8 Table 3 Flora Bank Estimated Eelgrass Areas and Extent Over Time ...................................... 17 Table 4 Number of Individuals Observed Using a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) at

Multiple Depth Ranges Across Four Habitat Areas in the Spring of 2013 .................. 27 Table 5 Individual Birds Recorded Around Lelu Island and Flora Bank, Ridley Island and Kaien

Island .......................................................................................................................... 33 Table 6 Value of Marine Habitats within the Project area ..................................................... 37


iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Study Area Extent ....................................................................................................... 47 Figure 2 Existing Habitats within the Project Area ................................................................... 48 Figure 3 Skeena River Estuary Boundary .................................................................................. 49 Figure 4 Purse Seining Sampling Stations in the Skeena River Estuary (Figure from Higgins and

Schouwenburg, 1973). ............................................................................................... 50 Figure 5 Survey Maps of Three Published Technical/Academic Fish Distribution Studies in

Central Chatham Sound ............................................................................................. 51 Figure 6 Sampling Extent of the Published Technical and Academic Studies Reviewed and

Project Related Marine Studies within the Project Area. .......................................... 52 Figure 7 Satellite Imagery of Skeena River Discharge within Chatham Sound and Around the

Proposed Lelu Island Project site. .............................................................................. 53 Figure 8 Aerial imagery quantifying the extent, intertidal channels and sand bars/bedforms

of Flora Bank between 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2014. ................................................. 54 Figure 9 Habitat Type Characterization Based on Tidal Zone, Water Depth and Substrate Type

.................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 10 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas ........................................................... 56 Figure 11 High resolution Flora Bank Aerial Imagery and Estimated Eelgrass and Bank Extent in

2007, 2009, and 2011 ................................................................................................. 57 Figure 12 Marine Fish Survey Locations from the 2014‐2015 Field Program. ........................... 58 Figure 13 Marine Bird Observations April 2013 ......................................................................... 59 Figure 14 Marine Bird Observations August 2012 and June/July 2013 ..................................... 60 Figure 15 Marine Bird Observations November 2013 and January 2013 .................................. 61 Figure 16 Marine Mammal Vessel Survey Sightings (November 2014‐April 2015) ................... 62


iv

Executive Summary

Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership (PNW LNG) is proposing to construct and operate a liquefied natural

gas (LNG) facility on Lelu Island within the District of Port Edward, British Columbia (the Project). Marine

infrastructure for the Project will be located in waters adjacent to Flora Bank. This report characterizes existing

marine fish habitats within the Project area on Flora Bank and adjacent habitats and reviews of their respective

values to commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries.

The Skeena River estuary has been described as one of the most ecologically and socio‐economically important

zones on the British Columbia north coast. This concept is tied directly to the productivity of the second largest

salmon population in BC and the fishery that depends on it. Special emphasis has been placed on Flora Bank

eelgrass habitat and its capacity for providing rearing and feeding opportunities for juvenile Pacific salmon

originating from the Skeena River (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973). That understanding is based on the extent

and habitat use of eelgrass on Flora Bank and its potential rearing capacity for juvenile salmon. The concept that

Flora Bank is crucial as juvenile salmon habitat is largely based on field studies conducted in 1972 and anecdotal

observations from more recent studies in waters adjacent to, but not on Flora Bank; which is inconsistent with

recent field study results.

This report characterizes marine fish and fish habitats using information from historic and recent studies that were

compiled through electronic and physical searches online and in public and government libraries across BC.

This includes five decades of investigation on Chatham Sound and Flora Bank ecosystems by government,

academic, and independent scientists. In addition to this literature review, a number of unpublished field studies

(Stantec 2015a; Stantec 2015b) and analyses were conducted and reviewed.

The area on and around Lelu Island and Flora Bank is comprised of a variety of physical features and dynamic event

driven processes (wind, wave, storms, Skeena River discharge) which help shape the physical habitat types and

strongly influence the biology and habitat use of marine species in the area. These physical habitat types have

been defined within the Project area as:

Flora Bank intertidal vegetated patches

Flora Bank intertidal compact sand

Porpoise Channel deep water tidal hard sediment

Agnew and Horsey banks subtidal shallow soft sediment

Kitson Island deep soft sediment.

The physical structure and processes in the Skeena River estuary such as diel tide heights, tidal currents, TSS,

and seasonal sediment transport are directly linked to the freshwater discharge from the Skeena River basin and

define the overall productivity of Chatham Sound, species aggregations, and important habitat areas in the region,

which mirrors marine fish use of the habitats described in this report. Nutrients connected to sediments

discharged into the Skeena estuary and carried out into Chatham Sound do not immediately become available,

which potentially limits primary phytoplankton production in pelagic marine waters. This local pattern of limited


v

primary production processes constrains eelgrass growth, distribution, extent and overall habitat productivity on

Flora Bank. The habitat conditions indicates that Flora Bank does not appear to function as productive habitat in a

manner consistent with other eelgrass patches observed in the larger Chatham Sound.

The following observations of fish habitat use on and adjacent to Flora Bank support the conclusion that the area

has low habitat productivity and value:

Fish survey results indicate that small demersal fish and invertebrate species are able to inhabit areas of high

current and low visibility and effectively hang‐on under challenging physical conditions in fairly homogeneous

habitats on Flora Bank and surrounding subtidal areas

Pelagic juvenile salmon and forage fish species experience limited visibility for foraging and poor planktonic

food supply which appears to be connected to the higher turbidity and low levels of primary production that

exist in this area

Juvenile and adult salmon are observed in the Project area using natural tidal currents and tide cycles to

migrate through unproductive areas on and around Flora Bank over short time durations

Survey data suggest that salmon do not use Flora Bank eelgrass habitat for nursery habitat or other life

dependent processes

Marine bird and mammal distributions were reviewed to understand how other species used the marine

resources in the area. Marine bird and mammal survey results demonstrate limited or low habitat use on and

around Flora Bank

No bird or mammal aggregations are observed related to fish and plankton resources on Flora Bank and

adjacent habitats, presumably because of the low productivity in this area relative to other areas in Chatham

Sound.

Based on the available evidence, the habitat value for CRA fisheries of the intertidal eelgrass bed on Flora Bank is

ranked as low. Low habitat values for marine vertebrates were also assigned to Flora Bank intertidal compact sand,

the subtidal shallow soft sediment of Agnew and Horsey banks, and deep soft sediment habitats off Kitson Island.

These habitats were rated low value based on limited CRA fisheries habitat use, no identified CRA fishery species

life dependent processes, limited structural habitat complexity, high connectivity and extent of these similar

habitats, and high habitat natural resilience to change. In contrast, high CRA fisheries habitat value was assigned to

deep water tidal hard sediment habitats found within Porpoise Channel based on salmon, herring and forage fish

habitat use, high structural habitat complexity, and limited extent of these habitats.

Overall, Flora Bank exhibits limited habitat diversity type, structural complexity and habitat use by of marine fish,

birds and mammals.


vi

Abbreviations

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

BC British Columbia

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

CPUE catch per unit effort

CRA commercial, recreational, and aboriginal

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

IAs important areas

IRs information requests

LNG liquefied natural gas

MSL mean sea level

MUR multi‐scale ultra‐high resolution

PAR photosynthetic active radiation

PECP Pacific Estuary Conservation Program

PNCIMA Pacific North Coast Management Area

PNW LNG Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership

PRPA Prince Rupert Port Authority

Project Area Project Development Area

ROV remotely operated vehicle

SEI ecosystem inventory

SST sea surface temperature

the Project Pacific NorthWest LNG Project

TSS total suspended solids


vii

Authorship

Authors

Maddison Proudfoot, B.Sc., BIT

Dr. Mark Johannes, M.Sc., Ph.D.

Reviewers

Janine Beckett, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.

Kirby Ottenbreit , BA

Dr. Andrea Pomeroy, Ph.D., R.P.Bio.

Benjamin Byrd, B.Sc., B.Ed., B.Eng. (Hons.)

Contributors

Michelle Bailey, M.Sc., R.P.Bio

Steve Parker, B.Sc.

Grant Wiseman, M.Sc.

Sacha O’Regan, M.Sc.

Rowenna Gryba, M.Sc.

Ryan Cloutier, M.Sc.

Lauren Howell, B.Sc.

Jacinthe Amyot, MMM

Micki Steedman, M.Mar.Con


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report characterizes the marine fish and fish habitats at and adjacent to the marine infrastructure for the

proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership (PNW LNG) liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. These habitats

include Flora Bank and adjacent habitats located within the influence of the Skeena River estuary within Chatham

Sound. This report compiles historic studies and recent data, and provides an analysis of physical and biological

structures and processes in these habitats, including marine habitat use, to demonstrate that Flora Bank and the

ecological niche it supports do not provide high value habitat for CRA fisheries.

The Skeena River estuary has been described as one of the most ecologically and socio‐economically important

zones on the British Columbia (BC) north coast (Hoos 1975). The importance of the estuary is tied directly to the

productivity of the second largest salmon population in BC and the fishery that depends on it. However, special

emphasis has been incorrectly placed on Flora Bank eelgrass habitat and its capacity for providing rearing and

feeding opportunities for juvenile Pacific salmon originating from the Skeena River (Higgins and Schouwenburg

1973). This report demonstrates that Flora Bank exhibits limited habitat diversity, low complexity, and little habitat

use by marine vertebrates.

The concept that Flora Bank is a crucial habitat of exceptional value linked to Skeena salmon productivity is largely

based on a single field study conducted in 1972 study conducted by Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) contained

within the preliminary effects assessment conducted in 1973 for a proposed superport development (DOE 1973;

Hoos 1975; NEAT 1975a, b). Since this study, a number of other fish distribution studies have been undertaken in

Chatham Sound and the Skeena River Estuary but have not directly surveyed Flora Bank (Anderson et al. 1986;

Community Fisheries Development Center 2001; Gottesfeld et al. 2008; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris

2015). These studies examined the marine habitats surrounding Flora Bank and Lelu Island and show observations

of juvenile salmon migratory pathways in these areas during discrete spring time smolt migration periods. The

results of these recent and historic studies demonstrate that juvenile and adult salmon migratory pathways exist

around Flora Bank, but do not explicitly show that Flora Bank itself plays a direct role in supporting the productivity

of the habitats and these fisheries.

None of the historic and recent studies reviewed, with the exception of the recent PNW LNG work, have

conducted fish surveys directly on Flora Bank to assess Flora Bank as potential crucial foraging and nursery habitats

in support of population level Skeena salmon fisheries productivity. The commonly held view of Flora Bank as

valued salmon rearing habitat is based on little or no evidence, as demonstrated in this report.

This report describes the:

marine studies and data sources used to examine the habitats on and adjacent to Flora Bank, including those

that have previously characterized on Flora Bank as crucial habitat (with an emphasis on fish and fish habitat)

physical and biological marine processes with the area around Flora Bank, as well as the greater Chatham

Sound region

marine habitats on and adjacent to Flora Bank, as defined by biophysical process

values of these marine habitats.


2

2.0 BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION SOURCES

Historic and recent studies conducted around Lelu Island and in Chatham Sound were compiled through electronic

and physical searches online and in libraries across BC and within Fisheries and Oceans Canada offices in

Vancouver, Sidney and Prince Rupert. A number of unpublished field studies and published reports were

assembled and reviewed for the purposes of this report and are provided in Table 1. The compiled studies include

five decades of marine work on Chatham Sound and Flora Bank ecosystems.

Studies reviewed for this analysis included work by Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973); Anderson et al. (1986);

Community Fisheries Development Center (2001); Gottesfeld et al. (2008); Faggetter (2009); Fagetter (2013);

and Carr‐Harris and Moore (2013). Recent Project‐specific studies conducted for PNW LNG in 2013 (Stantec

2014a), and various 2014‐2015 field programs (Stantec 2015a, unpublished; Stantec 2015b, unpublished) (Table 1,

Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 13) have also been included in the review where data analysis has been completed.

The combined studies cover survey data collected over a wide range of years (1955, 1972, 1978, 1986, 1996, 2001,

2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) and months (January through to December). Sampling in these

studies included benthic invertebrates, eelgrass characteristics and fish species presence, distribution, estimated

density (relative), and biological characteristics using a variety of methods (Table 1, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 12).

One of the early studies published about Flora bank was undertaken by the Department of the Environment

Fisheries Service. This work investigated the habitats and biology of sites near Prince Rupert in Chatham Sound for

the five areas proposed for a superport in Prince Rupert and Chatham Sound through a study conducted by Higgins

and Shouwenburg (1973). Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) and the subsequent authors that cite their work,

have limited data which characterize Flora Bank and the surrounding habitats as fundamental to the production

and continued viability of Skeena River salmon and its support of the regional salmon fishery.

One of the study areas assessed occurred around Lelu Island and included sites on Flora, Agnew and Horsey banks

(Figure 4). The Lelu Island site was examined at 7 sampling locations with a single site sampled adjacent to Flora

Bank. The remainder of sites were located in deeper water near Lelu Island, and off Horsey Bank. Higgins and

Schouwenburg (1973) based their assessment on fish catch data, benthic invertebrate, zooplankton, and water

quality sample results from these locations.

Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) acknowledged that not all habitats within an estuary have the same fish

productive capacity or biological importance based on their sample results. The authors conclude that the Flora

Bank area has relative importance as salmon habitat when compared to the other areas surveyed within the

Skeena estuary.

Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) made several assumptions and conclusions about relative habitat use and

productivity that was supported with limited data. For example, fish catch data for the five study areas were

pooled across sampling stations within each area to represent habitat use and productivity. Within the Higgins and

Schouwenburg (1973) report, the Lelu Island study area had 7 sampling locations that were pooled to examine and

characterize the habitats on Flora Bank itself (area C in Figure 4). Based on recent field studies in the Lelu Island

and Flora Bank area, it is recognized that multiple habitat types, with varying habitat complexity and diversity,


3

exist and should not be examined collectively (Figure 2).The amalgamation of data collected across the 7 sampling

locations by Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) and assembled under the area called “Flora Bank” had pooled

samples and data collected across sites in multiple locations on or adjacent to Flora, Agnew and Horsey banks and

to the northwest tip of Smith Island. Their results and conclusions regarding the fish habitat value of Flora Bank

was based on a coarse representation of the larger area and did not recognize the heterogeneity of habitats within

that area.

The fish catch results from Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) were presented indicating that Inverness Channel

(area D) yielded the greatest mean juvenile salmon catches followed by Flora Bank (area C) and De Horsey Bank

(area E) (Figure 4). Flora Bank (area C) was indicated as one of the higher fish catch areas (in mean catch per unit

effort) relative to the other areas sampled, but also expressed the greatest variance in catch across areas.

The catch in area C (based on pooled data from the 7 sampling stations) was based on 66 seine sets with no fish

caught (0 catch) and a single seine catch of 238 salmon. Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) present no data to

suggest that the single large seine catch could be attributed to sampling from a station directly on Flora Bank or

any of the surrounding sampling stations that occur in any of the habitats across the Lelu Island area.

Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) also present benthic invertebrate data collected as individual sites within each

of the larger study areas. Four of the 28 locations collected were sampled in and around Lelu Island and Flora

Bank. A single sample was collected on Flora Bank and two other samples collected on Agnew Bank. The benthic

invertebrate sample results indicated a high proportion (>60% of the sample) and density of amphipods on Agnew

Bank in a site adjacent to Porpoise Channel tidal outflow. The sample on Flora Bank presented a low density of

polychaetes and low overall fauna species diversity.


