1.0 Introduction

Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition P.O. Box 70 Hazelton, B.C. V0J 1Y0 www.skeenawatershed.com 250.842.2494

March 10, 2014

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 Georgia Street West Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Via email: [email protected]

Honourable Catherine McKenna Minster of Environment and Climate Change Via email: [email protected]

Honorable Hunter Tootoo Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Ottawa, Ontario Via email: [email protected].

Honourable James Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Via email: [email protected]

Pacific Northwest LNG Project – Public Comments re CEAA draft Environmental Assessment Report

From: Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition CEAA Reference: 80032

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition (SWCC) is a diverse group of people living and working in the Skeena River watershed. Our board of directors and membership reflect the broad interests of the people in this region. We are united in understanding that short term industrial development plans, even 50 year plans, will not benefit our region in the long run if they undermine the social and environmental fabric that holds the watershed and its communities together.

SWCC’s mission is to cultivate a sustainable future from a sustainable environment rooted in culture and a wild salmon ecosystem. Objectives and strategies arising from this

mission include educating the public and decision-makers in order to increase awareness and understanding of the natural ecological and human assets that currently exist, as well as helping to create a vibrant and resilient future for the Skeena watershed.

SWCC has previously reviewed the Pacific NorthWest LNG (PNW LNG) Project Application/Environmental Impact Statement (Application/EIS) which describes the project and the potential environmental, social, economic, cultural, and health-related effects of all phases of the project under contract with a CEAA Contribution Agreement. Those comments were delivered to CEAA on May 1, 2014.

The following written comments are in regard to the review of the CEAA draft Environmental Assessment report dated February 2016. As there were major conceptual changes to the proposed PNW LNG project, and subsequently, supplemental information to review, SWCC contracted Dr. Marvin Rosenau to conduct a review of the project pier, berth, and jetty, and as such, his review is appended to this submission.

1.2 Pacific NorthWest LNG Project Pacific NorthWest LNG Ltd. proposes to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility and marine terminal near Prince Rupert, within the District of Port Edward. The Pacific NorthWest LNG facility would be located on Lelu Island. The proposed project would convert natural gas to LNG for export to Pacific Rim markets in Asia. The Pacific NorthWest LNG Project is subject to review under both the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) and B.C.'s Environmental Assessment Act and as such, has undergone a joint environmental assessment process.

1.3 SWCC’s Previous EIS Comment Summary― May 1, 2014 SWCC’s assessment of the PNW LNG Project Application/EIS found an inadequacy and insufficiency of baseline data as set out in the EIS Guidelines and Application Information Requirements, particularly in regard to Sections 1, 2, 13, 15, and 19. Adequate and sufficient baseline data are critical to the environmental assessment process due to the required subsequent effects assessment and cumulative effects – both of which revolve around and depend on complete and sufficient baseline data.

The lack of adequate baseline data has led to faulty conclusions regarding the effects assessment, the cumulative effects assessment, predicted residual effects, and the conclusions in regard to the Valued Components. Much of the effects assessment is based on professional opinion and does not reflect adequate science and guiding federal policies such as the precautionary principle. The quality of science in the Application/EIS is very low level and does nothing at all to provide confidence in the proposed mitigation measures and habitat offsets.

Due to the proposed project’s location at the mouth of the Skeena River, which is an internationally significant salmon producing river, potential adverse effects are inadequately addressed at a basic level. The marine environment adjacent to the

proposed project is considered a biological hotspot in relation to the overall Skeena estuary and the BC Northcoast.

Over the last forty years, numerous studies led by the federal government and development proponents have concluded that the Skeena River estuary is one of the most biologically productive areas on the BC Pacific coast. These past studies have noted the many potential adverse impacts to marine resources if development were to be located on Lelu Island and/or Flora Bank. However, the PNW LNG Application/EIS are in substantial disagreement with those studies. It is considered pointless to attempt to interpret why this current study is in strong conflict with past effects conclusions at the species, habitat, and ecosystem levels.

SWCC considers the Application/EIS inadequate; the baseline data needs to be developed and then thoroughly evaluated as to potential impacts and effects. The rush to develop LNG facilities on the north coast has resulted in compromised data collection, and hurried analysis and interpretation. SWCC’s concern with sound and quality decision-making in the Skeena estuary converges with Fisheries Act and Canadian Environmental Protection Act legislation and with the long-term sustainability of the Skeena watershed, Skeena estuary, and the BC north coast. SWCC argues that the proposed LNG plant should not be situated in the Skeena estuary.

