Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy · 2014-03-20 · Andrea Pomeroy, Ph.D., R.P.Bio. ... This Conceptual Habitat Offsetting Strategy (CHOS) has been prepared to support the

APPENDIX K Conceptual Fish Habitat

Offsetting Strategy

PACIFIC NORTHWEST LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy

Prepared for: Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership

Oceanic Plaza, Suite 1900 - 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6E 3X1

Tel: (778) 372-4700 | Fax: (604) 630-3181

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 4370 Dominion Street, Suite 500 Burnaby, BC V5G 4L7 Tel: (604) 436-3014 | Fax: (604) 436-3752

Project No.: 1231-10537

Date: February 17, 2014

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy

Authorship

February 17, 2014 Project No. 1231-10537

i

AUTHORSHIP

Conor McCracken, B.Sc., BIT ............................................................................................ Author

Lian Kwong, B.Sc., BIT....................................................................................................... Author

Stefan Dick, B.Sc., BIT .................................................................................. Technical Reviewer

Tim Edgell, Ph.D., R.P.Bio. ........................................................................... Technical Reviewer

Andrea Pomeroy, Ph.D., R.P.Bio. ...................................................................... Senior Reviewer

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy Executive Summary

February 17, 2014

Project No. 1231-10537

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership (PNW LNG) is proposing to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility within the District of Port Edward, British Columbia (BC). This Pacific NorthWest LNG Project (the Project) is primarily located on federal land and in waters subject to federal jurisdiction. Construction of the project components will cause permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat and will require habitat offsetting to maintain the productivity of fish habitat. This Conceptual Habitat Offsetting Strategy (CHOS) has been prepared to support the environmental assessment application for the proposed Project. A detailed habitat offsetting plan (HOP) will be developed and submitted as part of the application for an authorization under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act.

This CHOS applies Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO’s) goal to maintain or enhance ongoing productivity and sustainability of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries by quantifying the spatial extent of the habitat loss and alteration and describing options for offsetting. This plan is expected to be adapted based on consultation with Aboriginal people, and through discussions with DFO, when more detailed engineering becomes available.

Seventeen mapped freshwater watercourses were identified on Lelu Island. Results of field surveys showed that only two of these watercourses are potentially fish-bearing streams. Habitat quality in these two watercourses is marginal and it is unlikely that they support a resident fish population. Project construction will require that drainages (upstream of the 30 m marine riparian setback) be infilled, resulting in a total habitat loss of 19,220 m2 (instream and riparian loss).

Marine fish habitat will be affected during construction at the materials off-loading facility (MOF), access bridge connecting Lelu Island to the mainland (bridge footings), pioneer dock (temporary structure for initial off-loading during construction), water and sewage lines, and the marine terminal. Activities at some or all of these locations include infilling, shoreline and riparian clearing, dredging, pile driving and where unavoidable, underwater blasting. Field surveys and literature reviews were conducted to characterize the marine fish habitat in the study area, with detailed surveys focused within 500 m of the marine project components. Extensive field studies were also conducted at Flora Bank due to the well-known eelgrass bed supported there. Only minimal habitat alteration or destruction is expected on Flora Bank as a result of the Project.

Marine fish habitats expected to be affected by project construction include: marine riparian vegetation, intertidal habitat, subtidal habitat and eelgrass habitat. These habitats provide foraging, rearing, spawning and migration habitat for a variety of important CRA fish species, including, but not limited to, Pacific salmon, Pacific herring, rockfish, halibut, lingcod, eulachon and Dungeness crab.

The total area of marine fish habitat permanently altered or destroyed as a result of project construction is estimated to be 1,250,197 m2, of which 28,358 m2 will be lost and 1,221,839 m2 will be altered. This includes the loss of 25,835 m2 of marine riparian vegetation, 283 m2 of intertidal habitat, 1,839 m2 of eelgrass habitat, and 401 m2 of subtidal habitat. Areas of permanent alteration include: 74,044 m2 of intertidal habitat and 1,147,795 m2 of subtidal habitat. Dredging at the MOF during construction is expected to result in the temporary disturbance of approximately 17,019 m2.

Construction of project components will result in the creation of 387,894 m2 of marine fish habitat. Habitat will be created on the vertical portion of the pilings and on the breakwaters, providing substrate for a diverse assemblage of algae, invertebrates and fish. The majority of habitat created


Executive Summary


iii

from project components is attributable to the seabed armouring around the marine terminal dredge area. These habitats are not considered to be a direct offsetting measure, but will be taken into consideration when developing final offsetting ratios.

Some initial options for offsetting potential effects of the Project on fish habitat include:

Creation of subtidal rock reefs

Creation of eelgrass habitat through transplantation

Creation of a salmon migration corridor through Inverness Passage

Creation/enhancement of eelgrass habitat on Flora Bank.

All of these offsetting options would provide habitat for species of CRA importance in the area, particularly Pacific salmon. Subtidal rock reefs would be created in the photic zone, potentially accompanied by kelp-seeded ropes to enhance kelp recruitment. Eelgrass habitat would be created by transplantation at sites suitable for eelgrass growth. Reefs and/or eelgrass beds would be created in close proximity to the project development area (PDA), and in areas that are likely to benefit species of ecological and fisheries importance. The Inverness Passage salmon migration corridor and the Flora Bank eelgrass enhancement would provide refuge habitat for out-migrating juvenile salmon from the Skeena River, which are vulnerable to predation at this life stage.

Siting of all habitat offsetting options will require additional technical studies, consultation with Aboriginal people and the local community, and discussions with DFO. Potential partnerships with Aboriginal people or local non-government organizations may be established to develop and implement the final HOP and assist in monitoring. The final HOP will include detailed design drawings and construction plans for habitat offsetting measures. Once the final offsetting features have been selected, offsetting ratios will be developed in consultation with DFO. These ratios will reflect both the ecological value of affected habitats and the type of permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat incurred. Specifically, ratios will be higher for habitats that have high ecological value and productivity and lower for habitats that have lesser value as fish habitat. Monitoring programs will include compliance monitoring, to ensure that offsetting features are constructed according to the plan, and effectiveness monitoring, to ensure that habitats are functioning as intended.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy Table of Contents

February 17, 2014


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

Objective ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1

Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................ 2 1.2

1.2.1 Species at Risk Act ......................................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Federal Policy and Guidelines ......................................................................... 2

Fisheries Resources of the Area .................................................................................... 3 1.3

2 Freshwater Environment ....................................................................................................... 3 Freshwater Streams ....................................................................................................... 3 2.1

Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction ................................................... 3 2.2

2.2.1 Approach to Calculating Permanent Alteration or Destruction ........................ 3

2.2.2 Permanent Alteration or Destruction from Project Construction ..................... 4

Freshwater Habitat Offsetting ........................................................................................ 4 2.3

3 Marine Environment .............................................................................................................. 4 Existing Habitat .............................................................................................................. 5 3.1

3.1.1 Marine Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................. 5

3.1.2 Intertidal Substrate .......................................................................................... 5

3.1.3 Subtidal Substrate ........................................................................................... 6

3.1.4 Marine Species at Risk .................................................................................... 7

3.1.4.1 Northern Abalone ............................................................................ 7

3.1.4.2 Rockfish........................................................................................... 7

3.1.4.3 Bluntnose Sixgill Shark ................................................................... 8

3.1.4.4 Green Sturgeon ............................................................................... 8

3.1.4.5 Eulachon ......................................................................................... 8

Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction ................................................... 9 3.2

3.2.1 Approach to Calculating Permanent Alteration or Destruction ........................ 9

3.2.2 Permanent Alteration or Destruction and Temporary Disturbance from Project Construction ................................................................................ 9

3.2.2.1 Marine Riparian Habitat Permanent Alteration or Destruction ........ 9

3.2.2.2 Intertidal Habitat Permanent Alteration or Destruction ................... 9

3.2.2.3 Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Eelgrass Habitat ............. 10

3.2.2.4 Subtidal Habitat Permanent Alteration or Destruction .................. 10

3.2.2.5 Summary of Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Marine Fish Habitat ........................................................................................... 11

Habitat Enhancement and Creation from the Project .................................................. 12 3.3

Marine Habitat Offsetting ............................................................................................. 13 3.4

3.4.1 Subtidal Reef Creation .................................................................................. 14

3.4.2 Eelgrass Habitat Creation ............................................................................. 15


Table of Contents


v

3.4.3 Inverness Passage Salmon Migration Corridor ............................................. 16

3.4.4 Flora Bank Eelgrass Enhancement ............................................................... 16

Partnership with Aboriginal People or Non-Aboriginal Local Stewardship 3.5Group ........................................................................................................................... 18

Habitat Balance ............................................................................................................ 18 3.6

Timing and Access to Offsetting Sites ......................................................................... 18 3.7

4 Monitoring and Reporting ................................................................................................... 19 Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 19 4.1

4.1.1 Compliance Monitoring .................................................................................. 19

4.1.2 Effectiveness Monitoring ............................................................................... 19

Reporting ...................................................................................................................... 19 4.2

5 Closure .................................................................................................................................. 20

6 References ............................................................................................................................ 21 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................. 21 6.1

Internet Sites ................................................................................................................ 24 6.2

7 Figures .................................................................................................................................. 24

List of Tables Table 1: Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Freshwater Fish

Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Marine Fish Habitat ......... 12

Table 3: Summary of Marine Fish Habitat Created from Project Construction ...................... 13

List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location ........................................................................................................ 25

Figure 2: Potential Effects on Freshwater Habitat ................................................................... 26

Figure 3: Existing Marine Habitat (Substrate) .......................................................................... 27

Figure 4: Existing Marine Habitat (Marine Plants) ................................................................... 28

Figure 5: Potential Effects on Marine Habitat .......................................................................... 29

Figure 6: Inverness Passage Salmon Migration Corridor ........................................................ 30

Figure 7: Flora Bank Eelgrass Habitat Creation ...................................................................... 31

Figure 8: Flora Bank Eelgrass Enhancement .......................................................................... 32

List of Appendices Appendix 1: .................................................................................................................... Site Photos

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy Acronyms and Abbreviations

February 17, 2014


vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BC ....................................................................................................................... British Columbia

CCME ............................................................ Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment

CD .............................................................................................................................. chart datum

CHOS ............................................................................. Conceptual Habitat Offsetting Strategy

COSEWIC ..................................... Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CRA .............................................................................. commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal

DFO ............................................................................................. Fisheries and Oceans Canada

GPS ...................................................................................................... global positioning system

HOP ............................................................................................................ habitat offsetting plan

HHW ................................................................................................................ highest high-water

LNG .............................................................................................................. liquefied natural gas

LLW ................................................................................................................... lowest low-water

MOF ................................................................................................... materials off-loading facility

NCD ......................................................................................................... non-classified drainage

NVC ................................................................................................................. no visible channel

PDA ..................................................................................................... project development area

PNW LNG ................................................................ Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership

ppt ................................................................................................................... parts per thousand

Pre-FEED .......................................................................... pre-front end engineering and design

PRPA ............................................................................................... Prince Rupert Port Authority

ROV ..................................................................................................... remotely operated vehicle

SARA ............................................................................................................. Species at Risk Act

TDR ............................................................................................................. technical data report

the Project ................................................................................... Pacific NorthWest LNG Project


Introduction


1

1 INTRODUCTION Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership (PNW LNG) is proposing to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility within the District of Port Edward, British Columbia (BC). The Pacific NorthWest LNG Project (the Project) will be located on Lelu Island which is federal Crown land and water under the jurisdiction of the Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA) (see Figure 1). The purpose of the Project is to convert natural gas from reserves in northeast BC into LNG for export. Construction of project components is expected to result in the permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat and will therefore require habitat offsetting.