4

Table 1 Fish and Fish Habitat Surveys within the Project area

Surveys and analyses conducted in the Project area

Year of Field Surveys or Analysis

Themes Methods Duration (months)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Manzer 1956, 1969 1955 Salmon distribution and diet Seine x x x x x

Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973

1972 Salmon distribution, benthic invertebrates

Seine x x x x x

Forsyth et al. 1998 1996 Eelgrass Remote sensing spectral imaging of eelgrass

x

Haegele et al. 1979 1978 Eelgrass and herring spawning x X

Anderson et al. 1986 1986 Fish distribution Seine x x x x x

Boutillier et al. 1999 1998 Fish and invertebrate distribution

Trawl x x

Gottesfeld et al. 2008

2007 Salmon distribution Mid‐water trawl x x x

Community Fisheries Development Centre 2001

2001 Fish distribution Seine x x x x

Faggetter 2009, 2013 2008, 2012 Eelgrass Flora Bank, Chatham Sound

Towed underwater video x x x x x

Carr‐Harris 2015 2013, 2014 Salmon distribution, genetics Beach seine, purse seine and mid‐water trawl

x x x x

DFO 2014 2013, 2014 Crab surveys Area A and B, Crab biological sampling

x x x

Morris et al. 2007a, b, c

2005 High Seas salmon program Mid‐water trawl x x x x x

Stantec 2014a 2012 ‐ 2013

Fish distribution, Benthics Marine birds Marine mammals

Underwater, marine bird, intertidal, eelgrass, marine mammal surveys

x x x x x x x x x


5

Surveys and analyses conducted in the Project area

Year of Field Surveys or Analysis

Themes Methods Duration (months)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Stantec 2015a, b 2014 ‐ 2015

Fish distribution and abundance, oceanographic, ocean currents, marine birds, marine mammals

Seine, crab trapping, hydroacoustics, fyke netting, mid‐water trawl

x x x x * * * * * * x x

Stantec 2015 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

High resolution aerial imagery Multivariate pattern analysis of surface features and eelgrass

x x x x

Stantec 2015 2001, 2004‐2014 Monthly satellite imagery Remote sensing compilation of turbidity, sea surface temperature, chlorophyll a

x x x x x x x x x x x x

NOTE:

* = planned for completion in 2015.


6

3.0 MARINE PROCESSES

This section of the report describes the physical and biological environmental processes and physical habitat types

identified in Chatham Sound and locally in the waters surrounding Lelu Island within the Project area.

3.1 PHYSICAL FEATURES AND PROCESSES

Marine areas on Flora Bank and in the waters of Agnew Bank, Horsey Bank and Porpoise Channel, adjacent to the

Project site off Lelu Island, are often exposed to physically turbulent conditions and are framed by the prominent

islands, islets, bedrock features, channels and passages in the region. The physical morphology of the area and

seafloor support marine and freshwater movement characterized by strong river outflows, high levels of turbidity

and strong tidal currents with exposure to large regional wave and storm events (Hatch 2015). This physical

environment and habitat areas within it support and are influenced by large tidal fluctuations ranging up to 7.4 m,

ebb and flood currents up to 1 m/s, high concentrations of TSS from the Skeena River outflow ranging from

12 mg/L (June freshest) to 4 mg/L (late summer), and low light transparency (<0.8 m Secchi depth in June freshet)

(Hatch 2014a; Stantec 2014a; PRPA 2013; PRPA 2014). The tidal currents into and out of Porpoise Channel help

maintain the northern edge of Flora Bank and the depths and distribution of substrates in Agnew and Horsey

banks (Hatch 2014a). The tidal current between Smith and Porcher islands (Marcus Passage) and Smith Island and

the mainland (Inverness Passage) help maintain the southern edge of Flora Bank.

Most of the surface water in Chatham Sound transports suspended sediments discharged from the Skeena River,

particularly from May to October. The largest levels of suspended sediments and resulting water turbidity are

observed around Kennedy, De Horsey, Smith, Porcher Islands, with reduced levels around Kitson and Lelu islands

extending offshore to the Kinahan Islands in Chatham Sound (Trites 1956; DeGroot 2005; ASL 2014; PRPA 2013;

PRPA 2014). The distribution of Skeena River freshwater and suspended sediments is influenced by the complex

bathymetry of the delta and the complex of islands and channels, including Kennedy, Smith, Marrack, De Horsey

and Porcher islands (Trites 1956; Conway et al. 1996). The Skeena River discharge is carried through three

passages: <25% through Inverness Channel, and equal discharge through Telegraph and Marcus passages (Conway

et al. 1996; DeGroot 2005; ASL 2014). Larger particles of sand are transported as bedload in the Skeena River delta

leading to Inverness Channel, and Telegraph and Marcus passages. Small to medium sized dunes and large sand

ridges are observed through these passages, on the north side of Kennedy Island and between Smith and De

Horsey islands (Conway et al. 1996). Fine grained particle sediments such as silt and clay, occur within a buoyant

plume that extends north of Kennedy and Smith Islands beyond Lelu Island, and is visible in aerial and satellite

imagery (Figure 7). These suspended sediments are distributed over several basins, passages, and tidal flats

beyond Kitson Island, and are deposited on mudflats and shallow intertidal passages around Smith, Porcher,

Kennedy, De Horsey islands, through Inverness Channel, and between Kitson and Lelu islands (ASL 2014).

Sediment discharge from the Skeena River is estimated to range from 2 to 5 million m3/year (Conway et al. 1996,

ASL 2014). Given an average sediment discharge of 3 million m3/year and deposition of at least 75% of this

sediment (Conway et al. 1996), it is estimated that approximately 0.1 m/year (ASL 2014) of sediment has the

potential to be deposited over the main Skeena estuary, with smaller levels of deposition ranging from 0.02 to

0.1 m/year in sites to the north of Smith Island toward Lelu Island. This estimated annual range of sediment

deposition north of Smith Island and near Lelu Island (0.02 to 0.1 m/year) is consistent with observations of a band


7

of dioxins and furans observed in the sediment north of Porpoise Channel (Watson Island) from pulp mill operation

discharges over 50 years (1951 to 2001) (Stantec 2014b). This dioxin and furan band is observed at 1.2 m depth

which equates to approximately 0.092 m/year of sediment from 2001 to 2014 (Stantec 2014b).

Local sediment deposition patterns and amounts around Kitson and Lelu islands result from the sediments

discharged and transported from the Skeena River (Conway et al. 1996; DeGroot 2005; ASL 2014). The pattern of

deposition, suspension and re‐suspension of new and existing sediments is strongly influenced by discharge and

local tidal currents and tidal cycles around Kitson Island, Flora and Agnew banks and Porpoise Channel (ASL 2014;

Hatch 2014b). Maximum flood and ebb tidal currents have been recorded at greater than 0.5 m/s (Inverness

Channel and Porpoise Channel) (Hatch 2014a; Hatch 2014b).

Particle tracking model (PTM) results predict that shallow bedload and suspended sediments around the Project

area will be transported offshore out of Porpoise Channel and north of Agnew Bank during maximum spring ebb

tidal currents, and transported from the shallow areas of Horsey, Agnew and Flora banks along and into Porpoise

Channel during flood tidal currents (Hatch 2014a).

Fine sands were found distributed at deeper depths and in more stable layers of settlement further away from

Kitson Island and Porpoise Channel (Stantec 2014b). Dioxins and furans were observed in these samples,

distributed deeper in the sediment layers, indicating a process of continuous transport and settlement of

sediments at depth in Agnew and Horsey banks (Stantec 2014b). Silts and less consolidated sediments were found

closer to the edge of Agnew and Flora banks along a west to east line from Kitson Island to Lelu Island

(Stantec 2014b; SedTrend 2015). The silty – clay sediments indicated little presence of dioxins and furans

originating from inside Porpoise Channel at any depth and demonstrated a more continuous or changing pattern

of sediment transport, re‐suspension and distribution (Stantec 2014b).

The transport, distribution and settlement of various sized sediment particles and the concentration of silt and

general sediment consolidation (compactness and silt embeddedness) are consistent with observations of

substrates, habitat characteristics and species habitat use. This is illustrated in the less consolidated silty substrates

along the northwestern edge of Flora Bank, and the observed use by species such as coonstripe shrimp, eelpouts

and tubesnout that frequent more turbulent open soft – sediment habitats (Stantec 2014a). Deeper areas of sandy

substrates along Agnew Bank were observed as habitats used by Dungeness crab, flounder and sole which use

stable, compact, soft ‐ sediment open habitats (Stantec 2014a).

Water quality has been monitored in lower and central Chatham Sound over the past 2.5 years by the Prince

Rupert Port Authority (PRPA). Water quality was collected and measured for turbidity and TSS concentrations.

The data were compiled and grouped into three general areas including: (1) Skeena River Outflow, (2) Flora and

Agnew banks, and (3) Porpoise Channel. The results of this monitoring program and other monitoring studies

indicate that TSS and turbidity measures in the Project area vary throughout the year, with noted increases in

turbidity and TSS (greater than 5 NTU and 12mg/L respectively) in the second and fourth quarters of the year.

The observed increase in turbidity and TSS correspond with the onset of spring freshet and fall rainfall events

(Section 3.2.2.1). Detailed results are discussed in the Report on Water Clarity ‐ Baseline Characterization of the

Water Clarity, Total Suspended Solids, and Turbidity on Flora Bank and Adjacent Habitats (Stantec 2015c).


8

Acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) tow surveys were used to examine TSS and tidal velocities at depth during

flood and ebb tidal cycles across Flora, Agnew and Horsey banks and in Porpoise and Inverness channels.

During low tides, tidal current velocities were lowest near the entrance to Porpoise Channel and much stronger in

Inverness Channel near areas of larger Skeena River outflow. TSS concentrations were higher closer to areas of the

Skeena River outflow in Inverness Channel and across Flora Bank during ebb tides. During flood tides, tidal current

velocities were similar to, or slightly higher than those measured on the low ebb tides with current velocities

flowing from the northeast to southeast at the entrance to Porpoise Channel. TSS concentrations ranged from

25 to 40 mg/L with lower TSS near the surface and higher TSS at greater depths. Maximum measured tidal current

velocities exceeded 1 m/s in the deeper channels near areas of large Skeena River outflow. Ebb tidal currents near

Inverness Channel flowed in north and northeast directions. TSS was higher in the areas south of Flora Bank

relative to other sites. Tidal current direction over Flora Bank during flood tides was predominantly to the

southeast and had lower TSS concentrations than at the Skeena River outflow area. Two‐layer flow (surface and

bottom stratums flowing in opposite directions) were less evident on a flooding tide. At high tides, currents were

generally much weaker on all transects surveyed (<0.2 m/s). The direction of water flow was variable among sites.

For example, flow direction was west‐northwest near Porpoise Channel, southeast over Flora Bank, and north‐

northeast near the Skeena River outflow. TSS concentrations were also observed to be lower at high tide than

during the other surveyed tidal states. Further discussion is provided in the Report on Water Clarity (Stantec

2015c).

High resolution aerial photographic imagery taken of Flora Bank at similar tide heights was assembled and

analyzed for 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2014. The aerial images were used to examine and evaluate the physical surface

features of Flora Bank during low tides. The quantified surface features included intertidal surface sand bars or

bedforms, intertidal tidal channels, and the aerial extent of Flora Bank across the four years (Figure 8). The area of

Flora Bank and surface features varied considerably over the seven year period between 2007 and 2014 (Table 2).

This analysis demonstrates that Flora Bank is not static and shows natural patterns of change including sediment

transport through both erosion and deposition and morphological instability. These changes are presumably a

result of strong hydrodynamic forces and wave and wind storm events in this area of Chatham Sound.

Table 2 Aerial Imagery Quantifying the Extent, Intertidal Channels and Sand Bars/Bedforms of Flora Bank between 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2014

Date Intertidal

Sand Bars (ha) Intertidal

Channels (ha) Flora Bank

Total Area (ha)

May 20, 2007 169.1 75.8 244.9

April 29, 2009 160.9 102.2 262.7

June 7, 2011 123.0 136.5 259.5

June 15, 2014 249.1 55.7 304.8

The Project area is influenced by the strong hydrodynamic processes detailed above, resulting in distinct physical

marine habitat types classified by currents, turbidity, depth and sediment types. High levels of freshwater input

and sediment transport create the expansive delta flats (small to moderate sediment particle sizes) of Agnew and

Horsey banks and impinge on the coarser grained sediment structure of Flora Bank (Conway et al. 1996). The depth

class of these banks ranges from 0 m chart datum (CD) at Flora Bank to 0 to ‐5 m CD at Agnew Bank and


9

from ‐5 to ‐10 m CD at Horsey Bank. Sediment transport from the Skeena River coupled with strong tides and tidal

currents, the location of bedrock, and the elevation of the banks, creates differences in bottom substrate type and

stability. Increased levels of TSS and decreased levels of water clarity occur over the banks as described above, but

clearer water habitat with deep water hard bottom sediment is present in tidal channel areas like Porpoise

Channel. Five physical habitat types (Figure 91) were identified as spatially distinct areas, based on classifications as

intertidal or subtidal, subtidal depths, tidal currents and sediment characteristics. The five physical habitat types

include the following areas:

Flora Bank intertidal vegetated patches – 46.1 ha

Flora Bank intertidal compact sand – 258.4 ha

Porpoise Channel deep water tidal hard sediment – 91.1 ha

Agnew and Horsey Bank subtidal shallow soft sediment – 286.1 ha

Kitson Island deep soft sediment – 199.8 ha.

3.2 BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES

This section describes the biological processes that occur in Chatham Sound and the local Project area. This

includes the rationale behind the designated Chatham Sound Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas,

and descriptions of local marine trophic level dynamics and how these relate to the habitats that exist within the

Project area around and adjacent to Lelu Island and Flora Bank within southern Chatham Sound.

3.2.1 The Marine Ecosystem of Chatham Sound

Chatham Sound is one of 18 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas within the Pacific North Coast Integrated

Management Area (PNCIMA) which have been characterized and designated by Fisheries and Oceans Canada

(DFO) (Clarke and Jamieson 2006a; Clarke and Jamieson 2006b; DFO 2012) (Figure 10). Marine areas are evaluated

for designation as Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas based on the characteristics of important areas

(IAs) rated by three criteria ‐ uniqueness, aggregation and fitness ‐ and weighted by resilience and naturalness

(Clark and Jamieson 2006a; Clarke and Jamieson 2006b). The evaluation of Ecologically and Biologically Significant

Areas takes into account only the relative value of an area compared to other areas in the region and along the

BC coast and considers only the biological and ecological properties of the area and not potential anthropogenic

issues. In the Pacific region, Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas are primarily identified on the basis of

expert knowledge about biophysical features including species‐specific IAs. Species‐specific IAs are developed and

evaluated based on compilation and review of coast wide ecosystem and biological processes and species‐specific

habitat use and productivity.

Chatham Sound has been evaluated and designated one of 18 Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas along

the north eastern shelf of the BC coast based on unique and productive biophysical characteristics relative to other

areas. Unique IAs are defined as the primary ecological components defining processes that comprise the Chatham

Sound Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area including:

1 Extents of the physical habitat types were determined using high resolution satellite imagery from 2011


10

Major freshwater river outflows

Strong tidal mixing

High phytoplankton biomass and productivity around and north of Prince Rupert

Migration staging for black and white winged scoters (Melanitta Americana and Melanitta fusca)

High green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) abundance and aggregations around and north of

Prince Rupert

Moderate Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) and Tanner crab (Chionoecetes tanneri and C. bairdi)

abundance and aggregations around and north of Prince Rupert

High shrimp and prawn aggregations and species diversity

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) spawning in five northern Chatham Sound locations

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) demersal feeding on benthic invertebrates and spawning in the Nass and

Skeena Rivers

Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) adult salmon feeding (summer) around and north of Prince Rupert

Humpback whale herring and benthic shrimp feeding (summer‐fall)

One of three known BC Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus monteriensis) rookeries

Supporting fisheries in central and northern Chatham Sound for several invertebrate benthic species.