2.0 SWCC Comments to the CEAA draft Environmental Assessment Report ― February 2016 2.1 General Comments

SWCC considers that the environmental assessment process leading up to the draft Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) continues to utilize weak or non-existent baseline data. Though the information base improved throughout the process, there is still a lack of fundamental understanding in regard to:

• the Skeena River discharge; • the transport of sediment by Skeena River discharge; • the deposition of said sediment on the estuary sediment banks and delta front; • the effects of Skeena discharge flows on other prevailing currents such as tidal, wind-driven, and upstream saline water entrainment into the Skeena River; • the variability of large snowmelt events creating large Skeena flood flows that re- mobilize stored sediments in the inner portion of the estuary and re-deposit them in various drying and wetted banks.

SWCC considers the data noted above as critical to understanding what effects, if any, would result from changes to the environment caused by the proposed project. Given the tight timelines set out in both the BC and Canada environmental assessment processes, the responsibility falls on the project proponent to collect adequate baseline data and

therefore be prepared with the EIS Application. However, in this case the proponent was not adequately prepared.

In the course of SWCC’s review of the Application and review of the draft EAR, SWCC has unanswered and lingering questions regarding the proponents assessment of effects, including social, economic, cultural, environmental, and health-related effects, which appear to tainted by subjective opinions and conclusions. As such, the PNW LNG EA process appears to fail in identifying the potential impacts of the proposed development, particularly in relation to, or linked to changes to climate that are currently existing in the Skeena area, and in conjunction with other development processes, such as the other seven proposed LNG terminals, the two approved gas pipes (Spectra and PRGT), and other related port developments that cumulatively act to infringe on ecological integrity in the inner and mid-estuary areas.

There is no lack of science denoting the high value habitat that supports juvenile salmon in and adjacent to Lelu Island. However, the draft CEAA report does not take note of this fact. Nor does the draft CEAA report take note of the past and current impacts to juvenile salmon habitat. For example, the amount of shoreline that has been hardened by development over the last three decades is relatively large. There is no lack of science proving that shoreline hardening is detrimental to juvenile salmon. But who is talking about it?

This is effectively obliteration of excellent critical habitat that sustains Skeena salmon abundance. PNW LNG wishes to continue this tradition of impacting habitat. Yet the draft CEAA EAR does not appear to take note of the finest juvenile salmon habitat on the BC north coast. It is strange that Environment Canada and the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) of the day (in the 1970s) made note of the excellent habitat and recommended against development of the inner and mid-estuary area. SWCC notes that the cherry-picking of select science by the proponent, and to all appearances by CEAA, has tainted the EA process.

SWCC questions why the abundance, the condition, and the genetic diversity of the many juvenile salmon caught and analysed by the Lax Kw’alaams/Skeena Fisheries Commission/ SFU joint venture did not provide meaningful discussion in the draft CEAA EAR? It is important to note that the majority of those juvenile fish, particularly the sockeye, came from populations that are currently denoted at risk and are managed under Sockeye Recovery Plans, of which DFO is an important partner. These populations include the Lakelse, Kitwanga, Morice-Nanika, and the Babine wild stocks. The latter stocks comprise by far, the largest sockeye stocks in the Skeena watershed.

There does not seem to be much sense involved here; on one hand there are up-river recovery plans being funded and implemented in conjunction with Canada DFO, various First Nations, and the international Pacific Salmon Treaty–Pacific Salmon Commission

Northern Fund. On the other hand, juvenile salmon habitat is being put at risk by a third- party, investment-based proponent, and at the least being blessed by CEAA, a part of Environment Canada that conducts environmental assessments. Two plus two is not equalling four here; something is terribly wrong.

SWCC notes that both Environment Canada and DFO should have warned the proponent that the inner and mid-estuary areas are off-limits to massive mega-project developments. Simply put, there could not be a worse location selected for the proposed project given the high value, critical fisheries habitat. In August 2013, the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre on behalf of the Northwest Institute requested the federal and provincial Environment Ministers conduct a federal regional study and a provincial strategic environmental assessment for LNG projects proposed for northwest B.C.