Habitat offsetting is defined by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (DFO 2013a) as “measures to counterbalance serious harm to fish by maintaining or improving fisheries productivity after all feasible measures to avoid and mitigate impacts have been undertaken”. One of DFO’s guiding principles for offsetting measures is that they must be scaled, sited and timed such that their benefits balance project impacts (DFO 2013b). This Conceptual Habitat Offsetting Strategy (CHOS) will serve as the framework for a final habitat offsetting plan (HOP). The HOP will be developed through discussions with DFO and consultation with Aboriginal people during the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Assessment Certificate Application (EIS/Application) review and project permitting.

Objective 1.1The legislative authority for the management and conservation of fish and fish habitat in Canada is provided by the federal Fisheries Act, which has been in effect since 1867 and was updated in 2012. Section 2(1) of the Fisheries Act defines fish habitat as:

“spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes”

The main provision of the Fisheries Act regarding the protection of fish habitat is Section 35. Section 35(1) states that: “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.” However, subsection 35(2)(b) qualifies this prohibition, in that it allows for the authorization of serious harm to fish by the Minister of DFO, or through regulation.

The Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (DFO 2013b) defines serious harm to fish as:

The death of fish

Permanent alteration to fish habitat—an alteration of fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration, and intensity that limits or diminishes the ability of fish to use such habitats as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes

Destruction of fish habitat—an elimination of habitat of a spatial scale, duration, and intensity that fish can no longer rely upon such habitats for use as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy Introduction

February 17, 2014


2

The Fisheries Act, and the supporting policy, aims to protect and manage fish habitats that support freshwater and marine fisheries associated with CRA fisheries. The assumption in this approach is that any reduction in the capacity of a habitat to support the life processes of fish will reduce fish production.

This CHOS describes the project activities that are expected to result in permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat, quantifies the spatial extent of affected habitats, and describes the physical works that may be undertaken for offsetting. The intent of this document is to meet DFO’s goal to use offsetting to counterbalance unavoidable serious harm to fish and the loss of fisheries productivity caused by projects. The CHOS is prepared at a conceptual level and, while it represents the most current engineering design, there still may be some revisions. Permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat quantities will be revisited during the production of the final HOP to ensure that the initial calculations are updated.

Regulatory Context 1.2This document is based on the 2012 amendments to the federal Fisheries Act, the Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (DFO 2013a) and the Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting (DFO 2013b). The 2012 amendments came into force in November, 2013. Amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2012 shift emphasis from a broad-based protection of fish habitat to one that prevents serious harm to fish that are part of a CRA fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. As such, the offsetting measures recommended in this document would directly benefit salmon and other harvestable species listed in Section 1.3 of this document.

Species at Risk Act 1.2.1Other legislation that was considered in the preparation of this document was the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Based on SARA:

“The Act aims to prevent wildlife species from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity, and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened”.

If a species is listed under Schedule 1 of SARA as extirpated, endangered or threatened, it is an offence to kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual (s. 32[1]), and that species has legal protection related to the species’ residence and critical habitat as specified in SARA (s. 56, 58[1]).

Federal Policy and Guidelines 1.2.2The Federal Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013) and Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy (2013) provide direction for interpreting the broad powers mandated in the Fisheries Act. They outline DFO’s policy objective of maintaining or enhancing ongoing productivity and sustainability of CRA fisheries. Under this principle, DFO works with proponents and government agencies to ensure that projects are designed to maintain fish habitat while recognizing the potential or existing land use value. In cases where losses of fish habitat cannot be avoided by project development, habitat replacement or enhancement, on a case by case basis, may be accepted as offsetting measures.


Freshwater Environment


3

Fisheries Resources of the Area 1.3The focus of this offsetting plan is on fish habitats that support a fishery. In the Prince Rupert area, the key harvestable species for CRA fisheries include: Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp: sockeye, Chinook, coho, pink, and chum salmon), Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), rockfish (Sebastes spp.), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), sole, eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) and prawns (Pandalus spp). Other species that are also of CRA importance, but that are fished to a lesser extent include trout and char (Oncorhynchus spp: rainbow trout, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden), king crab (Lithodidae), bivalves, octopus, sea cucumbers and seaweeds.

2 FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT The Project will affect freshwater fish and fish habitat on Lelu Island through construction activities that involve infilling of the existing watercourses on the island.

Freshwater Streams 2.1Terrain resource information management data identified 17 watercourses on Lelu Island. A detailed fish habitat survey was conducted in August 2013 to investigate and characterize these watercourses and the presence of all mapped or potentially unmapped watercourses. Most watercourses on Lelu Island are too small to be considered streams and are therefore categorized as non-classified drainage (NCD) or no visible channel (NVC), based on guidelines provided in the Fish Stream Identification Guidebook (BC Ministry of Forests [BC MOF] 1998). Only two of the 17 watercourses (WC 8/9 and WC 11) are identified as potential fish-bearing streams (i.e., potential fish habitat) (Figure 2).

Habitat quality in the two potentially fish-bearing streams is rated as marginal and unlikely to support any resident or anadromous fish populations throughout their complete life-cycle. Water quality is considered poor due to low pH (4 to 5), which is lower than the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (CCME 1999) freshwater guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (a pH range of 6.5–9.0). A low pH of 4 to 5 is in general considered to be unfavorable to most species (although some fish species are able to tolerate it). These two marginal streams also lack a permanent connection to the marine environment, and have intermittent water flow within their channels.

Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction 2.2

Approach to Calculating Permanent Alteration or Destruction 2.2.1The anticipated areas of permanent alteration or destruction of freshwater fish habitat attributable to the Project are calculated based on the existing freshwater environment and current engineering and design plans.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy Marine Environment

February 17, 2014


4

Permanent Alteration or Destruction from Project Construction 2.2.2Construction of the Project will require infilling of watercourses and creating diversion channels to direct surface drainage away from facilities. Table 1 summarizes the loss of fish habitat from infilling and removal of watercourses on Lelu Island. In recognition of the short length, small width and marginal habitat of the two potentially fish bearing watercourses affected by the Project, a 15-m riparian setback width has been applied to calculations of riparian permanent alteration or destruction.

Table 1: Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Freshwater Fish Habitat

Watercourse Length (m)

Average Channel

Width (m)

Stream Class

Riparian Setback

Width (m)

Permanent Alteration or Destruction

Instream Area (m2)

Riparian Area (m2) Total Area

(m2) WC 8/9 368 1.2 S4 15 442 11,040

WC 11 248 1.2 S4 15 298 7,440

Total 740 18,480 19,220

Total instream permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat resulting from the Project is 740 m2; and total riparian permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat is 18,480 m2 (based on a 15-m setback). The total estimated area of permanent alteration or destruction of freshwater fish habitat resulting from project construction is 19,220 m2.

Freshwater Habitat Offsetting 2.3Freshwater habitat quality in the two potentially fish-bearing streams is marginal and unlikely to support any resident or anadromous fish populations. The creation of additional marine habitat, ensuring the productive capacity of the two streams is sufficiently offset, will be used to counterbalance freshwater habitat losses. The amount of offsetting required for these streams will be developed in consultation with DFO, and presented in the final HOP.

3 MARINE ENVIRONMENT The marine environment occurring within the project development area (PDA; defined as the physical area over which project construction and operations activities will occur) is typical of the nutrient-rich waters of the north coast of BC. Habitats in this area are also heavily influenced by freshwater outflow from the Skeena River. The dominant marine habitat types on and around Lelu Island are rocky shorelines, soft sediment in protected bays and channels, and the expansive mudflats of Flora and Agnew Banks. Collectively, these habitats support a diverse assemblage of algae, invertebrates, and marine mammals. Additional information on marine fish habitats affected by the Project, and the spatial extent of the permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat is provided below in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.


Marine Environment


5

Existing Habitat 3.1Marine fish habitats were characterized through a combination of literature review, two intertidal foreshore surveys conducted in May and September of 2013, and a subtidal video survey conducted in June of 2013. The survey area included the foreshore areas of Lelu Island, Stapledon Island and the neighbouring mainland, Porpoise Channel, an area 500 m on either side of the marine terminal trestle, and Flora Bank (Figure 3 and 4).

A remotely operated vehicle (ROV) was also used to collect subtidal video footage for analysis. Subtidal surveys were conducted in the vicinity of the marine trestle and in Porpoise Channel. Results of the field surveys are presented in the Marine Technical Data Report (TDR) (Stantec Consulting Ltd. [Stantec] 2014) and site photos are presented in Appendix 1. The following sections summarize the marine habitat types within the PDA.

Marine Riparian Vegetation 3.1.1The marine riparian zone is the interface between terrestrial and marine systems (Brennan and Culverwell 2004), and is defined as a 30 m horizontal distance inshore from the highest high-water (HHW) mark. The HHW mark is the average value of high water tide levels. Marine riparian vegetation surrounds the shoreline of Lelu Island and consists of shrubs, grasses, and a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees.