The productivity and distribution of Chatham Sound is in part driven by freshwater discharge, sediment transport,

tidal mixing and nutrients which become biologically available in the benthic environment and in northern pelagic

waters. Tidal mixing occurs around Prince Rupert and creates distribution of nutrients to support benthic

invertebrate species abundance and diversity. Benthic invertebrate abundance in turn drives seasonal higher

trophic level productivity and resources used as forage by a number of species with seasonal life dependent

processes (spawning, foraging, breeding and nursery colonies).

Consistent with the Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area regional ecosystem level observations, is a review

completed by Ware and Thomson (2005) of marine productivity along the BC coast. This study separated the coast

of BC into six distinct areas of marine productivity, including Chatham Sound and Hecate Strait, based on primary

and secondary productivity and fisheries yields (Chart 1). The results from this study provide two levels of

understanding which confirm both the Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area evaluation of important

ecological processes in central and northern Chatham Sound and the level of productivity in the region relative to

other BC coastal marine areas.

Ware and Thomson (2005) show that resident invertebrate, fish biomass, and primary productivity in Chatham

Sound and Hecate Strait marine ecosystems are directly and positively related to bottom‐up driven nutrient

dynamics ecosystems channelled through both pelagic and benthic trophic levels. This is consistent with the

understanding that Skeena River discharges, particularly in May through October, control surface water properties

(temperature, oxygen, salinity, transparency, nutrients) in southern and central Chatham Sound (Trites 1956;

Birch et al. 1985) and help drive higher trophic level productivity in central and northern Chatham Sound as

nutrients become biologically available as freshwater is mixed throughout central Chatham Sound. These

observations are further confirmed spatially and temporally by analyses of remote sensing monthly data between

2004 and 2014 (see Section 3.2.2.1 below) and the relationships between Skeena River discharge, sea surface

temperature, water clarity and turbidity and primary production. Further results are discussed in the Report on

Water Clarity (Stantec 2015c).


11

Ware and Thomson (2005) show that in BC the highest marine ecosystem productivity is observed in the Strait of

Georgia (3), followed by Southwest Vancouver Island (1). By comparison, Chatham Sound/Hecate Strait (5) has a

much lower relative level of general marine productivity (Chart 1).

Upper panel: associations between mean annual concentrations of chlorophyll a and zooplankton. Lower panel: corresponding associations between mean annual zooplankton biomass and the long‐term mean annual resident fish yield. 1: Southwest Vancouver Island 2: West coast of Vancouver Island (at 49.6°N), 3: Strait of Georgia, 4: West coast of Vancouver Island (at 51.6°N), 5: Chatham Sound/Hecate Strait, 6: Outer northwest coast (at 53.0°N). Source: Ware and Thomson, 2005

Chart 1 Trophic Associations Across Six BC Regions


12

3.2.2 Local Trophic Levels

Food web interactions and ecosystem productivity within Chatham Sound are strongly linked by bottom‐up

ecosystem dynamics controlled largely by availability of nutrients from sediment transport, freshwater mixing from

the Skeena River, seasonal upwelling in cooler periods, seasonal primary production and benthic and pelagic

secondary production (Ware and Thompson 2005). The following section outlines the trophic level observations on

Flora Bank and habitats at and adjacent to the Project including: primary productivity measures through

chlorophyll a, Flora Bank eelgrass, benthic invertebrates, and marine fish. Marine birds and marine mammals are

discussed as incidental observations in relation to their seasonal distribution.

3.2.2.1 Primary Productivity

Spatial and temporal patterns and associations between Skeena River discharge, sediment transport, freshwater

mixing and nutrient availability were examined in Chatham Sound through analysis of MERIS and VIIRS remote

sensing satellite derived data on sea surface temperature (SST), turbidity, and chlorophyll a as averages from 2001,

2004 to 2014 across each month (Chart 2). These data were contrasted to monthly Skeena River discharge for the

same years obtained from Water Survey of Canada (Usk Station: 08EF001). Turbidity and water clarity was derived

from satellite spectral imagery measured as downwelling diffuse light attenuation coefficient (K(490)) and is

calculated using the blue wavelength (490 nm) and the green wavelength (555 nm). K(490) indicates how visible

light in the blue ‐ green region of the spectrum penetrates within the water column. Chlorophyll and primary

productivity was derived from satellite spectral imagery measures at PAR. Chlorophyll in marine water changes the

way it reflects and absorbs sunlight allowing satellite sensors to map the amount and distribution of

phytoplankton. Chlorophyll a absorbs more blue and red light than green with the resulting reflected light

changing from blue to green as the amount of chlorophyll in the water increases. Further discussion and detailed

spatial and temporal analysis of water clarity, sea surface temperature (SST) and photosynthetic active radiation

(PAR) is provided in the Report on Water Clarity (Stantec 2015c).

Long‐term trends in monthly turbidity, as measured as diffuse light attenuation coefficient (K(490)), near

Lelu Island and across Chatham Sound correspond to broad patterns and variations in monthly Skeena River

discharge, detailed results are reported in Chart 2 of the Report on Water Clarity (Stantec 2015c). Long term trends

in monthly chlorophyll a (primary productivity and phytoplankton abundance), as measured through PAR, show a

seasonal trend for sites around Lelu Island, Skeena River estuary and Chatham Sound. Spring phytoplankton bloom

(chlorophyll a) commonly occurs in late March and early April in Chatham Sound. Chlorophyll a shows an increase

in concentration throughout early spring and into mid‐summer following seasonal trends in sunlight. Detailed

results are discussed in the Report on Water Clarity (Stantec 2015c).

Spatial and temporal association between turbidity and chlorophyll a appear strongly correlated around Lelu Island

and within the area of the middle Skeena estuary (Chart 3). Turbidity and chlorophyll a show a strong positive

logarithmic association (r2=0.87, p=0.05) around Lelu and Kitson Islands, and in Inverness Channel, Marcus and

Telegraph Passages. The positive association between turbidity, nutrients and chlorophyll a diminishes outside the

middle Skeena estuary (r2=0.69, p=0.05) and into the larger Chatham Sound area (r2=0.49, p=0.05) with distance

and reduced influence of the Skeena River discharge.


13

These associations (Chart 2) and patterns illustrate that the upper limits of phytoplankton concentration may be

bounded by turbid and nutrient conditions (Cloern 1987; Gilbes et al. 1996) experienced in the middle estuary and

around Lelu Island and Flora Bank associated with timing and concentration of sediment laden Skeena River

discharge. Additional results are discussed in the Report on Water Clarity (Stantec 2015c). These associations

suggest that as the Skeena River freshwater is diluted and mixes into Chatham Sound beyond Ridley Island, the

potential light limitations associated with turbidity lessens with distance from the Skeena River estuary and

nutrients tied to sediments may have greater availability for phytoplankton growth (Gilbes et al. 1996). This

process provides growth opportunities for marine phytoplankton in the area of Chatham Sound beyond Ridley

Island. These patterns are generally consistent with the observed distribution and diversity of marine species (fish,

birds and mammals) around the project site and into Chatham Sound (Clarke and Jamieson 2006b; DFO 2012).


14

2004 March April May June July August September October

Turbidity

Sea Surface Temperature

Chlorophyll a


Turbidity


Chlorophyll a


Turbidity


Chlorophyll a

Turbidity 0 1.75 3.5 490 nm(m-1)

Sea Surface Temperature 6°C 10°C 14°C

Chlorophyll a 0 7.5 15 mg/m3

Across all years: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2013


15


Turbidity


Chlorophyll a


Turbidity


Chlorophyll a

Chart 2 Comparison of Satellite Imagery between SST, Turbidity and Chlorophyll for 2001, 2004 to 2014


Turbidity


Chlorophyll a

Turbidity 0 1.75 3.5 490 nm(m-1)

Sea Surface Temperature 6°C 10°C 14°C

Chlorophyll a 0 7.5 15 mg/m3

Across all years: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2013


16

Top panel: sites off Lelu Island – Flora Bank and within areas of Inverness Channel, Marcus and Telegraph Passage. Middle panel: sites off Kinahan, Kaien, Stephens, and Porcher islands and within areas of Ogden Channel. Bottom panel: sites off Dundas Island, and northwest Stephens within area of northern Chatham Sound.

Source: Report on Water Clarity ‐ Baseline Characterization of the Water Clarity, Total Suspended Solids, and Turbidity on Flora Bank and Adjacent Habitats (Stantec 2015c)

Chart 3 Association between Long‐Term Measures of Turbidity and Chlorophyll a from Satellite Imagery

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Chlorophyll a

(mg/m

3 )

Turbidity (Diffuse Light Attenuation K490)

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Chlorophyll a (mg/m3)


0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Chlorophyll a (mg/m3)


Spring

Late Summer


17

3.2.2.2 Eelgrass

Eelgrass and algae habitats support coastal ecosystems and provide physical stability, sediment stabilization,

structural shelter and primary production for epibenthic fauna. These habitats are often used by marine species

that are part of commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries (Ward et al. 1984; Forsyth et al. 1998;

Fonseca et al. 1998; Lucas et al. 2007; Faggetter 2009, 2013). Eelgrass is found throughout central and northern

Chatham Sound and is often considered an important primary producer. The extent of this eelgrass as determined

by a 2012 Chatham Sound eelgrass inventory (Faggetter 2013) indicates that eelgrass in the Skeena River estuary

represents approximately 8.4% of the entire eelgrass occurring in Chatham Sound. The eelgrass located on Flora

Bank represents approximately 1.1% of the total eelgrass in Chatham Sound, and approximately 13.4% of all

eelgrass beds found in the lower and middle Skeena River estuary (Faggetter 2013). Based on several estimates,

the aerial coverage of eelgrass on Flora Bank shows considerable variation among years ranging from 330 to

800 ha over a 17 year period (Table 3).

Table 3 Flora Bank Estimated Eelgrass Areas and Extent Over Time

Year Flora Bank Eelgrass Area (ha) Data/Source

1996 80 Aerial image analysis/Forsyth et al. 1998 Intertidal inventory/Faggetter 2009

2007 46 Aerial image analysis/Stantec 2015



2013 33 Aerial image analysis/Stantec 2014 Intertidal Inventory

The variation in Flora Bank eelgrass areal coverage is directly associated with the extent of physical sand bar/

bedforms on which eelgrass grows (Section 3.1 above), the elevation of intertidal compact sand bars above mean

sea level (MSL), the extent of seasonal marine water clarity and light limitation to support eelgrass photosynthetic

shoot and rhizome growth (Faggetter 2013). These results are supported below in Figure 11, Chart 4, Chart 5, Chart

6, and Chart 7. Further results on the seasonal marine water clarity and light limitation are discussed in the Report

on Water Clarity (Stantec 2015c).

Multivariate analysis of high resolution multispectral aerial imagery of Flora Bank (see Section 3.1) was used to

estimate the extent of Flora Bank, the intertidal areas of sand bar and bed forms, intertidal dendritic channels and

the extent of eelgrass growing on intertidal sands for 2007, 2009, and 2011, and a visual digitization of polygons at

a 1‐5k scale was used on the non‐multispectral imagery for 2014 (Figure 8, Figure 11). The aerial image analysis

was calibrated to similar low tidal heights to categorize vegetated and un‐vegetated sand bar/bedforms relative to

an outer edge of Flora Bank defined at ‐3.8 MSL consistent with the 2012 PNW LNG bathymetric survey results.

Results from intertidal transects in 1996 (Forsyth et al. 1998), 2009, 2012 (Faggetter 2009, 2013) and 2013 (Stantec

2014a) show only the presence of eelgrass (Zostera marina) on Flora Bank. No other marine vegetation was

observed. It was therefore assumed that all vegetation observed in aerial imagery was eelgrass.

Eelgrass surveys in 2012 investigated 36 sites across Chatham Sound (Faggetter 2013). Twenty‐nine of the 36 sites

had observations of subtidal eelgrass patches, all observed outside the Skeena River Estuary and sediment plume.

The remaining seven eelgrass sites surveyed, including Flora Bank, were comprised entirely of intertidal eelgrass


18

patches distributed in specific areas defined by light limitations to eelgrass growth and distribution dependent on

low water clarity and high turbidity in the estuary.

Chatham Sound eelgrass patches were compared based on maximum depth, depth range, flora and fauna species

richness, and epiphyton growth (Chart 4, Chart 5, Chart 6, and Chart 7). Review of these results indicates that Flora

Bank eelgrass:

Is confined to the shallow upper intertidal depths and a lower depth range relative to eelgrass patches across

Chatham Sound (Chart 4)

Has the lowest flora and fauna (single cockle species) species richness (Chart 5)

Has the lowest epiphyte abundance relative to eelgrass patches across Chatham Sound (Chart 6)

Has short eelgrass leaf and shoot lengths consistent with high exposure to wind and waves (Chart 7).


19

Flora Bank Eelgrass is identified with the Arrow.

Chart created from data sourced from Faggetter (2013)

Chart 4 Eelgrass Patch Maximum Depth and Depth Range (Lowest to Highest Observed Growth) in Chatham Sound


20

Note: Species richness was estimated from the marine fauna and flora species reported at each eelgrass patch and study site. Species identified at the genus level was counted once, while species listed under a sub‐group (e.g., Filamentous red, Foliose reds, Filamentous green), were assumed to indicate at least 2 different species.

Flora Bank eelgrass is Identified with the Arrow.

Chart created from data sourced from Faggetter (2013).

Chart 5 Eelgrass Flora and Fauna Species Richness On and Around Patches in Chatham Sound


21

Flora Bank Eelgrass is Identified with the Arrow. Observations of epiphytic abundance (none, low, medium, high) were converted into values from 1 to 4 (Faggetter 2013)

Chart created from data sourced from Faggetter (2013).

Chart 6 Relative Abundance of Eelgrass Epiphyton in Chatham Sound


22

Flora Bank eelgrass shoot or leaf length was sampled and measured across distances from sheltered shoreline

areas on Lelu Island out onto the eelgrass patch confined to Flora Bank (Stantec 2014a). These observations

indicate that eelgrass leaf length reduces with wind, wave and fetch exposure onto Flora Bank (Chart 6).

These results are consistent with observations across eelgrass patches in Chatham Sound (Faggetter 2013).

During eelgrass specific surveys on Flora Bank in 2013 and 2015, exposed eelgrass rhizomes were frequently

observed indicating the instability of the sediments on Flora Bank (Skinner 2015, pers. comm.).

Data sourced from Stantec 2014a.

Chart 7 Leaf and Shoot Length of Flora Bank Eelgrass with Distance from Sheltered Shoreline Patches to Flora Bank

Flora Bank has been portrayed as a vibrant and productive habitat area supporting a rich eelgrass bed.

This concept has been supported by work conducted in 1972 by Higgins and Schoewenburg (1973) with limited

direct observations in their presented results. Additional surveys of Flora Bank over the past decade and in detail

within the past 3 years (Faggetter 2013; Stantec 2014a) have indicated that the eelgrass on the bank is exposed to

high levels of natural turbulence from local tidal currents and extreme events which:

Alter the shape and extent of the bank and opportunities for eelgrass growth

Limit the depths and range of depths at which eelgrass grows

Limit of the richness and diversity of species which use and grow on the eelgrass

Limit the leaf length and growth of eelgrass.

3.2.2.3 Benthic and Epibenthic Invertebrates

The distribution and abundance of epibenthic and epiphytic invertebrates on Flora Bank and the areas adjacent to

Lelu Island were used to support the assertion of high productivity of these areas (Higgins and Schouwenburg

1973; Stantec 2014a). Epibenthic and epiphytic invertebrates are prey for juvenile salmon, coastal demersal fish

species and marine birds (Manzer 1956, 1969).