Such processes are contemplated under both existing federal and provincial legislation and do not preclude individual assessments for each project. This legislative scheme is designed to forestall costly and drawn out litigation on such matters. However, we are presently in the situation whereby both provincial and federal environmental assessment processes have failed to be accurate, transparent, and accountable to simple common- sense.

SWCC argues that the rush to develop LNG facilities on the north coast has resulted in incomplete and compromised data collection, hurried analysis, and hasty, subjective interpretation. SWCC’s concern with sound and quality decision-making in the Skeena estuary converges with Fisheries Act and Canadian Environmental Protection Act legislation and the long-term sustainability of the Skeena watershed, Skeena estuary, and the BC north coast. SWCC argues that the proposed LNG plant should not be situated in the Skeena estuary and is in conflict with the draft CEAA EAR conclusion: that other than significant adverse effects on harbour porpoise and greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on all other valued components.

2.2 Specific Comments

2.2.1 ― 6.1 Air Quality There are currently uncertainties regarding the establishment of the baseline conditions. SWCC notes there appears to be uncertainty as to what adverse effects would result from PNW LNG operations, and as well, as to the lack of any cumulative effects of industrial air emissions on the environment and human health in the local airshed. Given the past problems with air quality in Prince Rupert and Kitimat, where emissions were permitted by the provincial government, the draft CEAA EAR conclusion does not provide any comfort.

2.2.2 ― 6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Page 37, paragraph 2 of the draft CEAA EAR states: “Further, as part of the Government of Canada’s interim approach for environmental assessments announced on January 27, 2016, Environment and Climate Change Canada provided an assessment of the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Project.”

SWCC notes that upstream emissions did not form part of the “Scoping Document” (“Guidelines for the Preparation of an EIS for an EA Conducted Pursuant to the CEAA 2012 for the PNW LNG Project,” Oct. 30, 2013). SWCC finds that the inclusion of this consideration in the EA is justified given the nature of the Jan. 27, 2016 interim approach in that it does not undermine the Scoping Document but rather augments it. Further, inclusion of upstream emissions is consistent with the Federal Government’s commitments to restructuring CEAA 2012, and to addressing climate change. There is no provision within CEAA 2012 to prevent adjustments to the project scope brought about by policy changes.

Upstream emissions in this case are not incremental, as the proponent has indicated that the North Montney shale basin development is largely greenfield. The development goals of Progress Energy and Pacific Northwest LNG (both majority owned by Petronas) have since 2012 been moving in tandem with the goal of LNG exports. This is truly a case of a single large project with large effects. Consideration of upstream GHGs is appropriate in this context.

Page 39, paragraph 1 of the draft CEAA EAR states: “The Agency notes that effects of greenhouse gases from the Project in a particular location cannot be measured; however, the geographic extent of the environmental effects is global due to the cumulative nature of greenhouse gas emissions and their contribution to climate change at the global level. The burning of natural gas has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions internationally if it replaces the burning of coal and diesel; however, this type of analysis is beyond the scope of the EA for the Project. “

SWCC finds the possibility of including within the EA an analysis of the effects of burning LNG from Canada in Asia would affect GHG emissions globally, unjustified on three accounts as follows.

First, decisions and actions of another country are obviously outside the scope of a Canadian EA process. Canada has no control whatsoever over what another country does with our natural gas once we sell it to them (could be used for chemical manufacturing, electricity production, etc.), let alone control over whether it will displace fossil fuels or not. The decisions and conditions resulting from an EA become legally binding, and because Canada has no legal jurisdiction in other countries, including potential downstream emission, displacement within the EA is legally impossible. Under the Paris climate agreement, every country has the responsibility to reduce their own emissions.

Emissions reductions in China or other Asian countries have no relevance to Canada’s climate responsibilities, and cannot be used to justify increasing our own emissions.

Second, there is no reliable evidence, not to mention any legally binding agreements, that LNG from B.C. will replace existing or planned fossil fuel consumption in consumer countries. It is entirely possible that B.C. LNG would augment existing and planning fossil fuel consumption, or even displace existing or future renewable energy sources in Asia, thus increasing GHGs globally. There is strong evidence that natural gas competes with renewables in emerging economies.