Marine riparian areas provide important ecosystem functions, including erosion control, wildlife habitat, nutrient input, shading for marine organisms in the mid- and high intertidal zones, and habitat structure in the form of woody debris (Brennan and Culverwell 2004).

Riparian vegetation on Lelu Island differs based on variation in exposure to ocean waves and wind. The northeast side of Lelu Island, between Lelu and Stapleton Island and the mainland, is relatively protected from strong winds and wave action and is characterized by saltmarsh vegetation including banks of sedge (Carex spp.), common red paintbrush (Castilleja miniata), Pacific silverweed (Argentina pacifica), and tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa). These salt-tolerant species are backed by a dense cover of forest comprised of species such as western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), huckleberry (Vacinium spp.), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), and salal (Gaultheria shallon). Due to higher exposure to ocean waves and currents on the southwest side of Lelu Island and in Porpoise Channel, there are few areas of suitable slope and substrate for saltmarsh grasses and/or sedges. The foreshore habitat in these areas is generally comprised of moderate to steeply sloping boulders and bedrock directly below the forest vegetation.

Intertidal Substrate 3.1.2The intertidal zone is defined as the area between the HHW mark and the lowest low-water (LLW) mark; it is the transition between land and ocean. This area is subject to daily tidal fluctuations and is inhabited by organisms with tolerances to large changes in their physical environment (e.g., temperature, salinity, exposure to air and water).


February 17, 2014


6

The intertidal zone within the PDA is dominated by a mix of soft-sediment habitat in areas sheltered from wave action, and rocky outcrops interspersed by pockets of soft sediment in the more exposed locations. Rocky shoreline sections are algae-covered and have high structural complexity, supporting a diverse and abundant community of invertebrates. These invertebrates can be prey to many fish, including juvenile salmon, herring, rockfish, and possibly eulachon. Rocky sections of intertidal habitat have a higher diversity of red algae compared to the soft-sediment habitats. The sheltered, soft-sediment habitats support a distinct community of invertebrates such as polychaete worms, clams, and shrimp. The soft-sediment habitats have lower species richness compared to rocky habitat, but support a greater cover of green algae and vascular plants (eelgrass) (Stantec 2014).

The intertidal zone also contains eelgrass (Zostera marina and Z. japonica). Eelgrass beds are among the most productive ecosystems in the marine environment (McRoy 1970). This productivity represents a major contribution to carbon sequestration (Duarte et al. 2004) and forms the ecological foundation for a rich food web (Valentine et al. 2002). In BC, eelgrass meadows provide valuable habitat for a number of economically, culturally and ecologically important species including juvenile salmon, Pacific herring, rockfish, and Dungeness crab (Nelson and Waaland 1997). Eelgrass beds also help to stabilize sediment and prevent erosion, and provide structural complexity that would otherwise be absent in soft bottom areas (Philips 1984). Small to large patches of eelgrass were observed growing in soft sediment areas within the MOF area and along the marine trestle. Two species of eelgrass were observed, the native species Z. marina and the non-native species Z. japonica. Z. japonica patches were only observed within the MOF along the northeastern side of the bay. The marine trestle would be adjacent to the northern and western edge of Flora Bank, which is a large, soft-sediment bank containing an eelgrass bed that has been designated by DFO as critical salmon habitat (DFO 1985; Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973). Although the location and orientation of the trestle is close to this large bed, field studies identified only one patch near the Lelu Island shoreline where eelgrass is directly within the trestle development area. Several small patches of eelgrass would be lost within the MOF during dredging and blasting.

Subtidal Substrate 3.1.3The subtidal zone within the PDA consists of two dominant habitat types:

The soft sediment areas of Flora and Agnew Banks

The more complex rocky substrate in Porpoise Channel.

Soft sediments provide suitable substrate for numerous species of commercial and recreational value such as flatfish (Pleuronectidae), Dungeness crabs, tanner crabs (Chionoecetes spp.), and shrimp (Pandalus spp.). Rocky subtidal areas support a rich community of seaweeds, including numerous kelps, which contribute to availability of food and provide shelter for many mobile and sessile invertebrates and fish. In general, Porpoise Channel and its rocky habitat support a greater diversity of flora and fauna compared to the soft bottom habitat found on Flora and Agnew Banks (Stantec 2014).


Marine Environment


7

Marine Species at Risk 3.1.4Five SARA-listed species have potential to occur within the PDA:

Northern abalone (Endangered: Haliotis kamtschatkana)

Two species of rockfish (Special Concern: Sebastes aleutianus; S. ruberrimus)

Bluntnose sixgill shark (Special Concern: Hexanchus griseus)

Green sturgeon (Special Concern: Acipenser medirostris).

Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) is another species that is expected to be present seasonally within the PDA. Although eulachon is not listed under SARA, they are considered Special Concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (COSEWIC 2013), and are given particular attention due to their importance in CRA fisheries. A brief description of each species (including eulachon) is presented below.

3.1.4.1 Northern Abalone Abalone-specific surveys were not conducted; however, abalone were not observed during ROV video surveys completed for the Project. Abalone require a water column with salinity greater than 30 parts per thousand (ppt) and are, therefore, not found near areas of immediate freshwater run-off or in estuarine habitats. These molluscs prefer kelp-dominated bedrock or boulders encrusted with coralline algae for three reasons:

It is ideal for the primary settlement of their larvae

It provides food for juveniles

This type of environment provides cover/camouflage for adults (DFO 2012).

It is possible that abalone inhabit the PDA despite not being detected during the underwater video surveys; however, loss of habitat from construction activities is not expected to threaten northern abalone populations because their preferred habitat is considered to be in ample supply along the coast (COSEWIC 2009).

3.1.4.2 Rockfish Intertidal and subtidal rocky substrate and areas with kelp, which are suitable habitats for juvenile rockfish, occur within the PDA. There are two rockfish species that potentially occur in these habitats and are currently protected under SARA (threat status: Special Concern): rougheye (S. aleutianus types I and II,) and yelloweye (S. ruberrimus). Neither of these rockfish are likely to occur within the PDA because their preferred water depths are deeper than planned project activities (Love et al. 2002); SARA; (COSEWIC 2008, 2007a). There are two rockfish conservation areas near the project area (Hodgson Reef and Gull Rocks North and South); however, both are far away from the Project’s marine construction areas (26 and 17 km from Lelu Island, respectively). The Project is not expected to have any effects on these areas or the rockfish within them. Neither of these species was observed during subtidal ROV surveys; however, other shallower-water Sebastes species were observed.


February 17, 2014


8

3.1.4.3 Bluntnose Sixgill Shark Bluntnose sixgill sharks can be found in Canada’s Pacific waters in the Strait of Georgia, inlets, and on the continental shelf and slope; however, this species primarily occurs in nutrient rich waters below 91 m depth (COSEWIC 2007b). This deep water benthic species has also been known to occur at the surface, with juveniles and newborn pups often occurring in bays and harbours (COSEWIC 2007b). Bluntnose sixgill sharks are currently listed under SARA (Special Concern). Further, in BC it is illegal to sell or retain these sharks captured by hook or line either commercially or recreationally (COSEWIC 2007b). Although this species was not observed during the ROV survey, it is possible that this species may inhabit the PDA; however, loss of habitat from construction activities is not expected to occur, as their preferred habitat type does not occur within the PDA.

3.1.4.4 Green Sturgeon Green sturgeon inhabit a variety of environments throughout their life cycle, including marine environments, freshwater streams, freshwater rivers and estuarine habitats (COSEWIC 2004). This anadromous fish is particularly rare within Canadian waters, but they are known to occur along the Pacific coast (COSEWIC 2004; Houston 1988). Little is known about the life history, biology and habitat requirements of green sturgeon, but they are occasionally observed above the brackish waters of large rivers (Houston 1988). The green sturgeon is currently listed under SARA (Special Concern). Underwater video surveys did not identify any green sturgeon within the PDA; however, given the extensive range of this species it is possible that it could occur in the area.

3.1.4.5 Eulachon Eulachon spend most of their life in the marine environment away from near-shore waters and close to the seafloor, often in depths of 50 to 200 m, and range from northern California to the eastern Bering Sea (COSEWIC 2013). Spawning occurs in lower sections of freshwater systems and larvae are flushed out of their natal rivers almost immediately after hatching. Eulachon larvae spend an indeterminate amount of time feeding and maturing in estuaries before dispersing to deeper areas of the continental shelf (Beacham et al. 2005). Adult eulachon return along the seafloor before proceeding back to their tidal-influenced spawning grounds in late winter to early summer (COSEWIC 2013; National Marine Fisheries Service 2011). The Nass/Skeena population was assessed as threatened in 2011 by COSEWIC (COSEWIC 2011); however, this designation was recently changed to special concern in 2013, as the population appears to be stable (COSEWIC 2013). Existing threats to the freshwater environment are minimal, but additional threats to marine survival and spawning areas could result in this population becoming threatened in a short period of time (COSEWIC 2013).

In BC there are no established eulachon populations that spawn in rivers draining from coastal islands (COSEWIC 2013). Combined with the marginal fish habitat observed during fisheries surveys, the freshwater environment on Lelu Island is not expected to be utilized for any spawning activities for eulachon. Eulachon may occur within the study area either as out-migrating juveniles or as adults returning to rivers (i.e., Skeena and/or Nass rivers) to spawn (COSEWIC 2013). Lelu Island is within the riverine influence of the Skeena and it is likely that larval eulachon drift past and possibly spend some time around the island; however, little information is available about the distribution of this life stage.


Marine Environment


9

Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction 3.2

Approach to Calculating Permanent Alteration or Destruction 3.2.1Project construction is expected to result in the permanent alteration or destruction of marine fish habitat. The anticipated areas of marine fish habitat affected by the Project have been calculated based on current project design and are presented in Section 3.2.2.5. The final HOP area calculations will be based on final engineering design. Areas of permanent alteration or destruction for the marine environment are calculated separately for subtidal habitat, intertidal, marine riparian habitat, and eelgrass.