23

Sediment grab samples collected around the Lelu Island area by Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) indicate that

the total abundance of invertebrates at each of the survey sites was limited (0–38 individuals) with low species

diversity (Chart 8) dominated by isolated distribution of amphipods, isopods, copepods and cumaceans. The Flora

Bank site was predominantly infaunal benthic polychaetes found in areas of compact sands. The highest number of

invertebrates was observed at Horsey Bank and included collection of 26 amphipods (62% of the sample).

Amphipods were only found at this site in substrates with small amounts of accumulated detritus within deeper

areas with limited currents.

Numbered sites in the data represented above include 1: Horsey Bank, 2: Porpoise Channel, 3: Flora Bank, 4: Agnew Bank, 5: East Agnew Bank, 6: Smith Island, and 17: Inverness Passage.

Chart created from data sourced from Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973).

Chart 8 Total Benthic Invertebrates at Survey Sites around Lelu Island and Flora Bank


24

Intertidal invertebrate density was also recorded during Project‐specific transect surveys at four sites around the

shoreline of Lelu Island (Stantec 2014a). Mean motile invertebrate abundance and species richness was greatest at

the northwest and northeast Lelu Island sites, where the shoreline is comprised of rocky, more exposed intertidal

habitat. The less rocky north Lelu Island site and, particularly, the predominantly soft‐sediment habitat between

east Lelu Island and the mainland had the lowest mean species richness. During eelgrass specific surveys on

Flora Bank in 2013 and 2015, few epibenthic invertebrates were observed on eelgrass and sand areas of southern

Flora Bank (Skinner 2015, pers. comm.).

3.2.2.4 Fish and Crustaceans

3.2.2.4.1 Juvenile Salmon Surveys

Juvenile salmon migration patterns are often a function of the relationship between seasonal temperatures,

sunlight, river discharge from freshwater nursery habitats, estuary shelter habitats and food availability. Sockeye

(Oncorhynchus nerka) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon are neritic planktivorous feeders, preferring deeper pelagic

zones abundant with zooplankton, amphipods, euphasids and small fish larvae, whereas chinook (O. tshawytscha),

pink (O. gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) are epibenthic planktophagous feeders found in shallow water feeding

mostly on copepods and epibenthic crustaceans (Manzer 1969; Brodeur 1990; Brodeur et al. 2007).

Spatial and temporal distribution of juvenile salmon smolts were examined in Chatham Sound through seine and

trawl surveys (Figure 6) (Manzer 1956; Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973; Anderson et al. 1986; Community

Fisheries Development Centre 2001; Gottesfeld et al. 2008; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris 2015).

With the exception of late May when the highest number of sockeye smolts were observed moving past Kennedy

Island, higher overall abundance and rearing capacity of sockeye smolts were observed in lower areas of Chatham

Sound including the Port Edward region (which stretches from Digby Island to the southern end of Smith Island)

and the Ogden Channel region throughout the survey period (Morris et al. 2007; Gottesfeld et al. 2008). Within the

Port Edward region, Carr‐Harris and Moore (2013) and Carr‐Harris (2015) caught 23%, 41%, 45%, and 67% of the

total number of sockeye, coho, chinook and pink salmon respectively in the Project area as compared to the rest of

the areas surveyed in Chatham Sound.

One seine study within the more local Project area caught the majority of salmon smolts on the southeastern

shoreline of Lelu Island (across from Inverness Channel) and in Inverness Channel, when compared to sites in

Porpoise channel, outside Ridley Island, within the inlet of Smith Island and the channels and in sites running on

both sides of Lelu Island (Anderson et al. 1896).

A more recent survey caught the majority of salmon smolts at Kinahan Islands compared to the more inshore areas

of north Smith Island, Ridley Island and Lelu Island using both trawl and seine methodology (Carr‐Harris and

Moore, 2013). The trawl sites at Agnew Bank and Treymayne Bay (located on Digby Island) had the next highest

salmon catch, whereas the seine site at Lelu Island (northwest shoreline) had the lowest overall salmon catch (3%)

after Ridley island (within porpoise channel) and north Smith Island, respectively (Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013;

Carr‐Harris 2015).

Sockeye and coho salmon were observed in higher densities outside Kitson Island and on the southern edge of

Flora Bank in areas of tidal currents consistent with their documented use of offshore pelagic areas for feeding

(Manzer 1956, 1969; Gottesfeld et al. 2008; Faggetter 2013) and energetic swimming benefits (Welch et al. 2009).

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Brian said that nobody every caught fish on Flora Bank. Here it says that sockeye and coho salmon were observed in higher densities outside Kitson Island and on the southern edge of Flora Bank.


25

Chinook, pink and chum were observed within complex habitats in sheltered bays and vegetated areas in the

Project area and throughout Chatham Sound, consistent with their documented use of shallow water for

epibenthic feeding (Manzer 1969; Faggetter 2013; Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973; Anderson et al. 1986;

Community Fisheries Development Center 2001; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris 2015). The patterns of

juvenile salmon distribution in pelagic areas around Kitson Island, migratory patterns and timing are consistent

with the timing and distribution of juvenile salmon observed migrating in the early summer through Chatham

Sound into Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance (Morris et al. 2007; Fisher et al. 2007; Beacham et al. 2014).

Juvenile salmonids were observed for 2 to 3 week periods during spring smolt migration (May to June) (Chart 9)

in sites on Horsey Bank and in tidal channels immediately adjacent to Lelu Island and outer Kitson Island (Manzer

1956; Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973; Anderson et al. 1986; Community Fisheries Development Center 2001;

Gottesfeld et al. 2008; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris 2015). Salmon were observed in greater numbers

in more complex nearshore habitats of Chatham Sound islands, particularly in habitats with complex vegetated

habitats and tidal current channels (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973; Anderson et al. 1986; Community Fisheries

Development Center 2001; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris 2015). Juvenile salmon were not observed

distributed in eelgrass patches on Flora Bank.

Location includes the Skeena River estuary. Trendline for overall juvenile salmon smolt migration indicated by dotted blue line Based on data from Anderson et al. 1986, Community Fisheries Development Centre 2001, Gottesfeld et al. 2008, Carr‐Harris et al. 2013.

Chart 9 Summary of the Migratory Timing of Juvenile Salmon Species Based on Catch per Unit Effort (Fish/Set) from April to August

Sockeye and pink salmon were noted to have limited abundance throughout the year (Fisher 2007, Morris 2007a,

b, c) (Chart 12) with the exception of periods of spring smolt migration (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973;

Anderson et al. 1986; Gottesfeld et al. 2008; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris 2015) consistent with

observations of smolt habitat use in the Fraser River (Johannes et al. 2012). Survey observations of the unsheltered

eelgrass areas of Flora Bank do not support high densities of juvenile salmon prey (see Sections 3.2.2.2 and

3.2.2.3). Plankton feeding sockeye and pink salmon were observed in higher densities outside Kitson Island and the

Charmaine C-H

Highlight


26

southern edge of Flora Bank in areas of tidal currents consistent with use of offshore areas within the water

column for plankton feeding (Manzer 1969; Gottesfeld et al. 2008; Ocean Ecology 2014) and swimming energetic

benefits (Welch et al. 2009).

Chinook, coho, and chum salmon were observed at low density in catches within complex habitats in bays and

eelgrass beds in the Project area and throughout Chatham Sound (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973; Anderson

et al. 1986; Community Fisheries Development Center 2001; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013). Juvenile coho salmon

were caught in areas of higher amphipod density near eelgrass throughout the growing season (Manzer 1969;

Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973; Anderson et al. 1986; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris 2015).

3.2.2.4.2 Demersal Fish Surveys

Subtidal surveys were conducted using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) in May and June, 2013 in the waters

surrounding Lelu and Kitson Island including Flora, Agnew and Horsey banks, deeper pelagic areas southwest of

the banks, and Porpoise Channel (Stantec 2014a). Data was analyzed along 16 transects for depth, substrate and

species information to describe the spatial distribution of habitats within the Project area. The video images

resolve fish distribution within a range of approximately 5 m vertically and 10 m (5 m each side) horizontally.

ROV fish surveys are commonly used to support fish abundance and distribution surveys in shallow and tidal

current driven habitats as observed around Lelu Island and Flora Bank (Pacunksi et al. 2013).

Demersal fish (species that live and feed in the pelagic zone on or near the bottom such as pricklebacks and

eelpouts), flatfish (flounder, sole), sculpins, rockfish, sharks and skates, crab, shrimp/prawn, sea pens and sea stars

were identified and categorized by the depth class in which they occurred (Table 4, Chart 10). Depth classes were

separated into three ranges: 0 to 5 m, 5 to 10 m, and over 10 m with each of these classes representing

approximately 2%, 46% and 52% of the total area analyzed respectively (Stantec 2014a).

Observations indicated that subtidal soft bottom substrate (sand, silt, mud and clay) represented 99.7% of the

total substrate type observed, whereas hard bottom substrate (cobble, bedrock and boulder) represented only

0.3%. Transects transitioned from the shallow soft sediment of Agnew and Horsey Bank, to deeper soft sediment

areas outside of Horsey Bank, and finally into deep tidal hard bottom areas of Porpoise channel along the

northwest edge of Flora Bank. The distribution of species observed was categorized based on these transition

zones which define three distinct habitat areas: Agnew/Horsey banks, deep outside Horsey Bank, and Porpoise

Channel along the northwest edge of Flora Bank (Table 4).

Demersal fish were observed in all habitat areas and depth ranges. Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister)

were observed in depths greater than 10 m in Porpoise Channel along the northwest edge of Flora Bank and

between 0‐5 m depth on Agnew/Horsey banks. Shrimp were observed in all areas with the exception of Porpoise

Channel along the northwest edge of Flora Bank and were only observed in depths greater than 10 m. Flatfish

were observed between 0 to 10 m depth in Porpoise Channel along the northwest edge of Flora Bank and on

Agnew/Horsey banks. Sea pens were observed on Agnew/Horsey banks in depths greater than 5 m. These results

are detailed below in Table 4 and Chart 10.


27

Table 4 Number of Individuals Observed Using a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) at Multiple Depth Ranges Across Four Habitat Areas in the Spring of 2013

Organism Type

Agnew/Horsey Banks Deep Outside Horsey Porpoise Channel2

0‐5 m 5‐10 m >10 m 0‐5 m 5‐10 m >10 m 0‐5 m 5‐10 m >10 m

Crab 7 127 172

n/a

11 42 1 2 76

Demersal Fish 12 1025 1189 175 387 6 9 97

Flatfish 5 207 125 17 60 2 6 19

Shrimp 0 3 2025 0 428 0 0 14

Rockfish 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 4

Sculpin 0 12 9 1 3 0 0 6

Sea Pen 4 560 202 49 10 0 0 17

Sea Star 0 12 30 2 7 0 0 6

Shark/Skate 0 0 6 1 2 0 0 0

Total 23 1150 2867 0 258 942 9 17 239

Stantec 2014a

2 Porpoise channel area consists only of the deep tidal hard bottom area along the northwest portion of Flora Bank and does not extent between Lelu and Ridley Island.


28

Porpoise channel area consists only of the deep tidal hard bottom area along the northwest portion of Flora Bank and does not extend between Lelu and Ridley Island

Stantec 2014a

Chart 10 Number of Individuals Observed Using a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) at Multiple Depth Ranges across Four Habitat Areas in the Spring of 2013


29

The subtidal surveys demonstrate habitat use in the shallow subtidal soft sediment on Agnew/Horsey banks by

flatfish and demersal fish species, shrimp, and to a lesser extent, crabs. No salmon or forage fish (e.g., surf smelt or

herring) were observed during these surveys. The species that occur on or in this motile soft habitat have

adaptations and life strategies (such as a shrimps long thin walking appendages) that make them suitable to use

these turbid and soft sediment habitat types. The turbulent interface on the outer edge of Flora Bank (0 to 5 m

depth) was the smallest area surveyed and contained the lowest number of flatfish and shrimp invertebrate

species.

3.2.2.4.3 Dungeness Crab and Prawn Surveys

Dungeness crab and prawns were sampled during Project specific surveys and in crab sampling conducted for the

Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project (PRGT) in four habitat types (deep subtidal soft sediment, shallow subtidal

soft sediment, tidal deep hard bottom, and intertidal compact sediment) within the Project area (Stantec 2015a,

2015b, unpublished) (Chart 11). Dungeness crab were observed in all four habitat types including the intertidal

compact sediment area of Flora Bank, the shallow subtidal soft sediment of Agnew/Horsey banks, the deeper soft

sediment areas off Horsey Bank, and the deep tidal hard bottom area of Porpoise Channel (Stantec 2015a, b,

unpublished) (Chart 11). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) of Dungeness crab was measured as the average number of

crabs caught/trap for each 24 hour soak. Crab CPUE was greatest on the intertidal compact sediment of Flora Bank

in December 2014 and lowest in the deep tidal area of Porpoise Channel in March 20153 (Stantec 2015a, 2015b,

unpublished) (Chart 11). The deeper soft sediment areas off Horsey Bank were favoured by adult crab. Porpoise

channel had the lowest catch rates and appear to decrease in relative abundances over the sampling period

(October 2014 through March 2015) (Stantec 2015a, 2015b, unpublished) (Chart 11). Prawn traps caught

6 humpback shrimp (Pandalus hypsinotus) off Horsey Bank in depths greater than 70 m in February 2015 and

3 humpback shrimp in similar deep water locations in March 2015 (Stantec 2015a, unpublished).

Soft shelled (moulting) Dungeness crabs were surveyed using DFO standard methods (DFO 2014) and were not

observed in the Project Area sites (Stantec 2014a; Dunham 2014, pers. comm.). Male crabs are expected to moult

at depths greater than 10 m and in sheltered areas of low turbulence on soft sediment substrate characteristic of

Agnew and Horsey banks (Dunham 2014, pers. comm.). Moulting areas have been observed outside of this habitat

in the more stable sandy sediment on Agnew Bank consistent with biological crab survey results and commercial

fishery soft shell trapping reference sites in DFO Crab Area A and Area B (DFO 2014).

3 Flora Bank was sampled with a lower frequency of crab traps over the survey period so results may under represent the number of crabs that were located there

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Were you using the ROV surveys to quantify salmon or not?

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

The intertidal compact sediment is what defines Flora Bank. Therefore, the highest cpue of crab was on Flora Bank. Aren't crabs CRA species?


30

Stantec 2015a, b, unpublished

Chart 11 Catch per Unit Effort from Crab Trap Sites in Four Habitat Categories from October 2014 to March 2015 for both PNW LNG and Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT)

3.2.2.4.4 2014‐2015 Fish Surveys

During the 2014 to 2015 Project related fish field program, 20 different species were caught by seine on the

northwestern edge of Flora/Agnew Bank and in Porpoise Channel from December 2014 to March 2015 (within

sheltered bays of northern Lelu Island)4 (Stantec 2015a, unpublished) (Chart 12) (Figure 12). Pink and chum salmon

were caught in very low numbers in sheltered sites on Lelu Island and in Porpoise Channel during March 2015

surveys (Chart 12).

Porpoise channel contained a greater diversity of fish species captured. Flounder (Paralichthys spp.), sculpin

(Cottoidea spp.), surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), tubesnout (Aulorhyndus flavidus), and Pacific herring (Clupea

pallasii) were the most frequently caught during all survey periods and were caught in all habitat types. Pacific

sandfish (Trichodon trichodon), starfish (Asteroidea), English sole (Parophrys vetulus), and big skate (Raja

binoculata) were only caught in the sites on the northwest edge of Flora/Agnew banks; whereas Pacific snake

prickleback (Lumpenus sagitta), shiner, pipefish (Syngnathinae), coonstripe prawn (Pandalus danae), and hermit

crabs were only caught in Porpoise Channel (Stantec 2015a, unpublished) (Chart 12). With the exception of a

few species/taxa (sculpin, Cragnon shrimp spp., tubesnout, snake prickleback, and pipefish), catch per unit

effort (CPUE) was higher in February and March than in December and January (Stantec 2015a, unpublished)

(Chart 12).