Third, even if it could be guaranteed through international agreement that LNG from B.C. would replace future fossil fuel consumption in Asia, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that this would displace more GHG emissions globally than it would produce. According to some estimations, the GHG emissions of burning LNG from B.C. in Asia are only slightly less than best-technology coal plants. Other estimations find that over 20 years, generating electricity in China with BC LNG would be 27 per cent worse for the climate than building coal plants with new technology, if wellhead to burner tip emissions are considered.1 This is precisely the time-frame of Paris climate commitments.

Page 39, paragraph 3 of the draft CEAA EAR states:: “The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions after taking into consideration the implementation of best achievable technology and management practices and compliance with the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.”

SWCC notes it is correct to find that significant adverse effects as a result of GHGs from PNW LNG are a Project Effect, and not a Cumulative Effect. According to CEAA 2012, Project Effects must be assessed in isolation from effects caused by existing and future activities, other than those associated with the Project. Current background global GHG levels (>400 ppm CO2) are due to past activities (including fossil fuel combustion), not to existing or future activities. Thus the adverse effects of a global increase in GHGs from PNW LNG when considered in isolation, though not measurable, would occur both within and without the project area, regardless of other existing or future activities not associated with the project.

Though the draft EIA finds that the nature of GHG emissions is such that their effects are cumulative, with climate change occurring at a global level, when considered within the EA, GHG emissions fall within Project Effects rather than Cumulative Effects. In this regard, effects of GHG emissions are exactly analogous to effects due to disruption by the dredging of previously contaminated sediments around Lelu Island. In both cases, a pre- existing background condition, both within and without the project area, has made it such that the isolated effects of PNW LNG are potentially significant without consideration of

1 Hughes, J. David. “A Clear Look at BC LNG,” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, May 2015.

any other existing or future activities not associated with the project. GHG impacts are Project Effects and should be assessed as such.

SWCC finds that the significant adverse effects of GHGs cannot be justified in the circumstances on economic grounds, as an environmental assessment must rely only on science and law, not economics. No matter the purported economic benefits or detriments posed by the project, within CEAA 2012 there is no provision for federal Cabinet to justify significant adverse effects by economic considerations.

2.2.3 ― 6.6 Marine Fish Impacts CEAA, DFO experts, and Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) experts appear to have ignored key peer-reviewed published scientific research regarding the geological stability of Flora Bank in the draft EAR. As a consequence, Flora Bank currently faces unevaluated risk of significant adverse effects due to erosion or deposition.

Flora Bank, a relatively rare sand formation adjacent to Lelu Island supports eelgrass beds that are the most productive juvenile salmon habitat on the BC north coast. As such, the bank is a Valued Component of Fish Habitat. For this reason, the bank is literally one of the key pillars providing the foundation for Canada’ second largest wild salmon run. The Skeena salmon fishery generates in excess of $100 million annually, and is the cultural backbone of over a dozen First Nations. If Flora Bank is lost to erosion, the recreational, commercial, and First Nations fisheries of the Skeena River will be seriously jeopardized.

The geological research that appears to have been ignored by DFO, NRCan, and CEAA in their review of the PNW LNG project is by Patrick McLaren, (R.P.Geo.) A leading expert on sediment transport by water, Dr. McLaren was contracted by the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation in 2014 to study the geology and stability of Flora Bank and surrounding waters and published his results,2 which are contained within the peer-reviewed paper:

SWCC considers the key points of the McLaren (2016) study pertinent to the EA process as follows:

• Methods: Dr. McLaren uses an empirical method called Sediment Trend Analysis (STA) specifically designed to compliment 3D Models that do not rely on empirical sediment samples. In some cases, STA has been used to correct the deficiencies in 3D models. For example, in some areas of the world, 3D models have been so wrong about their predictions of sediment movement that significant unintended effects have resulted after construction projects, such as roadways eroding into the sea. In many of these cases, STA provides an explanation of why the unintended consequences occurred. In 2013, an STA held up in US court against a computer model as the STA was deemed to hold more explanatory power of a disaster that occurred on the Fox River, Wisconsin. McLaren’s research near

2 McLaren, Patrick, 2016. The Environmental Implications of Sediment Transport in the Waters of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada: A Comparison Between Kinematic and Dynamic Approaches (Journal of Coastal Research, 2016).