Permanent Alteration or Destruction and Temporary Disturbance 3.2.2from Project Construction

3.2.2.1 Marine Riparian Habitat Permanent Alteration or Destruction Marine riparian vegetation surrounding the shoreline of Lelu Island consists of shrubs, grasses, and a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees. Marine riparian habitat will be cleared in areas where infrastructure encroaches within 30 m (horizontal distance) of the HHW mark (Figure 5). The total area of marine riparian vegetation that is expected to be lost is 25,835 m2. This includes 19,833 m2

for the MOF, 2,143 m2 for the marine terminal, 537 m2 for the pioneer dock, and 3,322 m2 for the access bridge (Table 2).

3.2.2.2 Intertidal Habitat Permanent Alteration or Destruction Intertidal habitat will be lost within the development area of the pilings placed in the MOF area, access bridge (footings), pioneer dock, and a portion of the marine trestle (see Figure 5). Dredging and blasting required within the MOF area will result in the alteration of intertidal habitat. This area is being considered an alteration rather than a destruction of habitat because the newly exposed substrate will be available for re-colonization once the physical works are completed. Dredging in this area is not considered a temporary disturbance because intertidal habitat will become subtidal habitat following dredging, and will be colonized by different marine organisms. Intertidal alteration will also occur beneath the access bridge to allow for the trenching of two utility pipes (water and sewage) along the surface of the substrate. These pipes will connect Lelu Island to Port Edward municipal utility lines. The installation of sewage pipelines will not interfere with vessel navigation; an 11.2 m clearance will be maintained under the bridge at high tide.

Based on the current terminal engineering and design plans, project construction will result in the permanent alteration of approximately 74,044 m2 of intertidal habitat, including 38,019 m2 for the marine terminal scour (due to presence of piles), 35,905 m2 for the dredged MOF area and 120 m2 for the utility lines (sewer and water).

The installation of large diameter steel piles will result in the permanent loss of approximately 283 m2

of intertidal habitat, including 43 m2 for the MOF, 229 m2 for the marine trestle and berths, 6 m2 for the access bridge, and 5 m2 for the pioneer dock.


February 17, 2014


10

Installation of in-water infrastructure will result in the creation of some functional intertidal habitat (e.g., pilings, breakwaters). The type and amount of intertidal habitat created as a direct result of project construction is discussed below in Section 3.3.

3.2.2.3 Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Eelgrass Habitat Intertidal and subtidal surveys conducted in the area designated for the MOF revealed several small patches of eelgrass (total area=904 m2) that would be removed during dredging and blasting (Figure 4). During intertidal studies, the perimeter of the eelgrass patches were traced at low tide and tracked using a global positioning system (GPS) unit. Subtidal surveys were conducted with an ROV along transects throughout the MOF area. The majority of the subtidal observations of eelgrass mostly agree with the intertidal observations that were delineated on foot; however, they are slightly offset (see MOF area inset in Figure 4). This is likely due to slightly inaccurate positional information in very shallow water where it is harder to accurately track the ROV. Prior to construction another survey will be conducted to confirm the spatial extent of eelgrass in the MOF area and to account for any inter-annual variation.

Intertidal and subtidal surveys conducted around the proposed trestle on Flora Bank revealed one patch of eelgrass that would be affected by trestle installation (Figure 4). Installation of pilings to support the trestle and the associated scour will result in the direct loss of approximately 935 m2 of eelgrass in this area. The effect of shading on eelgrass beds depends primarily on the height of overwater structures above the seabed (Burdick and Short 1995). Additional factors that may also contribute to eelgrass growth include the width and orientation of the structure in relation to the sun (Burdick and Short 1999). To allow a sufficient amount of light penetration for eelgrass growth, a height of 3 m above the seabed for a narrow dock (< 2 m wide), oriented north-south is recommended (Burdick and Short 1999). Based on the recommendations of Burdick and Short (1999), for the marine trestle to allow for sufficient light penetration, the 14.7 m wide northeast-southwest oriented trestle must be a minimum of 9.08 m above the seabed. Therefore, shading effects are expected to be minimal, as the trestle height varies from 13.5 m above chart datum (CD) at the terminal berths to 21.3 m above CD (11.2 m clearance above high water) at the abutment with Lelu Island. Following construction, this eelgrass bed will be monitored to confirm that there are no adverse effects.

The Flora Bank eelgrass bed covers a total area of approximately 640,000 m2 to 2,000,000 m2 (Stantec 2014). The total amount of eelgrass expected to be lost during construction of project components is 1,839 m2. The loss of these small patches of eelgrass associated with construction is not expected to affect the overall productivity of the area. Interannual variation in the spatial extent of eelgrass beds has been observed throughout North America (Stantec 2014). For example, mean variability in areas surveyed on the east coast of Canada was 40% (Hanson 2004). Results of 2011 satellite image classification on Flora Bank showed an area of 640,000 m2 of eelgrass, while an aerial survey done in 1997 by Forsyth et al. (1998) showed an aerial extent of 2,000,000 m2 over Flora Bank, resulting in a reduction of 21% between 1997 and 2011 (Stantec 2014). This apparent change in extent may be attributed in part to seasonal variability in eelgrass distribution and/or methodological differences between surveys.

3.2.2.4 Subtidal Habitat Permanent Alteration or Destruction Subtidal habitat will be lost within the development area of the pilings along the trestle and berths, at the MOF and at the pioneer dock. Permanent alteration of subtidal habitat may occur from installation of potential breakwaters near the terminal berths. Subtidal habitat at the marine terminal


Marine Environment


11

will also be permanently altered from the installation of armouring along the slopes of the dredge area, scour protection on the sea bottom at the berths, and maintenance dredging that will occur approximately every two to five years.

Dredging and blasting of subtidal habitat at the MOF and dredging of subtidal habitat at the terminal berths are considered to be temporary disturbances of subtidal habitat, not permanent alteration or destruction (i.e., not serious harm). This is because no maintenance dredging is currently anticipated, and the exposed substrate will be available for re-colonization as soon as the physical works are completed. The area of temporary disturbance at the MOF dredge area is 17,019 m2.

Based on the current terminal engineering and design plans, project construction will result in the permanent alteration of approximately 1,147,795 m2 of subtidal habitat, including 53,718 m2 for potential breakwater construction, 110,000 m2 from seabed armouring at the marine berth area, 212,133 m2 from marine berth slope armouring, 736,000 m2 from maintenance dredging, and 35,944 m2 from trestle scour.

A total of 401 m2 of subtidal habitat is anticipated to be permanently lost as a result of project construction. This includes the installation of large diameter steel piles along the marine trestle and berths (399 m2) and two piles associated with the pioneer dock (2 m2).

Subtidal habitat created as a direct result of project construction (e.g., pilings and breakwaters) is discussed below in Section 3.3.

3.2.2.5 Summary of Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Marine Fish Habitat The total area of marine fish habitat permanently altered or destroyed by project construction is estimated to be 1,250,197 m2. Of this total, 28,358 m2 will be destroyed, 1,221,839 m2 will be permanently altered (Table 2). These values should be considered approximate because they are based on pre-front end engineering and design (pre-FEED). Once final engineering and design plans are available, the spatial extent of marine fish habitat affected by the Project will be recalculated, and this will be included in the final HOP.


February 17, 2014


12

Table 2: Quantification of Permanent Alteration or Destruction of Marine Fish Habitat

Habitat Type

Area (m2) Total Area (m2) Marine Terminal

and Breakwaters MOF Lelu

Island Access Bridge

Pioneer Dock

Water/Sewage Pipelines

Marine Riparian (destruction) a,b

2,143 19,833 3,322 537 0 25,835

Intertidal (alteration) c

38,019 35,905 0 0 120 74,044

Intertidal (destruction)

229 43 6 5 0 283

Eelgrass (destruction)

935 904 0 0 0 1,839

Subtidal (alteration)

1,147,795 0 0 0 0 1,147,795

Subtidal (destruction)

399 0 0 2 0 401

Total Habitat Affected 1,189,520 56,685 3,328 544 120 1,250,197

NOTES: a Areas of alteration and destruction given do not include area gained through offsetting features. b Destruction: Habitat no longer available to marine organisms. c Alteration: Habitat altered but still available for marine organisms.

Habitat Enhancement and Creation from the Project 3.3The construction of some in-water project components will result in the creation of new habitat surface. The vertical portion of the pilings from the MOF, trestle, berths, access bridge, pioneer dock that are below the HHW mark but above the seafloor will provide hard substrate for sessile invertebrate and algal colonization. The water/sewage pipes beneath the access bridge will also create new habitat structure. The breakwaters, which will be armoured with large diameter rip rap, will provide hard substrate for the attachment and colonization by invertebrates, fish, and (where the depth range is appropriate), and algal growth. The circumference of each pile was multiplied by the in-water height of that pile to calculate the area of habitat created (subtidal and intertidal). The plan view surface area of the breakwaters below the HHW mark was used to calculate the habitat created by the breakwaters; however, the surface of the breakwaters will be at a 2:1 slope, further increasing the structural complexity and habitat for marine organisms (subtidal and intertidal). Water column depth was used to determine which habitat type (subtidal or intertidal) would be created; subtidal habitat was considered everything below 0 m CD, and intertidal habitat everything between 0 CD and 7.4 CD (tidal range for the area). The marine berth dredge area slopes and a portion of the seabed will be armoured with rock, providing structural complexity to areas that are naturally comprised of soft sediment. The approximate marine surface area of the slopes and seabed are included in this calculation. These structures represent an anticipated habitat gain and are summarized in (Table 3). In total, project components will create approximately 387,894 m2 of habitat.


Marine Environment


13

Table 3: Summary of Marine Fish Habitat Created from Project Construction

Habitat Type

Area (m2) Total Area

(m2) MOF Trestle Lelu Island

Access Bridge

Pioneer Dock

Water /Sewage Pipelines

Intertidal piling or pipeline habitat

4,064 15,245 75 27 120 19,531

Intertidal breakwater (rocks)

0 20,361 0 0 0 20,361

Subtidal breakwater (rocks)

0 20,718 0 0 0 20,718

Subtidal piling habitat 0 5,148 0 2 0 5,150

Subtidal dredge slope armouring

0 212,133 0 0 0 212,133

Subtidal seabed armouring

0 110,000 0 0 0 110,000

Total 4,064 383,605 75 29 120 387,894

Marine Habitat Offsetting 3.4The conceptual offsetting approach for the permanent alteration or destruction of marine fish habitat caused by the Project is focused on the creation and enhancement of physical and biological habitats that support CRA fish species. The following sections provide a framework for the marine habitat offsetting. The following sections describe several options for offsetting, including:

Creation of subtidal rock reefs

Creation of eelgrass habitat through transplantation

Creation of a salmon migration corridor through Inverness Passage

Creation/enhancement of eelgrass habitat on Flora Bank.