4 Sampling on Flora Bank did not occur in December 2014

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

what kind of seine

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Should try harder

Charmaine C-H

Highlight


31

Stantec 2015a, unpublished

Chart 12 Summary Catch per Unit Effort from Seine Sites on Flora and Agnew Bank and in Porpoise Channel from December to March 2015

Four fyke nets were set in March 2015 for a 24 hour period on Flora Bank to sample ebb and flood tidal cycles and

flows across Flora Bank. Fyke nets fish similar to small trap nets and limit harm to captured fish. Tubesnout were

the most abundant fish species captured, followed by minimal numbers of flouder sp., and a single individual of

Pacific sandfish, Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and spotted snailfish sp. (Genus Liparis)

(Stantec 2015a, unpublished).

Data was collected from beach seining conducted in the Project area for the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission

(PRGT) project over two sampling periods (October and November/December, 2014) (Figure 12) (Stantec 2015b,

unpublished). In October, beach seine catch for all areas consisted primarily of Cragnon shrimp spp., surf smelt and

staghorn sculpin; whereas in November/December, the catch consisted primarily of surf smelt and tubesnout

(Stantec 2015b, unpublished). At sites in Porpoise Channel, tubesnout were in highest abundance during both

survey periods when compared to the other areas surveyed. Individual pacific herring and one Dolly Varden were

observed in Porpoise Channel (Stantec 2015b, unpublished). The only CRA species observed during this survey was

eulachon which were observed in low numbers (9 fish captured) at the Inverness Channel sites in November/

December. A sample site at the southeast corner of Lelu Island, had the greatest abundance of surf smelt (Stantec

2015b, unpublished).

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Did you really catch pink salmon in Porpoise channel in January? That's incredible!?

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Wholly crap! Thanks for the advice on how and where to catch eulachon in the estuary! Many people will be interested in this...Why is this not included in the chart above?

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Can you please provide the numbers of fish of each species that you captured.

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

This site is where the pipeline makes landfall. Please confirm coordinates and number of surf smelt.


32

Both of these targeted fish field programs demonstrate the dominant use of the northwestern edge of Flora Bank

(at the turbulent interface of Agnew Bank) by flatfish and demersal species (sole, skate, flounder and sandfish)

adapted to live in this motile soft sediment habitat. Species more typically found in clearer sheltered hard bottom

habitats such as shiners, tubesnout, crabs, coonstripe prawn, and juvenile salmon dominated catches in Porpoise

Channel.

3.2.2.5 Marine Birds

Marine birds are distributed in coastal areas based on sheltered / protected breeding colony sites and locations

foraging grounds. Surveys were conducted around the Project area to define the distribution and habitat use of

marine birds. In areas of northern Chatham Sound, marine bird aggregate in staging areas based on food supply

(Clarke and Jamieson 2006b).

Stationary point counts and vessel‐based marine bird surveys were conducted in August and November 2012 and

January, April, June, and July 2013 in the waters surrounding Lelu and Kitson islands including Flora and Agnew

banks, Porpoise Channel, Lelu slough and Inverness Passage (Stantec 2014a).

Field observations indicate the areas around Agnew and northern Flora Bank often support lower densities of

marine birds than areas in or near Porpoise Channel and Inverness Passage (Figure 13, Figure 14, and Figure 15).

Marine birds were more abundant in fall, than in winter, spring or summer periods. Marine birds were observed

resting, rather than feeding, over intertidal areas of Flora Bank. Few shorebirds were observed foraging on Flora

Bank. Piscivorous marine birds were observed in Porpoise Channel, Inverness Passage, and bordering Lelu Slough,

in areas of greater water clarity.

Marine bird surveys around Lelu and Kitson islands did not record any observations of large concentrations of surf

scoters, other ducks, cormorants or auklets as noted in portions of Chatham Sound north of the PNW LNG site.

Fewer number and species richness of marine birds were observed around Flora Bank relative to northern coastal

areas of Chatham Sound (Table 6). Observations of higher species richness and density in areas of northern

Chatham sound, relative to Flora Bank, are consistent with historic bird counts (Canadian Wildlife Service 1980).

Lelu and Kitson islands do not support marine bird breeding habitats or colonies as observed in the outer islands in

Chatham Sound, such as Lucy and Triangle Islands.

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

I am not aware of any sampling method that can sample bottom fish and pelagic fish simultaneously, so esults aren't comparable.


33

Table 5 Individual Birds Recorded Around Lelu Island and Flora Bank, Ridley Island and Kaien Island

Month

Lelu Island & Flora Bank Ridley Island Kaien Island

Average number of birds

Average number of species





January 9.0 5.0 75.5 7.0 94.8 6.5

February ‐ ‐ 90.0 7.8 69.1 7.0

March ‐ ‐ 83.8 5.5 59.4 7.3

April 14.4 4.6 28.2 7.5 34.1 7.7

May ‐ ‐ 26.7 5.3 34.7 5.3

June 11.7 3.3 10.2 3.3 17.5 4.6

July ‐ ‐ 9.5 2.8 10.4 3.9

August 27.6 4.2 13.0 3.5 ‐ ‐

September ‐ ‐ 24.5 7.2 51.3 5.8

October ‐ ‐ 61.3 10.2 85.4 8.4

November 20.8 4.7 113.8 9.2 112.4 7.4

December ‐ ‐ 114.5 7.2 120.8 8.0

Table derived from Stantec 2014a ‐Technical Data Report – Terrestrial Wildlife and Marine Birds

Bird numbers and species were averaged over all surveys conducted.

3.2.2.6 Marine Mammals

Field observations from Stantec’s marine mammal 2014‐2015 program (Stantec 2015a, unpublished) and reports

to the BC Cetacean Sightings Network from 2001‐2013 (BCCSN 2013) indicated that the species mostly likely to

occur in the central Chatham Sound waters near Kitson Island and Flora Bank may include humpback whales

(Megaptera novaeangliae), Northern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca), Bigg’s killer whales (Orcinus orca),

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus

monteriensis) and harbour seals (Phoca vitulina).

The marine mammal species recorded as feeding in the waters closest to or on Flora Bank include harbour

porpoise and humpback whales. Harbour seals and Steller sea lions were observed milling, which could be

indicative of remaining in the area to forage.

Harbour porpoise diet consists of a variety of fish species in coastal Pacific waters, including Pacific herring, walleye

pollock, and juvenile eelpout (Walker et al. 1998). Seining and ROV data collected in the Project area, as described

in Section 3.2.2.4, suggests that harbour porpoise prey species were distributed in Porpoise Channel (Pacific

herring) and in waters deeper than 10 m (eelpout). This distribution of fish species potentially results in the higher

number of harbor porpoise sightings observed within Porpoise Channel and the deeper areas off of Flora Bank

(BCCSN Data 2013; Stantec 2015a, unpublished).


34

Humpback whales typically feed on zooplankton and schooling fish (e.g., herring, juvenile salmon) (Johnson and

Wolman 1984). Juvenile salmon in the Project area were observed in higher numbers further offshore in around

Kinahan Islands than the more inshore areas of north Smith Island, Ridley Island and Lelu Island as described in

Section 3.2.2.4. The distribution of prey species (such as juvenile salmon) is potentially linked to the frequent

humpback whale sightings near Kinahan Islands, compared to other inshore – shallow areas near Flora Bank

(BCCSN Data 2013; Stantec 2015a; unpublished).

Harbour seals are opportunistic predators and their diet consists of primarily small/medium sized schooling fish

(e.g., Pacific herring, hake, salmon) (DFO 2010) and also includes bottom fish (e.g., flounder, sole) (DFO 2010).

Sightings of harbour seals near and on Flora Bank were not recorded as feeding, but were milling in the area. ROV

data collected in the Project area observed harbour seal prey species (flounder and sole) primarily in depths

greater than 5 m on Agnew and Horsey banks (Stantec 2014a). Salmon, associated with the Skeena River are likely

to be found in waters outside Flora Bank, either as migrating adults to the Skeena River or as ocean‐bound

juveniles, and could be prey for harbour seals present in the area.

Steller sea lion diet consists of a large variety of species as they are opportunistic feeders. Primary prey is likely

small or medium‐sized schooling fish, which would include Pacific herring, hake, and salmon (COSEWIC 2003).

Similar to harbour seals, Steller sea lions were not recorded as feeding in the waters near Flora Bank, although

were milling in the area (Stantec 2015a, unpublished). Many of the recorded sightings during the 2014‐2015 field

program were located near Kinahan Islands, compared to other inshore areas near Flora Bank, which is where

salmon smolt catch has been higher than other more inshore areas (detailed in Section 3.2.2.4).

4.0 VALUE OF MARINE HABITATS

Five physical habitat types were classified in the Lelu Island and Flora Bank to describe the relative value of marine

habitat in the Project area. The classification was based on physical characteristics including currents, turbidity,

depth and sediment types (Figure 9), and were confirmed by the biological characteristics of marine species

habitat use in the area. These habitats include:

Flora Bank intertidal vegetated patches

Flora Bank intertidal compact sand

Porpoise Channel deep water tidal hard sediment

Agnew and Horsey Bank subtidal shallow soft sediment

Kitson Island deep soft sediment.

A primary assumption in the study and assessment of marine habitats and potential impacts is the assumption that

habitats have value (Bond et al. 1999). Examining habitat value is an important approach to determine and define

changes in habitat quality and identify potential mitigation measures to avoid and limit changes to habitat values.

The value and contribution of these marine habitats to CRA fisheries and populations in the Skeena Estuary were

evaluated based objective measures of CRA fish species habitat use, habitat extent, habitat structural diversity and

complexity and resilience of the habitats to natural conditions and change. These criteria are consistent with the

risk hierarchy applied to evaluate potential habitat impacts to CRA fisheries and requirement for authorization of

alteration or destruction of habitats under the Fisheries Act.


35

Five species of Pacific salmon, Pacific herring and Dungeness crab have been observed in the Project area and are

considered important in supporting local CRA fisheries (Hart 1988; Stantec 2014a). Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus

stenolepsis), eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), and rockfish (Sebastes spp.) have known distribution in Chatham

Sound but have not been observed in habitats around Lelu Island and Flora Bank (Stantec 2014a). Pandalus shrimp

(Pandalus borealis) and forage fish species including surf smelt, capelin and sand lance, have been observed in the

Project area and are considered to support CRA fisheries.

Based on the review of available information summarized in Section2.0, CRA fish species distribution and general

habitat use in the Project area and the larger Chatham Sound include:

1. Adult and juvenile salmon migrate through the Flora Bank and Lelu Island area; however, no staging, holding

or spawning has been observed in these habitats (Stantec 2014, 2015). Juvenile salmon migrate around and

through the Flora Bank, Lelu Island Porpoise Channel areas and use sheltered habitats within Porpoise Channel

as short term summer nursery habitats. Adult salmon are known to migrate through offshore pelagic areas

outside Kitson Island, but have not been observed migrating in shallow subtidal and intertidal areas of Agnew,

Horsey and Flora banks. Salmon are pelagic CRA species often sensitive to high TSS concentrations and nursery

and spawning habitat alteration and destruction (McFarland and Peddicord 1980; Peddicord and McFarland

1976).

2. Juvenile herring are observed in sheltered nursery habitats within Porpoise Channel. Herring have not been

reported to spawn near Lelu Island. Five key herring spawning areas in Chatham Sound are identified north of

Digby Island and north of Porcher Island (Haegele 1979; Stantec 2014). Herring, like salmon, are a pelagic CRA

species sensitive to high TSS concentrations and habitat alteration and destruction of spawning and nursery

areas (McFarland and Peddicord 1980; Peddicord and McFarland 1976).

3. Dungeness crab have been observed in the soft sediment habitats within 4 of the marine habitats classified

within the Project area. Dungeness crab do not use any of the habitat areas for important life cycle dependent

processes including spawning and moulting. Dungeness crab are benthic species and have higher tolerances to

turbid and variable substrate conditions within habitats (McFarland and Peddicord 1980; Peddicord and

McFarland 1976).

4. Forage fish species have been observed in high abundance in sheltered habitats in Porpoise Channel and often

overlap in their distribution and habitat use with Pacific herring and juvenile salmon. Surf smelt, capelin and

sand lance do not use any of the habitat areas in the Project area for important life cycle dependent processes

including beach spawning.

Three CRA fish species are observed in habitats in the Project area and are distinguished by species‐specific

adaptations suited for preferred habitats: Crab, salmon, and herring. Crab are found in areas of soft sediments and

are predators and scavengers of benthic material and organisms. Crab can tolerate varying degrees of tidal

currents, turbidity and sediment characteristics in benthic habitats. Salmon and herring are pelagic clear water

species, less tolerant of lower water turbidity and found in more complex and diverse habitats.

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Sorry, we have proof that they do.

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Please provide a reference for this.


36

The following species are not present in the Project area:

1. Pacific halibut have not been observed in habitats within the Project area and do not inhabit the relatively

shallow waters around Lelu Island, Porpoise Channel and Flora Bank. Halibut have been observed in benthic

areas offshore in waters often greater than 50 m in depth (St‐Pierre 1984; Valero and Webster 2011).

2. Rockfish have not been observed in the Project area. Rockfish normally use rocky substrates and high

structural complexity at depths greater than 10 m (Love et al. 2002); these habitats are not present in the

project area.

3. Abalone have not been observed in the Project area. Abalone normally use rocky semi‐exposed shorelines

with salinities > 30ppt; these habitats are not present in the project area.

The value of habitats is detailed in Table 8 using the reviewed studies, unpublished analyzed data and professional

judgment. The habitats were qualitatively rated based on CRA species population level habitat use which includes:

Areal extent within the Project area

CRA marine fish species presence

CRA fish species life process dependence of the habitat

Habitat structural complexity and diversity

Resilience of the habitat to changing natural conditions.

Based on this review, low CRA fisheries habitat values were assigned to the intertidal eelgrass patches on Flora

Bank, intertidal compact sand, subtidal shallow soft sediment, and deep soft sediment habitats. These low habitat

values are based on limited CRA fisheries life process dependence and habitat use, limited physical structural

diversity and complexity of habitats, high connectivity to similar habitats, and high habitat resilience to change.

High CRA fisheries habitat values were assigned to deep water tidal hard sediment habitats found within Porpoise

Channel based on salmon, herring and forage fish habitat use, high structural complexity and diversity of existing

habitats, and the limited extent of these habitats in the Project area.

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

Have lots of unspeciated flatfish...

Charmaine C-H

Highlight

Charmaine C-H

Sticky Note

This doesn't make any sense.