Prince Rupert was based on nearly 2,474 samples of sediments from the Skeena estuary;

• Conclusion: Flora Bank is a geological anomaly, perhaps unique in B.C. The bank is a relic deposit of coarse sand left over from the last ice age some 10,000 years ago. Its stability appears to be due to a delicate balance of opposing wave, river, and tidal currents whose net effect is to create a “wall of energy” that surrounds and contains the sand grains. These processes collectively hold the bank stable, preventing it from washing away.

• Prediction: If the PNW LNG marine infrastructure is built (bridge supports, 464 piling trestle and LNG tanker berth), it will have a high chance of disrupting the wave and current energies surrounding Flora Bank, causing significant erosion of the sand bank and the salmon habitat. Total loss of Flora Bank to deep water by erosion is possible if exponential feedback ensues. McLaren calls this possibility “the great escape,” as shown in Figure 1 below. Once lost, the bank will be gone forever, as there is no natural process to regenerate it.

On Nov. 12, 2015, federal experts from DFO and NRCan were asked by CEAA to provide specialist advice on the likelihood of significant adverse effects including erosion to fish and fish habitat from the PNW LNG project, and to review the 3D Model published by Hatch Ltd. on Nov. 10, 2015, titled Pacific Northwest LNG 3D Modeling Update:

Supplemental Modeling Report. In direct contrast to McLaren (2016), this 3D Model of site hydrodynamics and sedimentation patterns predicts that if the PNW LNG marine structures are built, Flora Bank will remain stable, and that the project poses little risk of significant adverse erosion to fish habitat.

Rigorous scientific assessment of the diverging predictions between the 3D model and McLaren’s Sediment Trend Analysis would require an acknowledgement of the discrepant predictions, and an explanation of why the diametrically opposed predictions exist. To conclude that the 3D Model is correct would require a further explanation of how and why “the great escape” as described by McLaren (2016) is wrong.

Yet DFO and NRCan have not done nothing of the sort. The agencies don’t mention or reference the McLaren (2016) study even once in their reviews, let alone explain why its key prediction is wrong.3 Instead, they accept the predictions of the 3D Model outright.4 NRCan states in its conclusion that “the effects of the marine structure on fish and fish habitat have been categorized as having a low potential of resulting in significant adverse effects.” It is important to note that in the proponent’s discussion of 3D Model, there is also no recognition, analysis or discrediting explanation of the potential of “the great escape.”

On Feb. 11, 2016, the CEAA draft report was released. In the report, CEAA accepts the above conclusions of DFO and NRCan regarding the low risk of adverse erosion effects to Flora Bank from the PNW LNG project, and again provides no analysis or explanation of the widely diverging predictions of McLaren’s work and the 3D Model.

One hypothesis of why DFO, NRCan and CEAA did not acknowledge the risk of “the great escape” is that they may have considered only the initial August 2015 report of McLaren’s research5, and not his 2016 published study which goes into greater detail regarding the potential of “the great escape,” as well as problems within the proponent’s models.

Whatever the explanation for the oversight, we are now in a state where there exists peer- reviewed published science describing a potential grave risk to Flora Bank habitat from the PNW LNG project, and this risk has not been acknowledged, discussed, or addressed in the environmental assessment process. This is a major problem.

In court, peer-reviewed publication is the gold standard of scientific credibility. For the current EA to have any credibility and to avoid future litigation, there needs to be

3 Reports from DFO and NRCan expert reviews were published on January 13, 2016, as: DFO Comments on the Proponent’s November 10, 2015 Information Request Response for the Pacific Northwest LNG Project, and as: Response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s November 12, 2015 Request for Advice and Assessment of the 3D Modelling Update Report (Nov. 2015) for the Pacific Northwest LNG Project. 4 The McLaren (2016) study was published and available online by Sept. 2015. 5 The initial results from McLaren’s study on Flora Bank and the surrounding waters were submitted to CEAA in August 2015 as Final Report: A Sediment Trend Analysis (STA®) of Prince Rupert Harbour and its Surrounding Waters.

explanation as to why the McLaren (2016) study was not addressed, and further explanation as to how the key prediction of that study is wrong.