These options are not exhaustive and are intended to facilitate discussions between the various participating groups. The options proposed are based on well-established techniques that have been successfully implemented elsewhere in BC and throughout North America.

Habitats that will be affected by project construction are composed primarily of soft substrate, some of which support eelgrass, and also rocky habitat that supports a diversity of algae and invertebrates. As a result, to offset habitat permanently altered or destroyed due to project construction, a combination of these offsetting options will likely be required.


February 17, 2014


14

Subtidal Reef Creation 3.4.1The placement of rock (artificial reefs) is a successful technique for marine fisheries enhancement (Hueckel et al. 1989; Bohnsack and Sutherland 1985). Artificial reefs are typically constructed of a hard material (e.g., rock and concrete), increasing the structural complexity of the marine environment, and providing habitat for a diverse assemblage of marine biota. A subtidal reef located in the nearshore environment would provide foraging habitat and refuge for a number CRA species, including Pacific salmon, Pacific herring, rockfish and possibly eulachon.

Dredging and blasting in the MOF area will result in the permanent alteration of boulder and bedrock habitats in the intertidal zone. This will expose a mixture of soft and rocky subtidal habitat beneath the boulder and bedrock habitats; however, the exact composition will not be known until in-water works are complete. The creation of shallow subtidal rocky reefs would serve to provide similar structure and function as these existing habitats – this “in-kind” approach to offsetting (i.e., offsetting with the same quality, quantity, and type of habitat) is favoured by DFO (DFO 2013b).

To enhance the ecological benefits, the artificial reefs would be built within the photic zone (i.e., the zone that receives incoming sunlight). Situating the reef in the photic zone would promote the establishment and growth of algae, which would provide food and habitat for fish and invertebrates. The hard substrate that the rocks would provide is expected to be colonized by canopy-forming kelps such as bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana), as well as other understorey kelps. Natural recruitment of kelp could be bolstered through kelp-seeded ropes. In this procedure ropes that have been seeded with specific algal species are tied to rocky structures, and serve to expedite recruitment of those types of algae to the newly created reef. This activity would speed up kelp recruitment and allow the reefs to attain functionality sooner, thereby reducing temporal losses of productivity.

Research into suitable sites for subtidal reefs would be conducted if this option is selected. Ideally, reefs would be constructed as close as possible to the area of habitat loss (i.e., within the PDA); however, a number of factors must be considered when choosing a suitable location. Reefs would be placed in locations where the naturally occurring dominant biota is compatible with the final desired composition of reef inhabitants (i.e., near existing rocky habitats). Reefs would be constructed on a relatively flat bottom that does not have a thick layer of soft-sediment overburden and where water quality is appropriate for the intended reef inhabitants. Steep slopes are not generally able to support rocks used to construct reefs, and thick sediments may cause reef subsidence. If soft sediment is encountered in the desired reef location, more rocky material may be required to account for the settling of the large rocks over time into the soft substrate. The reef locations must also consider the safe navigation of vessels in the area; reefs would not be placed in shipping lanes or in areas where there is high vessel traffic. It is also important to confirm there are no future development plans for a site that could affect the long-term ecological value of the subtidal reef habitat.

Construction of a subtidal reef would require placing large angular rock on the seafloor. Rocks used to construct a reef would be sourced from on-site material blasted from the MOF area, where possible. There are several benefits to re-using on-site material:

Reducing the amount of material that will be disposed on land or at sea

Reducing the likelihood of introducing materials that could affect water or sediment quality

Reducing costs associated with importing rocks from off-site locations.


Marine Environment


15

All project construction material of suitable size will be re-used where possible; however, if project construction activities do not produce enough material, rocks would be sourced from other areas. Rock size would be selected to enhance the structural complexity of the reef and be large enough that they do not fit together tightly. This would provide crevices and interstitial spaces within the reef, which would provide habitat for a variety of fish and invertebrates.

If the subtidal reef option is selected to be part of the final offsetting strategy, detailed design drawings will be developed. The design would include specific site locations for reef placement and take into account the effect of the reef on existing habitat (which would be considered in the overall calculation of the permanent alteration or destruction of habitat and the eventual habitat offsetting goal). Specific design variables such as the size, shape, and height of the reef will be determined based on the results of the habitat survey and any geotechnical investigations that are considered necessary. The design drawings would be submitted along with a construction plan as part of the final HOP.

Eelgrass Habitat Creation 3.4.2Small, patchy sections of eelgrass are expected to be lost in the low intertidal zone during construction, including several patches in the MOF area and one directly beneath a portion of the trestle. Eelgrass transplants have been successfully conducted at sites throughout BC (Wright 2005). The procedure involves the collection of mature plants from the area slated for development (or another healthy donor bed close to the offsetting site). Eelgrass beds would be created in the closest suitable area to the affected site. To enhance the likelihood of a successful transplant, possible offsetting sites would be limited to those that already have some eelgrass present. The presence of eelgrass indicates suitable growing conditions (for example, light availability, currents, substrate, salinity) and would help improve the chances of transplant success. The transplanted eelgrass would provide foraging, rearing, and spawning habitat for numerous marine species including Pacific salmon, Pacific herring, rockfish, lingcod, Dungeness and red rock crabs (Cancer productus).

Most eelgrass meadows are found between 0 m CD and -6.6 m CD. Desiccation at low tide limits the upper distribution of eelgrass in intertidal areas, and reduced light penetration at depth limits the lower distribution. Mixed sand and mud is a key requirement for eelgrass because the shoots are rooted into the substrate. Most eelgrass beds are located in physically sheltered environments such as estuaries, bays and shallow inlets. Low to moderate currents may enhance eelgrass growth; however, strong currents break leaves and may scour the substrate from around the rhizomes, uprooting the plants. Eelgrass meadows are often found near the mouths of small streams, indicating that they are quite tolerant to changes in salinity. Research suggests that the optimum range of salinity is between 10 and 30 ppt (Phillips 1984).

The most appropriate location(s) around the project site for eelgrass transplants would be selected through engagements with Aboriginal groups, communities and stakeholders (e.g., commercial and recreational fishers) and integrated with information from a literature review and intertidal surveys. Subtidal surveys would be conducted to determine the suitability of a proposed transplant location. If suitable habitats for transplants exist, planting could be accomplished without the need for any physical habitat modifications. However, it may be necessary to add fine-grained sediments along the outer margin of the existing eelgrass meadows to increase the area of suitable depth within a


February 17, 2014


16

restoration site. This method can also be used to enhance the spatial extent of existing eelgrass beds, which is another viable option. To prevent this material from being eroded by currents and wave action, a rock berm may need to be constructed along the seaward edge. The need for these physical works would depend on the specific characteristics of the restoration site, which would be determined through the habitat surveys.

If the eelgrass transplant option is selected to be part of the final offsetting strategy, detailed design drawings and construction plans will be developed and submitted along with the final HOP.

Inverness Passage Salmon Migration Corridor 3.4.3Skeena River is one of the most productive rivers in BC and has large runs of all five Pacific salmon species (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973). A major challenge for these commercially, recreationally, and culturally important finfish is the survivorship of out-migrating smolts shortly after entry to saline conditions (Tomaro et al. 2012; Mathews and Buckley 1976). A key period for out-migrating salmon is the transition from freshwater to salt water during which they undergo physiological changes to increased salinity (McCormick and Saunders 1987). Juvenile salmon require refuge habitat within which they can undergo these changes without being exposed to increased predation risk. Shallow-water reefs create complex habitat providing shelter from predators as well from tidal and fluvial currents (e.g., interstitial spaces within the reef as well as eddies downstream of the reef). A safe, calm water refuge allows energy to be maximally invested into growth during early marine residence (Tomaro et al. 2012). A series of such habitat features closely spaced along migration routes would provide a safe corridor for out-migrating juvenile salmon. Any works in Inverness Passage would consider the existing fisheries in the channel.

While outside of any anticipated project effects, one possible offsetting option is to increase the availability of favorable habitats for juvenile salmon within Inverness Passage along the north side of Smith Island (Figure 6). Inverness Passage is an important channel for out-migrating juvenile salmon

from the Skeena River (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973). The proposed habitat features within this

migration corridor could include a variety of different types shallow-water reefs, including linear ‘groyne reefs’ extending outward from the shoreline, circular ‘atoll reefs’ in shallow portions of the Passage, and semicircular ‘containment reefs’ partially encircling points of freshwater inflow from small streams along the shoreline. The aim of this offsetting would be to increase the survivorship of juvenile fish by providing a connected network of suitable refuge areas as well as to increase available invertebrate prey items by boosting primary productivity in the area. Exact locations of in-water structures and enhancement features would be decided upon following consultation with local Aboriginal groups, DFO, Skeena Fisheries Commission and other interest groups. In addition, further intertidal and subtidal studies would determine the optimal habitat features and the most suitable locations.

Flora Bank Eelgrass Enhancement 3.4.4Eelgrass beds are of high ecological importance along the coast of BC, providing a variety of important ecosystem services. They are highly productive, representing a major contribution to carbon sequestration (Duarte et al. 2004; McRoy 1970), and provide rearing, refuge and foraging habitat for a variety of important marine organisms (Nelson and Waaland 1997). The distribution of


Marine Environment


17

eelgrass is limited to the availability of light penetrating the water column (Vandermeulen 2005). In addition, variability in environmental factors including: salinity, temperature, current, wave expose and sedimentation (Short and Neckles 1999), may increase or decrease light penetration through the water column (Vandermeulen 2005), affecting eelgrass growth and survival.