37

Table 6 Value of Marine Habitats within the Project area

Marine Habitat

Habitat Extent (ha) (% of total habitats assessed)5

CRA Fish Species Presence and Habitat Use6 CRA Species Dependence

Habitat Structural Complexity and

Diversity Habitat Resilience to

Change

CRA Fisheries Habitat Value

(low, moderate, high)

Intertidal Eelgrass Patches on Flora Bank

4.6 (5%) Dungeness crab No life process dependent habitats

Flora Bank eelgrass contains low flora and fauna species richness, limited structure

High resilience to change, high variation in diel and seasonal tides, currents and sediment movement

Low

Intertidal Compact Sand on Flora Bank

25.8 (29%) Dungeness crab No life process dependent habitats

Simple habitats with limited fish distribution and low benthic invertebrate, limit structure


Low

Subtidal Shallow Soft Sediment (Agnew/Horsey banks)

28.6 (33%) Dungeness crab Juvenile salmon and herring migration in pelagic waters

No life process dependent habitats No Dungeness crab moulting Juvenile salmon, herring migration

Both pelagic and benthic habitats, variation in depths, low to moderate physical habitat structure


Low

Deep Water Soft Sediment (off Horsey Bank)

20.0 (23%) Dungeness crab Juvenile salmon and herring migration in pelagic waters

No life process dependent habitats No Dungeness crab moulting Seasonal juvenile salmon, herring migration

Both pelagic and benthic habitats, variation in depths, low to moderate physical habitat structure

High resilience to change, habitats buffered by depth, entirely connectivity offshore habitats in Chatham Sound. Not considered a limited habitat type

Low

Deep Water Tidal Hard Sediment (Porpoise Channel)

9.1 (10%) Pacific herring Pacific salmon

No life process dependent habitats Seasonal juvenile salmon, herring nursery habitats

Both pelagic and benthic habitats, variation in depths, high physical habitat structure

High resilience to change, habitats buffered by depth, high variation in diel and seasonal tides, currents and sediment movement

High

5 Total area of habitats is 88.1 ha 6 Stantec 2014a, Stantec 2015, unpublished


38

5.0 SUMMARY

Previous studies of Flora Bank has been described it as important to the production and continued viability of

Skeena River salmon. This commonly held view is based on little or no evidence, as demonstrated in this report.

This concept is based largely on the eelgrass habitat that exists on Flora Bank, the extent and use of this habitat,

and its potential rearing capacity for juvenile salmon (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973). The concept of Flora Bank

as crucial juvenile salmon habitat is largely based on the work completed by Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973)

and anecdotal observations from more recent studies (Anderson et al. 1986; Community Fisheries Development

Center 2001; Gottesfeld et al. 2008; Faggetter 2009 and 2013; Carr‐Harris and Moore 2013; Carr‐Harris 2015),

all using samples collected in waters adjacent to, but not on Flora Bank.

The results of recent Project specific studies in 2013 to 2015, and review of historic studies provided in this report,

indicate that juvenile and adult salmon migratory pathways exist around Kitson Island, Inverness Channel and

Lelu Island, but not on or over Flora Bank. Due to its exposure to high levels of natural turbulence from local tidal

currents and extreme events which alter the opportunities for eelgrass growth and resident species richness, Flora

Bank does not support eelgrass habitats that are suitable for juvenile salmon use. There is no evidence that Flora

bank is used as a key habitat that directly supports Skeena River salmon.

The area on and around Flora Bank and Lelu Island is comprised of a variety of physical features and dynamic

processes which help shape the biology and habitat use of marine species in the area. The area experiences

considerable variation in diel tide heights, tidal currents, TSS, and seasonal sediment transport driven by

freshwater discharge from the Skeena River basin. The geomorphologic features of the area include islands and

channels characterized by bedrock at various elevations above the sea floor (e.g., 10 individual intertidal/subtidal

rock reefs found on the northwestern edge of Flora Bank). The islands, channels and reefs constrain freshwater

and seawater movement and create large local tides, tidal currents, turbid conditions and enhanced sediment

transport. Seasonal wind, wave, storm and Skeena River discharge driven events help shape the natural patterns of

sediment deposition and erosion which maintain and create local shallow sand bars and intertidal areas. Seasonal

events also alter and shape the natural patterns of these areas, as evident in the variation in surface sand

bars/bedforms and dendritic channels observed on Flora Bank. Together, these physical features and process help

define the physical habitat types that exist in the Flora Bank and Lelu Island area which are classified by currents,

turbidity, depth and sediment types (Figure 9).

The physical structure and processes in the marine environment define the overall productivity of Chatham Sound,

species aggregations, and important habitat areas in the region (scoter staging, herring spawning, whale foraging,

shrimp/prawn diversity) (Clark and Jamieson 2006a; DFO 2012). The seasonal patterns of sediment and nutrient

discharge into Chatham Sound contribute to the creation of productive benthic environments suited for diverse

demersal fish and invertebrate species (Boutillier et al. 1999; Clarke and Jamieson 2006b). Nutrients connected

with sediments discharged into the Skeena River estuary are carried out into Chatham Sound and do not

immediately become available, which potentially limits primary phytoplankton production in pelagic marine waters

(Ware and Thomson 2005). These seasonal patterns and physical constraints in turn limit secondary production in

the Skeena River estuary in areas where turbidity controls primary productivity as observed around Flora Bank and


39

Lelu Island. Outside the influence of the estuary, primary production is driven by seasonal nutrients (freshwater

and upwelling) and seasonal patterns of sunlight.

The areas on and around Flora Bank and Lelu Island are controlled by seasonal changes in sediment transport and

the physical characteristics of the sea floor in both subtidal and intertidal areas, including Flora Bank. Flora Bank

experiences considerable variation in elevation and surface features. These physical characteristics and processes

also constrain eelgrass growth, distribution, extent and overall habitat productivity on Flora Bank. The eelgrass

areas do not appear to function as productive habitat in a manner consistent with other eelgrass patches observed

in Chatham Sound. Flora Bank eelgrass is light limited, has a limited depth range, small shoot length and density,

and very low flora and fauna species diversity and richness and associated epiphyton growth. Eelgrass is

transported off Flora Bank as detritus and observed at depth in small areas outside Flora Bank. Much of the

primary productive value of the eelgrass on Flora Bank is transported off the bank by tidal currents. The remainder

of Flora Bank comprises compacted sand sediments and dendritic channels with little or no benthic flora or fauna

density or diversity.

Observations of fish habitat use on and adjacent to Flora Bank include small demersal fish and invertebrate species

which are able to inhabit areas of high current and low visibility and effectively hang‐on under challenging physical

conditions in this fairly homogeneous habitat area. Pelagic juvenile salmon and forage fish species experience

limited visibility for foraging and poor planktonic food supply which appears to be connected to the higher

turbidity and low levels of primary production that exist in this area. In areas where the effects of currents and

turbidity are sheltered, such as along Porpoise Channel and Lelu Island, habitat complexity and diversity is

enhanced relative to areas on Flora Bank, which supports a greater fish and invertebrate species diversity and

productivity. Juvenile and adult salmon use natural tidal currents and tide cycles to migrate through unproductive

areas on and around Flora Bank over short time durations.

Marine birds and mammals are mobile and active species distributed in and on marine water based on depth

limitations, food availability, and habitat preferences. Marine birds and mammals demonstrate low habitat use on

and around Flora Bank. No bird or mammal aggregations are observed related to key fish and plankton resources

in Chatham Sound presumably because of the low productivity in the area relative to other areas in Chatham

Sound.

Flora Bank exhibits limited habitat diversity type, structural complexity and habitat use by marine fish, birds and

mammals.


40

6.0 REFERENCES

Anderson, E.P. 1986. Skeena juvenile salmon ecology. Habitat Use and Diet of Juvenile Salmon from the Skeena

River Estuary, 2 May to 20. August, 1986.

ASL Environmental Sciences, 2014. Sediment Transport into the Project Development Area from the Skeena River

11p.

BC Cetacean Sightings Network. 2013. BC Cetacean Sightings Database. Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science

Centre, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Vancouver, B.C.

Beacham, T.D., R.J. Beamish, J.R. Candy, C. Wallace, S. Tucker, J.H. Moss, and M. Trudel. 2014. Stock‐Specific

Migration Pathways of Juvenile Sockeye Salmon in British Columbia Waters and in the Gulf of Alaska.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 143: 1386‐1403.

Birch, J.R., E.C. Luscombe, D.B. Fissel, and L.F. Giovando. 1985. West Coast Data Inventory and Appraisal, Volume 1:

Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Adjoining B.C. Coastal Waters: Physical

Oceanography ‐ Temperature, Salinity, Currents, Water Levels and Waves, 1903 Through 1984. Canadian

Data Reports of Hydrography and Ocean Sciences. Institute of Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries

and Oceans, Issue 37, Part 1, 302 pp. and Part 2, 265 pp.

Bond, A.B., J.S. Stephens Jr., D.J. Pondella, II, M.J. Allen and M. Helvey. 1999. A method for estimating marine

habitat values based on fish guilds, with comparisons between sites in the southern California bight.

Bulletin of Marine Science, 64(2): 219–242

Boutillier, J.A., J.A. Bond, H. Nguyen, and D. Gueret. 1999. Chatham Sound Shrimp Survey and Resulting

Management Actions, August to September, 1998. Canadian Manuscript Reports of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences, Issue 2496, 38 pp.

British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA). 2010. Marine Plants – Estuaries. Available at

http://bcmca.ca/datafiles/individualfiles/bcmca_eco_vascplants_estuaries_atlas.pdf. Accessed: April

2015.

Brodeur, R.D. 1990. A Synthesis of the Food Habits and Feeding Ecology of Salmonids in Marine Waters of the

North Pacific. (INPFC Doc.) FRI‐UW‐9016. Fish. Res. Inst., Univ. Washington, Seattle. 38 pp.

Brodeur, R.D., E.A. Daly, M.V. Sturdevant, T.W. Miller, J.H. Moss, M.E. Thiess, M. Trudel, L.A. Weitkamp, J.

Armstrong, and E.C. Norton. 2007. Regional Comparisons of Juvenile Salmon Feeding in Coastal Marine

Waters Off the West Coast of North America. In C. B. Grimes, R. D. Brodeur, L. J. Haldorson and S. M.

McKinnell (ed.). The Ecology of Juvenile Salmon in Northeast Pacific Ocean: Regional Comparisons.

American Fisheries Society, Symposium 57, Bethesda, Maryland 183–204.


41

Canadian Wildlife Service. 1980. Marine‐Oriented Birds and Mammals of Chatham Sound, British Columbia: Winter

1977‐1978. Prepared for the Environment and Land Use Sub‐Committee on Northeast Coal Development

by the Canadian Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Delta, BC. 71pp.

Carr‐Harris, C.N. and J. Moore. 2013. Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Utilization in the Skeena River Estuary. Prepared for

Skeena Wild Conservation Trust by the Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Science,

Simon Fraser University. 17pp.

Carr‐Harris, C.N. 2015. Migratory diversity of juvenile salmon in a threatened estuary. M.Sc. thesis. Simon Fraser

University. Burnaby, British Columbia.

Clarke, C.L. and G.S. Jamieson. 2006a. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the Pacific

North Coast Integrated Management Area: Phase I – Identification of Important Areas. Canadian Technical

Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2678, 59 pp.

Clarke, C.L. and G.S. Jamieson. 2006b. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas in the Pacific

North Coast Integrated Management Area: Phase II – Final Report. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences. 2686, v + 25 pp.

Cloern J.E. 1987. Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity in estuaries. Continental Shelf

Research 7(11/12):1367‐1381

Community Fisheries Development Center. 2001. 2001 Beach Seine Final Report. Submitted to Fisheries and

Oceans Canada, Prince Rupert, BC. November 26, 2001.

Conway, K.W., B.D. Bornhold, and J.V. Barrie. 1996. Surficial geology and sedimentary processes, Skeena River

delta, British Columbia; In: Current Research.1996‐E; Geological Survey of Canada, p. 23‐32.

COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus in

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON. vii + 47 pp. Available

at:www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm. Accessed April 2015.

DeGroot, A., 2005. Review of the Hydrology, Geomorphology, Ecology and Management of the Skeena River

Floodplain. Prepared for: Bulkley Valley Centre for Natural Resources Research & Management Smithers,

BC by Drosera Ecological Consulting, Smithers BC, 50 p.

Department of Environment (DOE). 1973. Preliminary Environmental Effect Assessment. Superport Development,

Prince Rupert Region. Volume 1. 45pp.

Dunham, J. DFO Scientist. DFO Science Branch, BC. Personal Communication. November 18, 2014.

Faggetter, B.A. 2009. Flora Bank Eelgrass Study. Prepared for World Wildlife Fund by Ocean Ecology. Prince Rupert,

BC. 39 pp.


42

Faggetter, B.A. 2013. Chatham Sound Eelgrass Study Final Report. Prepared for World Wildlife Fund by Ocean

Ecology. Prince Rupert, BC. 145 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010. Population Assessment Pacific Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina richardsi).

DFO CanadianScience Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report, 2009/011, Ottawa, ON.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2014. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, Crab by Trap: January 1 to

December 31, 2015. Prince Rupert, BC. 149pp.

Fisher, J.P., M. Trudel, A. Ammann, J.A. Orsi, J. Piccolo, C. Bucher, E. Casillas, J.A. Harding, R.B. MacFarlane, R.D.

Brodeur, J.F.T. Morris, and D.W. Welch. 2007. Comparisons of the Coastal Distributions and Abundances

of Juvenile Pacific Salmon from Central California to the Northern Gulf of Alaska. In C.B. Grimes, R.D.

Brodeur, L.J. Haldorson and S.M. McKinnell (ed.) The Ecology of Juvenile Salmon in the Northeast Pacific

Ocean: Regional Comparisons. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 57, Bethesda, Maryland. 31‐80.

Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of

Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis

Series No. 12. NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 222 pp.

Forsyth, F. G. Borstad, W. Horniak, and L. Brown. 1998. Prince Rupert Intertidal Habitat Inventory Project.

Unpublished report to the Prince Rupert Port Corporation, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, and the City of Prince Rupert. 33 pp.

Gilbes, F., J.M. Lopez, and P.M. Yoshioka. 1996. Spatial and temporal variations of phytoplankton chlorophyll a and

suspended particulate matter in Mayaguez Bay, Pueto Rico. Journal of Plankton Research 18(1): 29‐43

Gottesfeld, A.S., C. Carr‐Harris, B. Proctor, and D. Rolston. 2008. Sockeye Salmon Juveniles in Chatham Sound 2007.

Prepared for the Pacific Salmon Forum by the Skeena Fisheries Commission, Hazlton, BC. 33 pp.

Haegele, C.W. and D.C.Miller. 1979. Assessment of 1979 Herring Spawnings in Chatham Sound, British Columbia.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Nanaimo, BC.

Hart, J.L. 1988. Pacific Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Hatch 2014a. Pacific Northwest LNG: Lelu Island Terminal Potential Impacts of the Marine Structures on the

Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation Patterns. 18pp.

Hatch 2014b. Pacific Northwest LNG: Lelu Island Terminal Marine Structure Scour. 52pp.

Hatch. 2015. Pacific Northwest LNG ‐ LNG Jetty ‐ 3D Modelling of Potential Effects of Marine Structures on Site

Hydrodynamics and Sedimentation. Report Number H345670‐0000‐12‐124‐0009. April 2015. Prepared for

Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership


43

Higgins, R.J. and W.J. Schouwenburg. 1973. A Biological Assessment of Fish Utilization of the Skeena River Estuary,

with Special Reference to Port Development in Prince Rupert. Technical Report No. 1973‐1. Northern

Operations Branch, Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Pacific Region. 65 pp.

Hoos, L.M. 1975. The Skeena River Estuary Status of Environmental Knowledge to 1975. Special Estuary Series No.

3. Prepared by the Estuary Working Group, Department of the Environment, Regional Board Pacific

Region. 418 pp.

Johannes, M.R.S., L.H. Nikl, R.J.R. Hoogendoorn, and R.E. Scott. 2012. Fraser River Sockeye Habitat Use in the Lower

Fraser and Strait of Georgia. Cohen Commission Technical Report 12. Prepared by Golder Associated Ltd.

114 pp & 35 maps. Available at: http://epe.lac‐bac.gc.ca/100/206/301/pco‐

bcp/commissions/cohen/cohen_commission/localhos/en/technicalreports.htm. Accessed April 2015.