In addition to his published paper, McLaren also submitted a detailed description of the “great escape,” as well as criticisms of the latest Hatch Ltd. 3D Model to CEAA on Dec. 17, 2015, as part of a submission from Lax Kw’alaams First Nation. Therein, he describes key empirical evidence found on Flora Bank that the 3D Model is unable to account for (coarse sand grain size, and long-wavelength sand wave bedforms). In other words, he describes how the 3D Model must be wrong. Despite noting in the draft EAR report that Lax Kw’alaams raised this concern (p.62), CEAA has provided no explanation for the fact that the 3D model is unable to explain this key evidence.

It is worth noting that there is a total lack of field measurements of currents, waves, and suspended sediment concentrations over Flora Bank to verify and calibrate any of the 3D Model predictions. NRCan has twice asked that the proponent collect field measurements over Flora Bank to verify and calibrate their 3D model6, yet the proponent has never done this. 3D models are notoriously fickle in their predictions. Is Flora Bank not an important enough place to collect basic data regarding it to verify 3D Model predictions, before a decision is made about whether to build a massive industrial facility on top of it?7

A 12 month set of detailed continuous measurements of currents, waves, and suspended sediment concentrations over Flora Bank would begin to provide the empirical certainty required to genuinely assess risks of erosion and sedimentation changes.

As it stands, without any explanation from the proponent, CEAA, DFO or NRCan, as to how the published research of McLaren (2016) that predicts potential collapse of Flora Bank following construction of PNW LNG is wrong, approval of the project would be scientifically, politically, and legally unfounded.

SWCC requests that when CEAA makes the decision regarding the final environmental assessment decision of PNW LNG that they please consider:

• There exists peer-reviewed published science that describes a serious risk of catastrophic erosion leading to total loss of Flora Bank salmon habitat as a result

6 NRCan asked PNW LNG to collect field data on Flora Bank to calibrate and verify model prediction on Feb. 26, 2015, and again on June 2, 2015 (p.12, http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p80032/103730E.pdf).

7 The draft EA report includes as a potential condition following CEAA approval the collection of field measurements over Flora Bank (p.7, 6.2, http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document- eng.cfm?document=104786).

of building the PNW LNG project, and this research has not been acknowledged, discussed, or addressed in the PNW LNG environmental assessment process. • The Skeena wild salmon run, which has been the cultural backbone of over a dozen First Nations for over 10,000 years, which generates in excess of $100 million annually in a sustainable economy, and which is a central facet of the Canadian identity, is facing unevaluated significant adverse effect.

3.0 Conclusion After reviewing the draft PNW LNG Environmental Assessment Report, SWCC findings do not support the draft EAR, and further, the PNW LNG facility as currently proposed. The main reasons are the location of the proposed facility and the high quality habitats, which are proposed to be altered. The proposed LNG facility needs to find a new location that is more appropriate.

SWCC considers the draft PNW LNG EAR inadequate. In particular, baseline data needs to be substantially strengthened in order to enable determination of potential impacts and effects. This is not currently possible given the hasty nature of baseline collection. SWCC submits that the potential environmental, social, cultural, economic, and health-related effects from the project pose unacceptable risks.

Closure If CEAA has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact SWCC at the above contact information.

Best regards.

Shannon McPhail Executive Director

FISH AND FISH HABITAT IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE LELU ISLAND/FLORA BANK PACIFIC NORTHWEST LNG PROJECT PIER, BERTH AND JETTY March 2016

For: Skeena River Watershed Coalition

By: Dr. Marvin L. Rosenau EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This review is in regards to the Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership liquid natural gas (PNW LNG) marine-transportation facility Project that is being proposed for Flora Bank adjacent to Lelu Island and its likely impacts to fish and fish habitat. In short, a major component of the Project will involve the construction of a large-combination suspension bridge, jetty, pier and berths, including bed-stabilizing rip rap, that is several kilometers long and that will bisect a portion of the northern entrance/exit to the estuary at the confluence of the Skeena River and Chatham Sound. Multiple lines of evidence from various sources indicate that the Project will likely negatively affect the aquatic ecosystem therein and which will not, and cannot, be mitigated by means as proposed by the Proponent. Of particular concern is that the bridge, jetty, pier and berths, and bed stabilization, will severely disrupt the migration of juveniles salmonids and exacerbate predation of these and other commercial, recreational and aboriginal (CRA) fishes.