The extensive eelgrass bed on Flora Bank is an important rearing habitat for Pacific salmon migrating from the Skeena River, as it hosts a rich community of invertebrates including Dungeness crab and shrimp (DFO 1985; North Coast Environmental Analysis Team 1975; Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973). Given recent closures in the Skeena River sockeye salmon CRA fisheries, the importance of this habitat has been amplified, as the transition from freshwater to salt water is a critical period in salmon life history. The Flora Bank eelgrass bed covers a total area of approximately 640,000 m2 to 2,000,000 m2 (Stantec 2014), where it is limited to the intertidal zone. This distribution of eelgrass on Flora Bank is likely the result of high levels of total suspended solids (TSS) from the Skeena River, limiting light penetration into the water column.

To increase the ecological value of Flora Bank as habitat for juvenile salmon and other species of CRA importance, one conceptual option would involve amending sediment depths adjacent to the existing Bank to increase the area of suitable eelgrass habitat (Figure 7). Specifically, this would involve the beneficial re-use of sediment dredged from the berthing area to expand Flora Bank westward by raising the substrate depth to approximately +1.5 m CD, which is the depth at which the majority of eelgrass on Flora Bank currently resides. The sediment would be moved through a pipeline using a suction dredge. A containment berm would be created along the margins of the fill area, using small-diameter crushed rock or another suitable material, to retain sediment and ensure stability of the expanded habitat. This option could increase the area of suitable eelgrass habitat by up to approximately 1.1 million m2, thereby substantially increasing the productivity of the habitat with widespread benefits to juvenile salmon and other marine organisms. Eelgrass would be expected to naturally colonize the new habitat, but eelgrass transplants could also be undertaken to expedite the process. In addition, this option would reduce the amount of dredge material to be disposed of at sea.

In addition to the eelgrass habitat creation, a conceptual eelgrass enhancement option is also proposed (Figure 8). This would involve the creation of a series of small islets along the south side of Flora Bank using large diameter rip rap. The islets would then be filled with dredge material and organic overburden (e.g., soil) from Lelu Island would be used as growth medium. The existing seed bank in the soil would generate a natural community of shrubs and trees similar to that found on Lelu Island; however, additional plantings could also be undertaken to supplement natural generation. The intent of the islets would be to deflect the suspended sediments flowing out of the Skeena River (through Inverness Passage) southward, increasing the water clarity and decreasing the TSS levels over Flora Bank. The effect of this would be to increase light penetration through the water column, allowing eelgrass to establish at greater depths on the Bank. This would also promote the growth of existing eelgrass, leading to increased density. The rock used in the construction of the islets would provide hard substrate (which is limiting in the area) for a diverse community of algae and invertebrates, as well as fish.


February 17, 2014


18

The enhancement options presented here are conceptual at this time and will require additional technical studies (e.g., sediment transport/oceanographic modelling) to determine feasibility and effectiveness. Specific attention will be paid to ensuring that the proposed features will not adversely affect the physical or ecological integrity of Flora Bank, and that any options eventually implemented will result in substantial benefits in terms of ecological value and productivity. As with all offsetting measures presented in this report, the concepts presented here will be refined through discussions with DFO and consultation with Aboriginal people, community members, and other interested parties.

Partnership with Aboriginal People or Non-Aboriginal 3.5Local Stewardship Group

As part of one or more of the offsetting options described above, it may be possible to partner with an external, local non-government organization that focuses on fish habitat restoration projects. Ideally, the partnership would involve Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and associated stewardship group based in Prince Rupert or the surrounding region. Members of the organization could help develop and implement the offsetting works and assist with habitat monitoring. Alternatively, funding and/or professional resources could be provided to the organization to support an existing program that involves marine or freshwater enhancement works.

Habitat Balance 3.6The amount of offsetting provided will depend on the total area of permanent alteration or destruction of habitat, the relative ecological value and productivity of the affected habitats, and the type of offsetting habitat(s) created. Once the final offsetting features have been selected, offsetting ratios will be developed in consultation with DFO. These ratios will reflect both the ecological value of affected habitats and the type of permanent alteration or destruction incurred. Specifically, ratios will be higher for habitats that have high ecological value and productivity and lower for habitats that have lesser value as fish habitat. The amount of habitat created as a direct result of project construction will be taken into consideration when developing ratios; however, this habitat will not be considered as an offsetting measure. With the implementation of the final HOP, offsetting measures will balance the permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat and there will be no net loss of the productivity of fish habitat.

Timing and Access to Offsetting Sites 3.7It may take several years for newly created offsetting habitats to become fully functional. To reduce the amount of time between the loss of natural habitat and the attainment of fully-functional offsetting habitat(s), offsetting features will be implemented prior to project construction wherever possible.

At a minimum, all offsetting habitat would be in place within 12 months of the completion of in-water works. The exact timing of some offsetting options (e.g., eelgrass transplants) will be seasonally-specific to enhance success. Similarly, DFO mandated work windows may need to be considered in order to avoid potential harmful interactions with sensitive life stages of marine species.

Where possible, offsetting features will be located within the Project’s water lease area. For any offsetting measures implemented on lands or in waters not owned or leased by PNW LNG, access agreements will be reached with landowners/administrators to ensure access to offsetting sites.


Monitoring and Reporting


19

4 MONITORING AND REPORTING

Monitoring 4.1PNW LNG will implement a monitoring program to confirm that habitat offsetting measures meet their intended objectives. The monitoring program will consist of two components:

Compliance monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring.

Compliance monitoring will confirm that offsetting habitats are constructed in accordance with the final HOP and that all conditions of the Fisheries Act authorization are met. Effectiveness monitoring will confirm that offsetting habitats are functioning as intended after construction.

Compliance Monitoring 4.1.1Compliance monitoring for the offsetting works will be integrated into the supervision of offsetting habitat construction. At least one supervisory qualified professional, with more than three years of experience on related projects and graduate training in a relevant discipline, will be on site during start-up and at critical periods of construction. Information to be documented during construction will include:

Written and photo-documented sequence of events during construction

Any changes in the design that are necessary to adapt to unanticipated conditions (these changes must be discussed with DFO before proceeding)

Technical issues that arise during construction and how they were addressed

Confirmation that all habitat offsetting components meet design requirements

Confirmation that all terms and conditions of the DFO Authorization are met.

An as-built report will be submitted to DFO within 90 days of offsetting habitat construction.

Effectiveness Monitoring 4.1.2Habitat effectiveness monitoring will commence soon after the installation of offsetting features and will be repeated annually for five years. The specific methods used, and parameters to be measured, in the monitoring program will depend on the offsetting measures implemented. As part of the final HOP, success criteria will be established for each offsetting feature. If success criteria are not achieved by year five, a work plan will be developed and additional works will be undertaken. Monitoring will continue until success criteria have been met.

Reporting 4.2Results of compliance monitoring will be reported in the first year after installation of the offsetting features and the effectiveness monitoring program will be reported annually. Both will be submitted to DFO for review. These monitoring reports will be made available to local Aboriginal groups as well as any other participating organizations and local stakeholders. After the fifth year of the effectiveness monitoring program, a summary report will be issued with recommendations based on the success of the offsetting habitats. If the works have not met the objectives after the fifth year of monitoring, contingency plans outlined in the final HOP will be implemented.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy Closure

February 17, 2014


20

5 CLOSURE This CHOS was prepared to support the environmental assessment for the PNW LNG Project. A more detailed HOP will be developed at a later date to support the issuance of a Section 35(2)(b) Fisheries Act authorization for the Project. The information presented in this report uses the best available information at the time of preparation.

We hope this report meets your needs. If you have any questions please contact Andrea Pomeroy at (778) 331-0201 or by email at [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Reviewed by:

Original signed by: Original signed by:

Conor McCracken, B.Sc., BIT Tim C. Edgell, Ph.D., R.P.Bio. Marine Scientist Senior Marine Scientist

Original signed by: Original signed by:

Lian Kwong, B.Sc., BIT Stefan Dick, B.Sc., BIT Marine Scientist Marine Scientist Reviewed by:

Original signed by:

Andrea Pomeroy, Ph.D., R.P.Bio. Project Manager

LK/CM/SD/TE/AP/nlb


References


21

6 REFERENCES

Literature Cited 6.1BC Ministry of Forests (BC MOF). 1998. Fish-Stream Identification Guidebook.

Beacham, T.D., D.E. Hay and K.D. Le. 2005. Population structure and stock identification of eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus), an anadromous smelt, in the Pacific Northwest. Marine Biotechnology 7(4):363-372.

Bilkovic, D.M. 2011. Response of tidal creek fish communities to dredging and coastal development pressures in a shallow-water estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 34:129–147.

Bohnsack, J.A. and D.L. Sutherland. 1985. Artificial Reef Research: A Review with Recommendations for Future Priorities. Bulletin of Marine Science 37(1):11-39.

Brennan, J. and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems Washington Sea Grant Program. Seattle, WA. 34 pp.

Burdick, D.M. and F.T. Short. 1995. The effects of boat docks on eelgrass beds in coastal waters of Massachusetts. Environmental Management 23(2):231-240.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life: pH. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2004. COSEWIC Status Report on the Green Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 15 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007a. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Rougheye Rockfish Sebastes sp. Type I and Sebastes sp. Type II in Canada. N. R. National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division. Ottawa. 36 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007b. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Bluntnose Sixgill Shark Hexanchus griseus in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 33 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008. COSEWIC Assessment and Satus Report on the Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus, Pacific Ocean Inside Waters Population and Pacific Ocean Outside Waters Population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 75 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2009. COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Northern Abalone Haliotis kamtschatkana in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. . Ottawa. 48 pp.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy References

February 17, 2014


22

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2011. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Eulachon, Nass/Skeena Rivers Population, Central Pacific Coast Population and the Fraser River Population Thaleichthys pacificus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 88 pp.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) (Cartographer). (1985). Map No.1 Juvenile Salmon Resource.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2012. Action Plan for the Northern Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa. 65 pp.

Duarte, C.M., N. Marba and R. Santos. 2004. What May Cause Loss of Seagrasses? In: Borum, J. et al. (Eds). 2004. European Seagrasses: An Introduction to Monitoring and Management:24-32.

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.

Gilkinson, K.D., Gordon, D.C., MacIsaac, K.G., McKeown, D.L., Kenchington, E.L.R., Bourbonnais, C. and W.P. Vass. 2005. Immediate impacts and recovery trajectories of macrofaunal communities following hydraulic clam dredging on Banquereau, eastern Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62:925-947.