Johnson, J.H. and A.A. Wolman. 1984. The Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Fisheries Review

46(4): 30–37.

Love, M.S., M. Yaklovich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. University of California

Press. 404 pp.

Lucas, B.G., D. Johannessen, and S. Lindstrom. 2007. Appendix E: Marine plants. In Lucas, B.G., Verrin, S., and

Brown, R. (ed.). Ecosystem overview: Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA).

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2667 (iv). 23 pp.

MacKenzie, W., D. Remington, and J. Shaw. 2000. Estuaries of the North Coast of British Columbia. A

Reconnaissance Survey of Selected Sites (DRAFT). 101 pp.

Manzer, J.I. 1956. Distribution and Movement of Young Pacific Salmon During Early Ocean Residence. Fisheries

Research Board of Canada Progress Reports. No. 106: 24‐28.

Manzer, J.I. 1969. Food and Feeding of Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Chatham Sound and Adjacent Waters. Fisheries

Research Board of Canada, Manuscript Report Series No. 1020. 23 pp.

Marles, E.W., B.M. Lusk, and W.J. Rapatz. 1980. Summary of Hydrographic and Oceanographic Information on

some British Columbia Estuaries. Marine sciences directorate, Pacific Region. Pacific Marine Science

Report No.73‐7.

McFarland, V.A. and R.K. Peddicord. 1980. Lethality of a suspended clay to a diverse selection of marine and

estuarine macrofauna. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 9:733 ‐ 741.

Morris, J.F.T., M. Trudel, M.E. Thiess, T.B. Zubkowski, and H.R. MacLean. 2007a. CFV Frosti Gulf of Alaska Salmon

Survey, June 28‐July 7, 2005. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1187: 125 pp.

Morris, J.F.T., M. Trudel, M.E. Thiess, T.B. Zubkowski, C.A. Boyle and H.R. MacLean. 2007b. CFV Frosti Gulf of Alaska

Salmon Survey, October 27‐November 20, 2005. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.

1186: 136 pp.


44

Morris, J.F.T., M. Trudel, M.E. Thiess, T.B. Zubkowski, and H.R. MacLean. 2007c. CFV Frosti Gulf of Alaska Salmon

Survey, March 4‐25, 2005. Canadian Data Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 1185: 83 pp.

Northcoast Environmental Analysis Team (NEAT). 1975a. Prince Rupert Bulk Loading Facility. Phase 2:

Environmental Assessment of Alternatives. Volume 1, Main Report. Prepared for Federal – Provincial Joint

Committee on Tsimpsean Peninsula Port Development. Prince Rupert, BC.

Northcoast Environmental Analysis Team (NEAT). 1975b. Prince Rupert Bulk Loading Facility. Phase 2:

Environmental Assessment of Alternatives. Volume 5, Appendix D. Special Environmental Considerations.

Prepared for Federal – Provincial Joint Committee on Tsimpsean Peninsula Port Development. Prince

Rupert, BC.

O'Reilly, J.E., J.L. Mueller, B.G. Mitchell, M. Kahru, F.P. Chavez, P. Strutton, G.F. Cota, S.B. Hooker, C.R. McClain, K.L.

Carder, F. Muller‐Karger, L. Harding, A. Magnuson, D. Phinney, G.F. Moore, J. Aiken, K.R. Arrigo, R. Letelier

and M. Culver. 2000. Volume 11, SeaWiFS Post launch Calibration and Validation Analyses, Part 3. In B.

Hooker and E.R. Firestone (ed.). NASA Technical Memorandum 2000‐206892, Vol. 11. Greenbelt, MA:

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. 49 pp.

Pacunski, R.E., W.A. Palsson, and H.G. Greene. 2013. Estimating Fish Abundance and Community Composition on

Rocky Habitats in the Sand Juan Islands Using a Small Remotely Operated Vehicle. Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Wenatchee, WA.

Peddicord, R. and V. McFarland. 1976. Effects of Suspended Dredged Material on the Commercial Crab, Cancer

magister. In P. A. Krenkel, J. Harrison & J. C. Burdick, III (ed.). Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on

Dredging and its Environmental Effects, Mobile, AL. January 26‐28, 1976. American Society of Civil

Engineers. 633‐644.

Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA). 2013. Baseline Marine Environmental Water Quality Sampling Program

Summary – Q1, 2, 3,4. Memorandum. Prepared by SNC Lavalin for the PRPA. Vancouver, BC.

Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA). 2014. Baseline Marine Environmental Water Quality Sampling Program

Summary – Q1, 2, 3. Memorandum. Prepared by SNC Lavalin for the PRPA. Vancouver, BC.

SedTrend Analysis Ltd. (SedTrend). 2015. A Sediment Trend Analysis (STA®) Of Prince Rupert Harbour and Its

Surrounding Waters. Prepared for Lax Kw’alaams Band by Patrick McLaren, Ph.D., P.Geo.

Skinner, M. 2013. Senior Scientist. Stantec, Dartmouth, NS. Personal Communications. April. 30, 2015.

St‐Pierre, G. 1984. Spawning locations and seasons for Pacific halibut. International Pacific Halibut Commission,

Scientific Report No. 70. 45pp.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2014a. Pacific Northwest LNG Project – Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Application. Prepared for Pacific Northwest LNG Limited Partnership. Vancouver, BC.


45

Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec). 2014b. Follow‐up Report on Sediment and Water Quality Associated with

Construction of the Terminal Berth Area. Prepared for Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2015a. Unpublished Data for Pacific Northwest LNG Project – 2014, 2015 Marine

Fish and Fish Habitat and Marine Mammal Surveys. Prepared for Pacific Northwest LNG Limited

Partnership. Vancouver, BC.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2015b. Unpublished data for Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project – 2014, 2015

Marine Fish and Fish Habitat Surveys. Prepared for Prince Rupert Gas Transmission. Vancouver, BC.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) 2015c. Report on Water Clarity ‐ Baseline Characterization of the Water Clarity,

Total Suspended Solids, and Turbidity on Flora Bank and Adjacent Habitats. April 2015. Prepared for

Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership.

Trites, R.W. 1956. The Oceanography of Chatham Sound, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board

of Canada 13: 385‐434.

Valero, J.L. and R.A. Webster. 2011. Current Understanding of Pacific Halibut Migration Patterns. International

Pacific Halibut Commission, Report of Assessment and Research Activities 2011.

Walker, W.A., M.B. Hanson, R.W. Baird and T.J. Guenther. 1998. Food Habits of the Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena

phocoena, and Dall's Porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli, in the inland waters of British Columbia and

Washington. Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act Implementation Program 1997.

AFSC Processed Report 98‐10. 63‐75 pp.

Ward, L.G., W.M. Kemp and W.R. Boynton. 1984. The Influence of Waves and Seagrass Communities on Suspended

Particulates in an Estuarine Embayment. Marine Geology 59: 85‐103.

Ware, D.M. and R.E. Thomson. 2005. Bottom‐up Ecosystem Trophic Dynamics Determine Fish Productivity in the

Northeast Pacific. Science 308: 1280‐1284.

Welch, D.W., M.C. Melnychuk, E.R. Rechisky, A.D. Porter, M.C. Jacobs, A. Ladouceur, R.S. McKinley, and G.D.

Jackson. 2009. Freshwater and Marine Migration and Survival of Endangered Cultus Lake Sockeye Salmon

(Oncorhynchus nerka) Smolts using POST, a large‐scale acoustic telemetry array. Canadian Journal of

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66: 736‐750.


46

FIGURES

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

r"

StephensIsland

PorcherIsland

SmithIsland

KaienIsland

DigbyIsland

MelvilleIsland

DuniraIsland

BaronIsland

DundasIsland

RachaelIslands

LucyIslands

C h a t h a mS o u n d

TripleIsland

Work Channel

KennedyIsland

Ogden C

hannel

Skeena RiverHaysport

PortEssington

TremayneBay

Inverness Passage

KinahanIslands

Telegraph Passage

Marcus Passage

OonaRiver

SeeInset Map

Grenville Channel

PittIsland

De HorseyIsland

LeluIsland

GeorgetownMills

MetlakatlaPrinceRupert

PortEdward

Osland

PorcherIslandHunts

Inlet

Prince RupertPort AuthorityBoundary

¬«16

360000

360000

380000

380000

400000

400000

420000

420000

440000

440000

5960

000

5960

000

5980

000

5980

000

6000

000

6000

000

6020

000

6020

000

6040

000

6040

000

6060

000

6060

000

±

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

12

:31

:12

PM

\\cd

11

86

-f0

4\W

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bita

t_0

1_

stu

dy_

are

a_

ext

en

t.m

xd

Study Area ExtentPacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

1

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, NaturalResources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Progress EnergyCanada Ltd.

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated withthe data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these dataare advised that errors in the data may be present.

FIGURE ID:

!

r

Airport

! City or Town

" Pilotage Station

Project Component

Electrical PowerTransmission Line

Highway

Railway

Secondary Road

Watercourse

Indian Reserve

Prince Rupert PortAuthority Boundary

Protected Area

Waterbody

ShoalsAgnew Bank

Flora Bank

Horsey Bank

30-APR-15

123110537

A. BOONE M. JOHANNES

UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

0 5 10 15 20 25 km

1:500,000

MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS

!

RidleyIsland

LeluIsland Smith

Island

Skeena Dr

KitsonIsland

CoastIsland

Tsum Tsadai Inlet

Port Edward

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

Inset Map1:150,000

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

12

:46

:23

PM

\\cd

11

86

-f0

4\W

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bita

t_0

2_

exi

stin

g_

ha

bita

ts_

with

in_

the

_p

roje

ct_

are

a.m

xd

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

2

Sources: Government of Canada; Government of British Columbia. Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Canadian Hydrological Service (CHS), 1995.

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in thedata may be present.

FIGURE ID:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:123110537

30-APR-15 UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

N. PUREWAL

M. JOHANNES

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

HorseyBank

-50

0

-25

-25

0

0

-25

-25

0

-50

0

-25

0

±3b3a

21

3

5

4

Inset 3a: Rocky and soft bottom intertidal habitat

Inset 3b: Deep water tidal hard sediment

Inset 2: Rocky and soft bottom intertidal habitat

Inset 1: Deep water tidal hard sediment

Inset 3: Subtidal shallow soft sediment



Railway

Road

Contour (m)

Bathymetric Contour5m Interval (Chart Datum)

Shoals

Pacific NorthWest LNG

Existing Habitats within the Project AreaMARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS

6

Inset 6: Intertidal compact soft sediment

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

r"

StephensIsland

PorcherIsland

SmithIsland

KaienIsland

DigbyIsland

MelvilleIsland

DuniraIsland

BaronIsland

DundasIsland

RachaelIslands

LucyIslands


TripleIsland

Work Channel

KennedyIsland

Ogden C

hannel

Skeena RiverHaysport

PortEssington

TremayneBay

Inverness Passage

KinahanIslands

Telegraph Passage

Marcus Passage

OonaRiver

SeeInset Map

Grenville Channel

PittIsland

De HorseyIsland

LeluIsland

GeorgetownMills

MetlakatlaPrinceRupert

PortEdward

Osland

PorcherIslandHunts

Inlet

Prince RupertPort AuthorityBoundary

¬«16

360000

360000

380000

380000

400000

400000

420000

420000

440000

440000

5960

000

5960

000

5980

000

5980

000

6000

000

6000

000

6020

000

6020

000

6040

000

6040

000

6060

000

6060

000

±

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

4:3

3:1

4 P

M

\\

Cd

11

86

-f0

4\w

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs

_2

01

5\A

pp

en

dix

C\f

ig_

10

53

7_

ir_

ma

rin

e_

fish

_h

ab

itat_

03

_sk

ee

na

_ri

ve

r_e

stu

ary

_b

ou

nd

ary

.mx

d

Skeena River Estuary BoundaryPacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

3

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Centre forTopographic Information; Progress Energy Canada Ltd. Faggetter, B.A. 2013. Chatham Sound Eelgrass Study FinalReport. Prepared for World Wildlife Fund by Ocean Ecology. Prince Rupert, BC 145 pp; Brit ish Columbia MarineConservation Analysis (BCMCA). 2010. Marine Plants, Estuaries. Available fromhttp://bcmca.ca/datafiles/individualfiles/bcmca_eco_vascplants_estuaries_atlas.pdfAlthough there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate thisproduct or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present.

FIGURE ID:

!

r

Airport

! City or Town

" Pilotage Station

Project Component

Electrical PowerTransmission Line

Highway

Railway

Secondary Road

Watercourse

Indian Reserve

Prince Rupert PortAuthority Boundary

Protected Area

Waterbody

Estuarine Plume PercentFreshwater in Upper 20 m

15-20

>20

ShoalsAgnew Bank

Flora Bank

Horsey Bank30-APR-15

123110537


UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

0 5 10 15 20 25 km

1:500,000


!

RidleyIsland

LeluIsland Smith

Island

Skeena Dr

KitsonIsland

CoastIsland

Tsum Tsadai Inlet

Port Edward

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

Inset Map1:150,000


50

Figure 4 Purse Seining Sampling Stations in the Skeena River Estuary (Figure from Higgins and Schouwenburg, 1973).


51

Source: A: Anderson et al., 1986, B and C: Carr‐Harris and Moore, 2013

Figure 5 Survey Maps of Three Published Technical/Academic Fish Distribution Studies in Central Chatham Sound

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

G

G

G

G

G

#*

#*

!

!

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

$+

$+

$+

$+


KinahanIslands

RidleyIsland

LeluIsland

Skeena Dr

CN RailwayI n v e r n e s s P a s s a g eKitson

Island

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

HorseyBank

Port Edward

410000

410000

412000

412000

414000

414000

416000

416000

418000

418000

420000

420000

422000

422000

6002

000

6002

000

6004

000

6004

000

6006

000

6006

000

6008

000

6008

000

0 500 1,000 1,500 m

4/30/2

015 -

4:34

:37 P

M \

\Cd1

186-f

04\w

orkgro

up\ac

tive\1

2311

0537

\gis\f

igures

\IRs_

2015

\App

endix

C\fig

_105

37_ir

_mari

ne_fi

sh_h

abita

t_06_

samp

ling_

exten

t_pub

lishe

d_tec

hnica

l_aca

demi

c_stu

dies_

review

ed_p

rojec

t_rela

ted_m

arine

_stud

ies_w

ithin_

projec

t_area

.mxd


DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

6

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Progress Energy Canada Ltd; WorldView-2 Imagery.Imagery date: 2011.

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the

FIGURE ID:

! City or TownRoadRailwayWatercourseContour

Independent/Historical Studies#*

Beach Seine Site (Anderson etal., 1986)

#*Beach Seine Site (Carr-Harrisand Moore, 2013)

#*Beach Seine Site (CommunityFisheries Development Center,2001)

GEelgrass Survey (Faggetter,2009, 2013)

#*Purse Seine Site (Higgens &Schowenburg, 1973)

#* Purse Seine (Carr-Harris, 2015)

$+Trawl Capture Site (Carr-Harris,2015)Transects (Faggetter, 2009)Trawl (Carr-Harris and Moore,2013)Trawl (Gottesfeld et al., 2008)

Stantec Studies (Stantec 2014)PNW Foreshore TransectPRGT Foreshore TransectsPRGT and PNW ROV TransectArea

ShoalsAgnew BankFlora BankHorsey Bank

PROJECTION:DATUM:

DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:123110537

30-APR-15 UTM - ZONE 9NAD 83

L. TRUDELLM. JOHANNES

1:35,000

±

Sampling Extent of Reviewed Published Technical/AcademicLiterature and Stantec Marine Studies Within the Project Area



53

Source: ASL (2014)

Figure 7 Satellite Imagery of Skeena River Discharge within Chatham Sound and Around the Proposed Lelu Island Project site.

