Post on 31-Jan-2016
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH 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,
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
14
2004 March April May June July August September October
Turbidity
Sea Surface Temperature
Chlorophyll a
2001 March April May June July August September October
Turbidity
Sea Surface Temperature
Chlorophyll a
2007 March April May June July August September October
Turbidity
Sea Surface Temperature
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
15
2011 March April May June July August September October
Turbidity
Sea Surface Temperature
Chlorophyll a
2013 March April May June July August September October
Turbidity
Sea Surface Temperature
Chlorophyll a
Chart 2 Comparison of Satellite Imagery between SST, Turbidity and Chlorophyll for 2001, 2004 to 2014
2008 March April May June July August September October
Turbidity
Sea Surface Temperature
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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)
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)
Turbidity (Diffuse Light Attenuation K490)
Spring
Late Summer
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
2009 36 Aerial image analysis/Stantec 2015
2011 45 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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
Average number of birds
Average number of species
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).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
High resilience to change, high variation in diel and seasonal tides, currents and sediment movement
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
High resilience to change, high variation in diel and seasonal tides, currents and sediment movement
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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.
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
Inset 4: Subtidal shallow soft sediment
Inset 5: 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
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 -
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
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
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
50
Figure 4 Purse Seining Sampling Stations in the Skeena River Estuary (Figure from Higgins and Schouwenburg, 1973).
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
#*
#*
!
!
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
$+
$+
$+
$+
C h a t h a mS o u n d
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
Pacific NorthWest LNG
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
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
REPORT ON FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
Pacific NorthWest LNG
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:
CHECKED BY:123110537
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
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
Pacific NorthWest LNG
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.
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:
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
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
!
!
!
!
!
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
Pacific NorthWest LNG
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.
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:
! 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
A. BOONE M. JOHANNES
UTM - ZONE 9
NAD 83
1:3,000,000
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
Pacific NorthWest LNG
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:
CHECKED BY:123110537
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
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
High resolution Flora Bank Aerial Imagery and Estimated Eelgrass and Bank Extent in 2007, 2009, and 2011
StapledonIsland
LeluIsland
RidleyIsland
SmithIsland
KitsonIsland
C h a t h a mS o u n d
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
Pacific NorthWest LNG
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
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
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
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:
Project Component
Railway
Road
Unnamed MappedWatercourse
Shoals
Intertidal EelgrassPatches
Intertidal Compact Sand
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:
CHECKED BY:123110537
30-APR-15 UTM - ZONE 9
NAD 83
A. BOONE
M. JOHANNES
1:25,000
±
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!(#*#*")
#*!(
!(#*")#*")
!(#*")#*
!( ")#*
#*!(#*")
!(#*#*
!(#*#*
#*")!(#*")
!(#*")#*
!(#*
#*
#*
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
!(#*
#*
!(#*
!(#*
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
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:
Project Component
Railway
Road
Unnamed MappedWatercourse
Shoals
Intertidal Eelgrass
Intertidal Compact Sand
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:
CHECKED BY:123110537
30-APR-15 UTM - ZONE 9
NAD 83
A. BOONE
M. JOHANNES
1:25,000
±
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!(#*")
#*")
!(
!(#*")
#*
#*
#*
!(#*")
#*")
!(#*")
#*
#*
!(
#*")
!(#*
#*")
#*
#*")
!(#*")
#*
!( ")
#*")
#*
!(#*
#*
#*
!(
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!(#*")
#*
#*
#*")
#*
#*
#*
!( ")
!(
#*
#*
#*
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
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:
Project Component
Railway
Road
Unnamed MappedWatercourse
Shoals
Intertidal Eelgrass
Intertidal Compact Sand
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:
CHECKED BY:123110537
30-APR-15 UTM - ZONE 9
NAD 83
A. BOONE
M. JOHANNES
1:25,000
±
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
!
!
!
!
!
r
SmithIsland
DigbyIsland
C h a t h a mS o u n d
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)
Pacific NorthWest LNG
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.
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.
MARINE FISH AND FISH HABITATS
Species SightedDall's PorpoiseHarbour PorpoiseKiller WhaleHumpback WhaleUnidentified WhalePacific White-Sided DolphinHarbour SealSteller Sea Lion
Group Size12 - 78 - 25
26 - 100