Hanson, A.R. (Ed.). 2004. Status and Conservation of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Eastern Canada. Technical Report Series No. 412. Canadian Wildlife Service, Atlantic Region. viii. + 40 pp.

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 1973-1. Northern Operations Branch. Fisheries and Marine Service Department of the Environment. Vancouver, BC.

Houston, J.J. 1988. Status of the Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 102(2):286-290.

Hueckel, G.J., R.M. Buckley and B.L. Benson. 1989. Mitigating Rocky Habitat Losses Using Artificial Reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 44(2):913-922.

Love, M.S., M. Yaklavich and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific. California. 390 pp.

Mathews, S.B. and R.M. Buckley. 1976. Marine mortality of Puget Sound coho salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33:1677-1684.

McCormick, S.D. and R.L. Saunders. 1987. Preparatory physiological adaptations for marine life of salmonids: osmoregulation, growth and metabolism. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1:211-229.

McRoy, C.P. 1970. Standing stocks and other features of eelgrass (Zostera marina) populations on the coast of Alaska. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27(10):1811-1821.


References


23

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Critical Habitat for the Southern Distinct Population Segment of Eulachon: Final Biological Report. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Protected Resources Division. 59 pp.

Nelson, T. and J.R. Waaland. 1997. Seasonality of eelgrass, epiphyte and grazer biomass and productivity in subtidal eelgrass meadows subjected to moderate tidal amplitude. Aquatic Botany 56:51-74.

Newell, R. C, Seiderer, L.J. and D.R. Hitchcock, D.R. 1998. The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the sea bed. Oceanography and Marine Biology 36: 127−172.

North Coast Environmental Analysis Team. 1975. Prince Rupert Bulk‐Loading Facility Phase 2: Environmental Assessment of Alternatives for the Federal/Provincial Joint Committee on Tsimpsean Peninsula Port Development. Volume 1. Main Report.

Phillips, R.C. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows in the Pacific Northwest: A Community Profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 85 pp.

Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA). 2013. Baseline Marine Environmental Water Quality Sampling Program Summary – Q3. Memorandum. Prepared by SNC Lavalin for the PRPA.

Short, F.T. and H.A. Neckles. 1999. The effects of global climate change on seagrasses. Aquatic Botany 63:169-196.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2014. Pacific NorthWest LNG Project – Marine Technical Data Report. Prepared for Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership. Vancouver, BC.

Tomaro, L.M., D.J. Teel, W.T. Peterson and J.A. Miller. 2012. When is bigger better? Early marine residence of middle and upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon. Marine Ecology Progress Series 452:237-252.

Valentine, J.F., K.L. Heck Jr. and A. Cinkovich. 2002. Impacts of seagrass food webs on marine ecosystems: A need for a broader perspective. Bulletin of Marine Science 71(3):1361-1368.

Vandermeulen, H. 2005. Assessing Marine Habitat Sensitivity: A Case Study with Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) and Kelps (Laminaria, Macrocystis). (Research Document 2005/032). Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Dartmouth, NS. 1-53 pp.

Wright, N. 2005. Communities Connecting to Place: A Strategy for Eelgrass Restoration in British Columbia. Prepared for S. C. W. Group.

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy Figures

February 17, 2014


24

Internet Sites 6.2Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2013. Species Profile:

Eulachon, Nass/Skeena Rivers Population, Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=1162. Accessed December 13, 2013.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013a. Fisheries Protection Policy Statement. Website at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/pol/index-eng.html.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013b. Fisheries Productivity Investment Policy: A Proponent’s Guide to Offsetting. Website at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/cg2/offsetting-guide-compensation/index-eng.html.

7 FIGURES Please see the following pages.

SmithIsland

DigbyIsland

AlwynLake

LeluIsland

StapledonIsland

KaienIsland

KinahanIslands

RidleyIsland

Skeena Dr

Inverness Passage

Tsum Tsadai InletC h a t h a mS o u n d

Porpoise Harbour

FloraBank

HorseyBank

AgnewBank

Wan

tage R

d

Ridley Island R

d

Yellowhead Highway

16

16

Morse Basin

CN Railway

Porpois

e Chann

el DianaLake

KSHAOOM 23

S 1/2TSIMPSEAN 2

S 1/2TSIMPSEAN 2

Ferry Route

WoodworthLake

ColonelJohnston

Lake

BremnerLake

DIANALAKE PARK

TUGWELLISLAND 21

S 1/2TSIMPSEAN 2

DASHKEN 22

Metlakatla

PrinceRupert

Port Edward

Osland

Skee

na D

r

Ridley Island Rd

Hillcrest Ave

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

2/17

/201

4 -

7:22

:56

PM

V

:\act

ive\

1231

1053

7\gi

s\fig

ures

\gen

eral

\mxd

s\en

glis

h\fig

_123

1105

37-3

94_p

roje

ct_l

ocat

ion.

mxd

Project LocationPacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:DATUM:CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

1FIGURE ID:

Potential ShippingRoute

Project Component

Turning Basin

Prince Rupert PortAuthority BoundaryProposed or ExistingIndustrial DevelopmentFootprint

Airport

City or Town

Contour (m)

Electrical PowerTransmission Line

Ferry Route

Highway

Railway

Secondary Road

Watercourse

Archaeological Site

Indian Reserve

Protected Area

Waterbody

ShoalsAgnew Bank

Flora Bank

Horsey Bank

0 1 2 3 4 5 km

17-FEB-14123110537-394K. POLL A. GROMACK

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.

TurningBasin

MaterialsOffloadingFacility

Inset Map1:50,000

Skeena Dr

LeluIsland

LeluIsland

StapledonIsland

RidleyIsland

FloraBank

Porpoise

Channel

CN Railway

WC8/9

WC11

Skeena Dr

415200

415200

415600

415600

416000

416000

416400

416400

416800

416800

6005

600

6005

600

6006

000

6006

000

6006

400

6006

400

6006

800

6006

800

6007

200

6007

200

6007

600

6007

600

2/17

/201

4 -

7:16

:10

PM

V

:\act

ive\

1231

1053

7\gi

s\fig

ures

\gen

eral

\mxd

s\en

glis

h\fig

_123

1105

37-3

45_f

resh

wat

er_h

add.

mxd

Potential Effects onFreshwater Habitat

Pacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECTION:DATUM:CHECKED BY:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

2

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, NaturalResources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Progress EnergyCanada Ltd. Imagery date: 2009.

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:

0 250 500 750 m

17-FEB-14123110537-345K. POLL C. McCRACKEN

UTM - ZONE 9NAD 83

1:12,000

Confluence of Watercourse

Reach Break

Potentially Fish-bearing

Railway

Road

Project Component

Turning Basin

Watercourse

RidleyIsland

StapledonIsland

LeluIsland

KitsonIsland

FloraBank

AgnewBank

HorseyBank

Lelu IslandAccess Bridge

Porpoise Channel

Trestle

C h a t h a mS o u n d

Skee

na D

r

520

40

40

80

40

480440

400360

320280

240200

160

120

80

40

PortEdward

0

-10

-5

-5

-10

0

0

-15

0

-5

-5

0

-10

-5

-5

-5

-10-20-30

0

-15-25

-35

0-30

-5

-5

-30-25

-20

-5

-10

0

-10

-20

-25

-10

-10

-5

0

-20-15-20

-15

-25

-15

-5

-40

-5

-10

-25

-5

-5

-10

-35-40

-10-5

-15

-5

00

0 00

-10

-20

-10

-10

-100

-10

-10

-30

-20

-40-50

-50

0

0

00

-10

-10

-20

-30

-10

-20

-300

-10

-20

-20

-10

-30

0

-10

-10

0 200 400 600 800 m

2/17

/201

4 -

7:14

:20

PM

\\

cd11

83-f0

4\w

orkg

roup

\123

1\ac

tive\

EM

\123

1105

37\g

is\fi

gure

s\ge

nera

l\123

1105

37-3

92_E

xist

ing_

Mar

ine_

Hab

itat_

Sub

stra

te.m

xd

Existing Marine Habitat (Substrate)


DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

3

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:

Project Component

Turning Basin

Dredge BoundaryDominant Substrate Type

Riparian

Hardrock Bottom, Intertidal

Soft Bottom, Intertidal

Mixed Soft and Hard Bottom, Subtidal

Soft Bottom, Subtidal

Bathymetry (m)

Contour (m)

Railway

Road

Watercourse

Prince Rupert Port Authority Boundary

ShoalsAgnew Bank

Flora Bank

Horsey Bank

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:123110537-392

17-FEB-14 UTM - ZONE 9

NAD 83

D. COOK

C. McCRACKEN

1:17,500

-10

-5

-15-20

0

-25

-10

0-5

0

-5

-10

-10Materials Offloading Facility

RidleyIsland

StapledonIsland

LeluIsland

KitsonIsland

FloraBank

AgnewBank

HorseyBank


Porpoise Channel

Trestle


Skee

na D

r

520

40

40

80

40

480440

400360

320280

240200

160

120

80

40

PortEdward

0

-10

-5

-5

-10

0

0

-15

0

-5

-5

0

-10-5

-5

-5

-10-20-30

0

-15-25

-35

0-30

-5

-5

-30

-5

-10

0

-10

-20

-25

-10

-10

-5

0

-20-15-20

-15-25

-25

-15-20

-5

-40

-5

-10 -25

0

-5

-5

-10-15

-35-40

-10-5

-15

-5

0

0 00

-10

-10

-20

-10

-10

-100

-10

-10

-30

-20

-40-50

-50

0

0

0

0

-10

-10

-20

-30

-10

-20

-300

-10

-20

-20

-10

-30

0

-10

-10

0 200 400 600 800 m

2/17

/201

4 -

7:11

:29

PM

\\

cd11

83-f0

4\w

orkg

roup

\123

1\ac

tive\

EM

\123

1105

37\g

is\fi

gure

s\ge

nera

l\123

1105

37-3

93_E

xist

ing_

Mar

ine_

Hab

itat_

Mar

ine_

Pla

nts.

mxd

Existing Marine Habitat (Marine Plants)


DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

4



FIGURE ID:

Eelgrass

Brown Algae

Project Component

Turning BasinEelgrass (satellite imagery confirmed by ground-truthing)