5/1

/20

15

- 1

2:0

6:4

8 P

M

V

:\a

ctiv

e\1

23

11

05

37

\gis

\fig

ure

s\IR

s_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bit

at_

08

_a

eri

al_

ima

ge

ry_

qu

an

tifyi

ng

_e

xte

nt_

inte

rtid

al_

cha

nn

els

_s

an

d_

ba

rs_

flo

ra_

ba

nk_

20

07

_2

00

9_

20

11

_2

01

4.m

xd


DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Canadian Hydrological Srevice (CHS), 1995, ProgressEnergy Canada Ltd. Imagery dates: 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2014.Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in thedata may be present.

FIGURE ID:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:


01-MAY-15 UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

S. PARKER

M. JOHANNES

414000

414000

415000

415000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

414000

414000

415000

415000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

414000

414000

415000

415000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

June 7, 2011May 20, 2007 April 29, 2009

8

Flora Bank Extent

Flora Bank Channel

Flora Bank Bedform

1:21,000

Source and Area Summary:

0 200 400 m

1:21,000

0 200 400 m

1:21,000

0 200 400 m


414000

414000

415000

415000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

June 15, 2014

1:21,000

0 200 400 m

Aerial Imagery Quantifying The Extent, Intertidal Channels andSand Bars / Bedforms of Flora Bank Between 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2014Year Date Time Source Tidal Height

(m)Channel

Area (m2)Bedform Area (m2) Extent (m2)

2007 May 20 19:41 pm UTC Spot-5 Satellite Imagery 1.38 973,444 1,475,813 2,449,2582009 April 29 17:41-18:07 Zulu Progress Energy, McElhanney photo 1.7 est. 1,021,859 1,604,698 2,626,5572011 June 7 20:16 pm UTC Worldview-2 Satellite Imagery 1.39 1,518,014 1,077,292 2,595,3072014 June 15 11:10-11:35 am PST In-house Aerial Photograph Mosaics 1.58-2.22 692,415 2,488,067 3,180,482

1) Years 2007, 2009 and 2011 channels and bedforms were created using a supervised classification method. 2) Year 2014 channels and bedforms were created using a visual digitizing on screen method.

1

1

1

2

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

HorseyBank

0

0-5

-10

-50

00

-5

-5

-5

-10

-5

-5

-100

-250-5

-20

-30

-30

-5

-25-15 -25

-10

-30

-5

-10

-5

-15

-10

-50

-40

-10

-15

-20 0-15

-30

-40

-10

-20

-30

-20

-10

-30

-50-40

0

-10

-5

-5

-5

-10

-10

0

-30

0-5

-10

-10

-5

-10

-10

-5

-10

0

-20

0

-10

-10

-10

-25

-20

-10

-30

0

0

0

-40

0

412000

412000

413000

413000

414000

414000

415000

415000

416000

416000

6003

000

6003

000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

6008

000

6008

000

±

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

12

:42

:44

PM

\\cd

11

86

-f0

4\W

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bita

t_0

9_

ha

bit

at_

typ

e_

cha

rac

teri

zatio

n_

ba

se

d_

on

_ti

da

l_z

on

e_

wa

ter_

de

pth

_su

bst

rate

_ty

pe

.mxd


DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

9

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, NaturalResources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Progress EnergyCanada Ltd. Worldview-2 satellite imagery, 2011.


FIGURE ID:

Bathymetry Major Contour (m)

Intertidal Eelgrass Patches

Intertidal Compact Sand

Deep Water Tidal Hard Sediment

Deep Water Soft Sediment

Subtidal Shallow Soft Sediment

Shoals

0 500 1,000 1,500 m

30-APR-15

123110537

S. PARKER M. JOHANNES

UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

1:30,000

Habitat Type Characterization Based on Tidal Zone, Water Depth and Substrate Type

Habitat Area (ha)Intertidal Eelgrass Patches 46.1

Intertidal Compact Sand 258.4

Deep Water Tidal Hard Sediment 91.1

Deep Water Soft Sediment 199.8

Subtidal Shallow Soft Sediment 286.1


!

!

!

!

!

U.S.A.

H e c a t eS t r a i t

CANADA

P a c i f i cO c e a n

Skeena River

Pacific NorthWestLNG Project

HecateStraitFront

McIntyreBay

DogfishBanks

LearmouthBank

CaamanoSound

Cape St.James

ShelfBreak

ScottIslands

SpongeReef 1

SpongeReef 2

SpongeReef 3

SpongeReef 4

ChathamSound

North IslandStraits

Prince Rupert

Port Edward

Terrace

Kitimat

¬«37A

¬«37

¬«16

¬«20

¬«16

¬«19¬«30

¬«16

±

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

12

:42

:18

PM

\\cd

11

86

-f0

4\W

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bita

t_1

0_

eco

log

ica

lly_

bio

log

ica

lly_

sig

nifi

can

t_a

rea

s.m

xd


DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

10

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, NaturalResources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information.


FIGURE ID:

! Project Location

! City or Town

Highway

Watercourse

International Boundary

Waterbody

Brooks Peninsula

Caamano Sound

Cape St. James

Chatham Sound

Dogfish Banks

Hecate Strait Front

Learmouth Bank

McIntyre Bay

North Island Straits

Scott Islands

Shelf Break

Sponge Reef 1

Sponge Reef 2

Sponge Reef 3

Sponge Reef 4

0 50 100 150 km

30-APR-15

123110537


UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

1:3,000,000


Ecologically and BiologicallySignificant Areas

5/1

/20

15

- 9

:17

:53

AM

V:\

ac

tive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fi

sh_

ha

bit

at_

11

_h

igh

_re

solu

tio

n_

flora

_b

an

k_a

eri

al_

ima

ge

ry_

es

tima

tes_

ee

lgra

ss_

ba

nk

_e

xte

nt_

20

07

_2

00

9_

20

11

.mxd


DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Canadian Hydrological Srevice (CHS), 1995, ProgressEnergy Canada Ltd. Imagery date: 2007, 2009 and 2011.Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in thedata may be present.

FIGURE ID:

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:


01-MAY-15 UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

S. PARKER

M. JOHANNES

414000

414000

415000

415000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

414000

414000

415000

415000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

414000

414000

415000

415000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

April 29, 2009May 20, 2007 June 7, 2011

11

Bedform

Intertidal Eelgrass Patches

1:17,000

0 200 400 m

1:17,000

0 200 400 m

1:17,000

0 200 400 m


High resolution Flora Bank Aerial Imagery and Estimated Eelgrass and Bank Extent in 2007, 2009, and 2011

StapledonIsland

LeluIsland

RidleyIsland

SmithIsland

KitsonIsland


Inverness Passage

Porpoise

Channel

C1

C10

C11C12

C13

C14

C15C16

C17

C18

C19C2C20

C3

C4

C5C6

C7C8

C9

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

HorseyBank

412000

412000

413000

413000

414000

414000

415000

415000

416000

416000

417000

417000

418000

418000

6001

000

6001

000

6002

000

6002

000

6003

000

6003

000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

6008

000

6008

000±

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 m

1:40,000

Project ComponentRailwayRoadSecondary RoadWatercourse

WaterbodyShoals

Agnew BankFlora BankHorsey Bank

See Inset Map

Marine Fish Survey LocationsFrom the 2014 - 2015 Field Program


DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:DATUM:CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

12

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Prince Rupert Port Authority; Government ofCanada, Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; ProgressEnergy Canada Ltd.Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the dataused to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised thaterrors in the data may be present.

FIGURE ID:01-MAY-15123110537A. BOONE M. JOHANNES

UTM - ZONE 9NAD 83

5/1/20

15 - 8

:04:59

AM

\\C

d118

6-f04

\work

group

\activ

e\123

1105

37\gi

s\figu

res\IR

s_20

15\A

ppen

dixC\

fig_1

0537

_ir_m

arine

_fish

_hab

itat_1

2_ma

rine_

fish_

surve

y_loc

ation

s_20

14-20

15_fi

eld_p

rogram

.mxd

RidleyIsland

LeluIsland

Porpo

ise Ch

anne

l

MaterialsOffloading

Facility

PioneerDock

C34

C23

C24

C26

Inset Map1:20,000


Pacific NorthWest Field Program(December 2014 - March 2015)

Crab TrabSeine SiteFyke NetPrawn Trap

Crab TrapSeine Site

Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Field Program (October - December 2014)

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!(#*")

#*")

!(

#*")

#*")

#*

#*

!(#*")

!(#*

!(#*")!(#*

!(#*

!(#*

#*

#*

!(#*")

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

!(#*")

#*")

")

")

#*

Porpoise

Channel

Skeena Dr

ChathamSound

PorpoiseHarbour

RidleyIsland

Ridley Island Rd

KitsonIsland

HorseyBank Smith

Island

SmithIsland

CN RailwayBridge

Berths

Inverness Passage

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

HorseyBank

411000

411000

412000

412000

413000

413000

414000

414000

415000

415000

416000

416000

417000

417000

418000

418000

419000

419000

420000

420000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

6008

000

6008

000

0 250 500 750 1,000 m

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

12

:41

:24

PM

\\cd

11

86

-f0

4\W

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bita

t_1

3_

ma

rin

e_

bir

d_

ob

se

rva

tio

ns_

ap

ril_

20

13

.mx

d

Marine Bird Observations April 2013Pacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

13



FIGURE ID:

Project Component

Railway

Road

Unnamed MappedWatercourse

Shoals

Intertidal EelgrassPatches


Deep Water Tidal HardSediment

Deep Water SoftSediment

Shallow Water SoftSediment

Species Type

!(Raptors(Eagles, Falcons,Hawks and Harriers)

#*Marine-Based Birds(Diving Ducks,Cormorants, Gulls,Alcids and Kittiwakes)

")Shore-Based Birds(Dabbling Ducks,Geese, Shorebirds,Crane and Corvids)

Number ofSightings

( 1 - 6

( 7 - 15

( 16- 28

( 29 - 51

( 52 - 70

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:



NAD 83

A. BOONE

M. JOHANNES

1:25,000

±


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!(#*#*")

#*!(

!(#*")#*")

!(#*")#*

!( ")#*

#*!(#*")

!(#*#*

!(#*#*

#*")!(#*")

!(#*")#*

!(#*

#*

#*

!(

#*

#*

#*

#*

!(#*

#*

!(#*

!(#*

Porpoise

Channel

Skeena Dr

ChathamSound

PorpoiseHarbour

RidleyIsland

Ridley Island Rd

KitsonIsland

HorseyBank Smith

Island

SmithIsland

CN RailwayBridge

Berths

Inverness Passage

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

HorseyBank

411000

411000

412000

412000

413000

413000

414000

414000

415000

415000

416000

416000

417000

417000

418000

418000

419000

419000

420000

420000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

6008

000

6008

000

0 250 500 750 1,000 m

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

12

:41

:07

PM

\\cd

11

86

-f0

4\W

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bita

t_1

4_

ma

rin

e_

bir

d_

ob

se

rva

tio

ns_

au

g_

20

12

_a

nd

_ju

ne

_ju

ly_

20

13

.mx

d

Marine Bird Observations August 2012 and June/July 2013Pacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

14



FIGURE ID:

Project Component

Railway

Road


Shoals

Intertidal Eelgrass





Species Type




Number ofSightings

( 1 - 6

( 7 -15

( 16- 28

( 29 - 51

( 52 - 70

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:



NAD 83

A. BOONE

M. JOHANNES

1:25,000

±


! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!(#*")

#*")

!(

!(#*")

#*

#*

#*

!(#*")

#*")

!(#*")

#*

#*

!(

#*")

!(#*

#*")

#*

#*")

!(#*")

#*

!( ")

#*")

#*

!(#*

#*

#*

!(

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

!(#*")

#*

#*

#*")

#*

#*

#*

!( ")

!(

#*

#*

#*

Porpoise

Channel

Skeena Dr

ChathamSound

PorpoiseHarbour

RidleyIsland

Ridley Island Rd

KitsonIsland

HorseyBank Smith

Island

SmithIsland

CN RailwayBridge

Berths

Inverness Passage

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

HorseyBank

411000

411000

412000

412000

413000

413000

414000

414000

415000

415000

416000

416000

417000

417000

418000

418000

419000

419000

420000

420000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

6006

000

6006

000

6007

000

6007

000

6008

000

6008

000

0 250 500 750 1,000 m

4/3

0/2

01

5 -

12

:40

:48

PM

\\cd

11

86

-f0

4\W

ork

gro

up

\act

ive

\12

31

10

53

7\g

is\f

igu

res\

IRs_

20

15

\Ap

pe

nd

ixC

\fig

_1

05

37

_ir

_m

ari

ne

_fis

h_

ha

bita

t_1

5_

ma

rin

e_

bir

d_

ob

se

rva

tio

ns_

no

v_

20

12

_a

nd

_ja

n_

20

13

.mxd

Marine Bird Observations November 2012 and January 2013Pacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

15



FIGURE ID:

Project Component

Railway

Road


Shoals

Intertidal Eelgrass





Species Type




Number ofSightings

( 1 - 6

( 7 -15

( 16- 28

( 29 - 51

( 52 - 70

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:



NAD 83

A. BOONE

M. JOHANNES

1:25,000

±


!

!

!

!

!

r

SmithIsland

DigbyIsland


AlwynLake

LeluIsland

StapledonIsland

KaienIsland

KinahanIslands

RidleyIsland

Skeena DrInverness Passage

Tsum Tsadai InletC h a t h a mS o u n d

Porpoise Harbour

Wantage

Rd

Ridley Island Rd

Yellowhead Highway

¬«16

¬«16

Morse Basin

CN Railway

Porpois

e Chann

el DianaLake

S 1/2TSIMPSEAN 2

S 1/2TSIMPSEAN 2

CoastIsland

KitsonIsland

WoodworthLake

ColonelJohnston

Lake

BremnerLake

DIANALAKE PARK

TUGWELLISLAND 21

S 1/2TSIMPSEAN 2

Metlakatla

PrinceRupert

Port Edward

PorcherIsland

Skeen

a Dr

Ridley Island Rd

Hillcrest Ave

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

AgnewBank

FloraBank

405000

405000

410000

410000

415000

415000

420000

420000

6000

000

6000

000

6005

000

6005

000

6010

000

6010

000

6015

000

6015

000

6020

000

6020

000

±

4/30/2

015 -

12:40

:24 PM

\\c

d118

6-f04

\Work

group

\activ

e\123

1105

37\gi

s\figu

res\IR

s_20

15\A

ppen

dixC\

fig_1

0537

_ir_m

arine

_fish

_hab

itat_1

6_ma

rine_

mamm

al_ve

ssel_

surve

y_sig

hting

s_no

v_20

14-ap

ril_20

15.m

xd

Marine Mammal Vessel SurveySightings (November 2014 - April 2015)


DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:DATUM:CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

16FIGURE ID:

!

r

Airport! City or Town

Project ComponentElectrical PowerTransmission LineHighwayRailwaySecondary RoadWatercourse

Prince Rupert PortAuthority BoundaryIndian ReserveWaterbody

ShoalsAgnew BankFlora BankHorsey Bank

0 1 2 3 4 5 km

30-APR-15123110537-851A. BOONE M. JOHANNES

UTM - ZONE 9NAD 83

1:125,000

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, NaturalResources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Progress EnergyCanada Ltd.; Canadian Hydrological Service (CHS), 1995.



Species SightedDall's PorpoiseHarbour PorpoiseKiller WhaleHumpback WhaleUnidentified WhalePacific White-Sided DolphinHarbour SealSteller Sea Lion

Group Size12 - 78 - 25

26 - 100

Documents

Stantec Report.pdf