At the request of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, the pertinent scientific and technical materials relating to fish and fish habitat in the area of the mouth of the Skeena River were reviewed, and specifically for the marine/estuarine portions adjacent to Lelu Island, Flora Bank and immediate environs. Information that was reviewed included various agency and stewardship reports as well as the Proponent’s own submissions to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). In addition, the Project’s Draft Environmental Assessment Report, provided to the public by the CEAA, was examined and aspects relating to fish and their habitats in the estuarine environment were appraised. The final date for public submission of comments to the government of Canada on the Draft Environmental Assessment Report is March 11, 2016.

Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Flora Bank and its adjoining areas within the estuary, where the Project is slated to be constructed, are critical juvenile rearing and migration habitats for a significant portion of the large populations (numbering in the millions) of adult salmon (e.g., Sockeye Oncorhynchus nerka) and steelhead (O. mykiss) that return to the Skeena River watershed each year. Flora Bank and the surrounding areas that will be affected by the Project are used by, and may also be critical habitats for, local populations of other fish species harvested by commercial, recreational and aboriginal (CRA) fisheries. This includes the anadromous eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) that spawn in the lower Skeena River—and which is a species at risk—as well as putative-local populations of surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) and herring (Clupea pallasii) that have been observed on and around Flora Bank. The CEAA failed to recognize any of the project areas as “critical”.

Because of the magnitude of disturbance of the Skeena River estuary at Flora Bank that will occur, it is my opinion that this Project, as proposed, will cause extensive and unmitigated

impacts causing Serious Harm to these CRA species, habitats and populations and explain why- so in this report.

It is my view that, in its Draft Environmental Assessment Report, the CEAA has substantially under-assessed and misrepresented the extent of the likely Serious Harm impacts to the CRA fish populations and their habitats. Moreover, in its Draft Assessment Report, the CEAA has refused to meaningfully address and answer legitimate concerns, regarding effects that will occur as a result of this Project, as put forward various members of the public and First Nations. CEAA’s statement: “The Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish and fish habitat, including marine plants, taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures...” is simply not believable.

Of particular concern is the refusal by CEAA to address the detailed and exhaustive comments and concerns provided in the Lax Kw’alaams’ Comments on Pacific Northwest LNG’s Response to CEAA’s June 2, 2015 Letter dated December 2015.

These fishes and their habitats are protected under the provisions of the Canada Fisheries Act and, specifically, Section 35. (1) 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 fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. While there are a number of identified impacts to the marine/estuarine CRA habitats and their fishes in the areas of the construction and operation of the Project, I concentrate on one particular issue that I am of the opinion represents one of the highest likelihoods for significant impacts to CRA fishes, namely: the effect of the jetty, pier, and berth, and sea-bed stabilization (rip rap) will act to disrupt migration patterns and concentrate predators causing substantial incremental predation of juvenile fishes including CRA species. This effect was brought up to the CEAA by stewardship groups and First Nations but the Agency ignored this risk pathway without reasoning or justification.

CEAA’s actions appear to be done with the express objective of facilitating a project approval for the Proponent without due consideration of Canadian environmental laws and the extensive body of science, with multiple lines of evidence, that show this is an egregiously damaging project. Given the implausible statements made in the Draft Environmental Assessment Report regarding the likelihood of not causing Serious Harm to fish and fish habitat, the only conclusion that can be drawn from CEAA’s behavior is that staff were directed to approve this project regardless of the damage it would cause the aquatic environment to Flora Bank and environs. As such, an external investigation is warranted in these regards.

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 Table of Figures ...... 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1 Overview ...... 6 1.2 Fisheries Assessments of Flora Bank and Surrounding Habitats of the Skeena River Estuary ...... 15 1.3 Scope of this Review ...... 27 2.0 Impact of Piers and Docks on Migrating Juvenile Salmonids...... 29 3.0 Pier, Bridge and Berth Design for the Project ...... 44 4.0 CEAA Draft Environmental Assessment Report ...... 49 4.1 Overview ...... 49 4.2 CEAA Report Impacts to Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 50 4.3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada Input to the Process for Fish Habitat ...... 56 4.4 First Nations Input ...... 57 4.5 Public Input ...... 58 5.0 DISCUSSION ...... 59 6.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 61 7.0 APPENDIX ...... 67 Steelhead ...... 67 Sockeye Salmon ...... 68 Eulachon ...... 68