Core Eelgrass (overlap of 2011and 2013 satellite imagery)

Eelgrass (June 1, 2013 Pléiades Imagery)

Eelgrass (June 7, 2011 World View Imagery)

Dredge BoundaryEelgrass Bed (delineatedduring foreshore surveys)Bathymetry (m)

Contour (m)

Railway

Road

Watercourse


ShoalsAgnew Bank

Flora Bank

Horsey Bank

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:123110537-393


NAD 83

D. COOK

C. McCRACKEN

1:17,500

-10

-5

-15-20

0

-25

-10

0-5

0

-5

-10

-10Materials Offloading Facility

RidleyIsland

StapledonIsland

LeluIsland

KitsonIsland

FloraBank

AgnewBank

HorseyBank

Porpoise Channel



Breakwater

Breakw

ater

Skee

na D

r

520

40

40

80

40

480440

400360

320280

240200

160

120

80

40

PortEdward

0

-10

-5

-5

-10

0

0

-15

0

-5

-5

0

-10

-5

-5

-5

-10-20-30

0

-15-25

-35

0-30

-5

-5

-30-25

-20

-5

-10

0

-10

-20

-25

-10

-10

-5

0

-20-15-20

-15

-25

-15

-5

-40

-5

-10

-25

-5

-5

-10

-35-40

-10-5

-15

-5

00

0 00

-10

-20

-10

-10

-100

-10

-10

-30

-20

-40-50

-50

0

0

00

-10

-10

-20

-30

-10

-20

-300

-10

-20

-20

-10

-30

0

-10

-10

2/17

/201

4 -

7:15

:00

PM

\\

cd11

83-f0

4\w

orkg

roup

\123

1\ac

tive\

EM

\123

1105

37\g

is\fi

gure

s\ge

nera

l\123

1105

37-2

70_M

arin

e_H

AD

D.m

xd

Potential Effects on Marine HabitatPacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

5



FIGURE ID:

Eelgrass

Brown Algae

Dredge Boundary

Eelgrass Bed

Core Eelgrass

Eelgrass (June 1, 2013 Pléiades Imagery)

Eelgrass (June 7, 2011 World View Imagery)

Intertidal Alteration

Intertidal Loss

Riparian Loss

Subtidal Alteration

Subtidal Loss

Subtidal Temporary Disruption

Bathymetry (m)

Contour (m)

Railway

Road

Watercourse


ShoalsAgnew Bank

Flora Bank

Horsey Bank

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:123110537-270


NAD 83

D. COOK

C. McCRACKEN

Pile

Trestle

Scour

Pile

-10

-10

-5

-15-20

0

-25-10

0

-5 -5

0

-10

0

-10

Pile

Trestle

LNG Tanker

Mooring Dolphin

Dredge Cut

Scour

Materials Offloading FacilityExample of Intertidal Trestle Arrangement

Example of Subtidal Trestle Arrangement

-5

0

-5

-15

0-5

-10

0

-20

-20

-20

0-5-5 -10

-25

-20

-15-10

-10

Pioneer Dock

0 200 400 600 800 m

1:17,500

Representative Habitat Features

418000

418000

419000

419000

420000

420000

421000

421000

422000

422000

423000

423000

424000

424000

425000

425000

426000

426000

427000

427000

428000

428000

429000

429000

6000

000

6000

000

6001

000

6001

000

6002

000

6002

000

6003

000

6003

000

6004

000

6004

000

6005

000

6005

000

0 400 800 1,200 m

2/17

/201

4 -

7:13

:10

PM

V

:\act

ive\

1231

1053

7\gi

s\fig

ures

\gen

eral

\mxd

s\en

glis

h\fig

_123

1105

37-5

53_i

nver

ness

_pas

sage

_sal

mon

.mxd

Inverness Passage Salmon Migration CorridorPacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

6

Sources:Canadian Hydrological Service (CHS), 1995. Chart #: 3717.


FIGURE ID:

Habitat TypeBoulder ReefSalt Marsh/Eelgrass Bed

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:123110537-537


NAD 83

K. POLL

S. DICK

1:30,000

Groyne Reefs

Atoll Reefs 1:15,000

Containment Reefs 1:15,000

1:20,000

Total Area of Habitat TypesBoulder Reef: 48,870 m2

Salt Marsh/Eelgrass Bed: 111,728 m2





LeluIsland

Porpoise

Channel

Skeena Dr

ChathamSound

KitsonIsland

FloraBank

StapledonIsland

TurningBasin

MaterialsOffloadingFacility

LP Flare

LNG Storage Ta

nks

Train 1

Train 2

Train 3

Power Generatio

n

AdministrativeBuildings

Trestl

e

Warm Flare

Cold Flare

Breakw

ater

Brea

kwat

er

Turning Basin

Dredge Area

DredgeArea

Amend depth to approximately +1.5 mCD with dredge sediment using pipedisposal method.

Will accommodate approximately3.5M m3 of sediment.

Will create approximately 1.1M m2

of suitable eelgrass habitat.

-5

0

0

-5

-10-15-20-25-30-35

0

-5

-5

-30

-10

-5

-30

-10

-20

0

-25

-25

-5

-5

-5

-15-15

-25

-5

-40

-15

-5

-10

-20

-5

-5

-10

-15

-35-40

-10

-15

0

-5

0

0

0

-10

-10

-30

-20 -100

0

0

-30

-40

-50

-50

0

0

0

-20

-30

-30

-40

-10

0

0

-30-10-20

0

-10

0-40

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

-10

411600

411600

412000

412000

412400

412400

412800

412800

413200

413200

413600

413600

414000

414000

414400

414400

414800

414800

415200

415200

415600

415600

416000

416000

416400

416400

416800

416800

6004

400

6004

400

6004

800

6004

800

6005

200

6005

200

6005

600

6005

600

6006

000

6006

000

6006

400

6006

400

6006

800

6006

800

0 200 400 600 800 m

2/17

/201

4 -

7:12

:19

PM

V

:\act

ive\

1231

1053

7\gi

s\fig

ures

\gen

eral

\mxd

s\en

glis

h\fig

_123

1105

37-5

52_f

lora

_ban

k_ee

lgra

ss_c

reat

ion.

mxd

Flora Bank Eelgrass Habitat CreationPacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

7

Sources: Government of British Columbia; Government of Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Centre for Topographic Information; Progress Energy Canada Ltd; WorldView-2 Imagery;BlackBridge Geomatics. 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:

Fill Slope (8:1)

Infill Area

Peripheral Intertidal EelgrassEelgrass DensitiesField Observation Percent Cover

0

Low (1-30%)

Medium (31 to 70%)

High (71 to 100%)

Unsupervised SatelliteClassified Percent Cover

Low (0% to 30%)

Medium (31% to 70%)

High (71% to 100%)Submerged Eelgrass (Density information not available)

Eelgrass Bed

Project Component

Turning BasinBathymetry (m)

Major Contour

Minor Contour

Railway

Road

Unnamed Mapped Watercourse

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:123110537-538


NAD 83

K. POLL

S. DICK

1:15,000

2/17

/201

4 -

7:12

:52

PM

V

:\act

ive\

1231

1053

7\gi

s\fig

ures

\gen

eral

\mxd

s\en

glis

h\fig

_123

1105

37-5

54_f

lora

_ban

k_ee

lgra

ss_e

nhan

cem

ent.m

xd

Flora Bank Eelgrass EnhancementPacific NorthWest LNG

DATE:

PREPARED BY:

PREPARED FOR:

FIGURE NO:

8

Sources: Envirowest Consultants Inc., 2014; WorldView-2 Imagery. Imagery date: 2011.


FIGURE ID:

Islets Constructed of Perimeter Berms (Blast Rock)Upland Areas of Islets Planted with Natural Assemblages of Native Vegetation

PROJECTION:

DATUM:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:123110537-554


NAD 83

D. COOK

L. KWONG

LeluIsland

FloraBank

KitsonIsland

RidleyIsland


PortEdward

Islets constructed of perimeter berms (blast rock)infilled with dredge material (from terminal basinsand channels) topped with native growing mediumsalvaged from Lelu Island (within terminal footprint).

Sediment plume partly deflected from Flora Bank,decreasing suspended sediments, enhancing lightpenetration through water column, facilitatingincreased eelgrass growth.

Upland areas of islets plantedwith natural assemblages ofnative vegetation.

Openings facilitate existing tidal flow patterns;provide access to Flora Bank for juvenile salmon;juvenile salmon are not trained for deep waterthereby mitigating mortality attributable to predation.

1:75,000Location Map

0 50 100 150 200 m

1:5,000

APPENDIX 1 Site Photos

Pacific NorthWest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy

Appendix 1: Site Photos

February 2014 Project No. 1231-10537

1-1

Photo 1 View North Looking Seaward from the Materials Off-Loading Facility

Photo 2 View Southwest across the Materials Off-Loading Facility Looking Shoreward

Pacific Northwest LNG Conceptual Fish Habitat Compensation Strategy Appendix 1: Site Photos

February 2014

Project No. 1231-10537 1-2

Photo 3 View Northeast across the Materials Off-Loading Facility

Photo 4 Algal Assemblages on Bedrock Outcrops and an Eelgrass Bed (Proposed

Trestle Location, Closest to Lelu Island)




1-3

Photo 5 View Southwest along Proposed Trestle Area

Photo 6 Bedrock Outcrops on Southwest Shore of Lelu Island (Proposed Trestle

Location)


February 2014

Project No. 1231-10537 1-4

Photo 7 View North Towards Proposed Trestle Location from Southwest Shore of

Lelu Island

Photo 8 View North of Characteristic Shoreline Profiles between East Lelu Island and

the Mainland (Access Bridge Location)




1-5

Photo 9 View South of Characteristic Shoreline Profiles between East Lelu Island and

the Mainland (Access Bridge Location)

Photo 10 View East of Mainland Shoreline at Access Bridge Location


February 2014

Project No. 1231-10537 1-6

Photo 11 View of Lelu Island Shoreline at Access Bridge Location

Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting Strategy · 2014-03-20 · Andrea Pomeroy, Ph.D., R.P.Bio. ... This Conceptual Habitat Offsetting Strategy (CHOS) has been prepared to support the

Documents