Table of Figures Figure 1 The Skeena River estuary. Figure adapted from: http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_432.pdf Lelu Island is noted by yellow line...... 11 Figure 2 The Skeena River estuary near Lelu Island and Flora Bank at the site of the Project. These photos graphically show some of the physical and water quality diversity in the Skeena River estuary. Top photo: looking towards Lelu Island over Flora Bank; Bottom photo: looking north towards Chatham Sound. Both photos from Faggetter (2014) and taken by Brian Huntingdon. Captions added...... 12 Figure 3 Project location at Lelu Island and Flora Bank. Figure adapted from the CEAA (2015) Figure 2 and provided by Stantec...... 13 Figure 4 Detailed drawing of proposed jetty, trestle, suspension bridge and berth design for the Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership Project at Lelu Island and Flora Banks. Top figure adapted from CEAA (2016) Figure 3 and provided by Stantec; Bottom figure from http://energeticcity.ca/article/cat- lng/2016/02/15/province-not-phased-by-ceaas-draft-report-on-pacific-northwest-lng ...... 14 Figure 5 Sampling stations by Fisheries Service (1972) of Flora Bank between Kitson and Lelu islands, and other areas, at the mouth of the Skeena River. Figure taken from Fisheries Service (1972) and enhanced by encircling the sampling locations...... 21 Figure 6 The July 1971 mapping of eelgrass beds on Flora Bank between Kitson and Lelu islands at the mouth of the Skeena River. Taken from Fisheries Service (1972)...... 22 Figure 7 Excerpt from Fisheries Service (1972) indicating the views of the authors as to the importance of Flora Bank to the Skeena River estuary and its salmonid populations...... 23 Figure 8 Fish sampling stations by Higgins and Schouwenberg (1973) of the estuary of the Skeena River. Figure taken directly from Higgins and Schouwenberg (1973) and enhanced by encircling the locations...... 24 Figure 9 Purse seine catches in the Skeena River estuary for Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon. Figure adapted from Moore et al. (2015) and which was derived from Carr-Harris et al. (2014)...... 25 Figure 10 Stantec hydroacoustic fish survey at Lelu Island by Stantec 2015b. Note the circled location at the pier and berthing area showing some of the highest putative fish densities and their locations...... 26 Figure 11 Likely changes to juvenile outmigration patterns as a result of causeway and jetty construction in the estuary of the Fraser River...... 36 Figure 12 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021869.pdf .. 37 Figure 13 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021869.pdf .. 38 Figure 14 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021869.pdf .. 39 Figure 15 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds021869.pdf .. 40 Figure 16 Part of a Puget Sound shoreline protection information package regarding the negative effects of docks and piers on salmon. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/committees/1205/BeAGoodNeighbor-PSDocks&Piers.pdf ...... 41

Figure 17 Location of the Hood Canal Bridge and migration direction of steelhead smolts...... 42 Figure 18 Two views of the Hood Canal floating bridge near Seattle, Washington. This structure appears to be a location of high mortality of steelhead smolts in some years, possibly due to predation as they pass under this bridge (Moore et al. 2013)...... 43 Figure 19 Design impact of the bridge, trestle and loading platforms of the Project across the northern and western portions of Flora Bank...... 47 Figure 20 Hypothesized effect of the Project bridge, trestle/jetty and berth via predation on juvenile salmonids and other small fishes in the Flora Bank area of the Skeena River estuary. The structure acts as a trap causing juvenile salmonids to either delay migration and/or be eaten by predators that are concentrated by the structure and use it as cover...... 48 Figure 21 Proposed sites for compensation of damage caused by the Project as designed by Stantec (Figure 21). The Proponent provided no evidence that these proposed sites are, in fact, of less quality than the areas being harmed by the Project. Studies conducted in Washington State show extensive use of shoreline perimeter habitats including terrestrial invertebrates that are disseminated from the riparian areas...... 54 Figure 22 Compenstation design by provided by the Proponent. From Stantec (2016c). The Proponent provided no evidence that these sites are, in fact, of less quality than the areas being harmed due to the impacts of the Project...... 55

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview The Skeena River is the second longest drainage, after the Fraser River, completely contained within the province of British Columbia. Its fish-producing values are exceptional and species of interest include all five eastern Pacific Ocean salmon—which number several-million returning adults each year—as well as resident and anadromous steelhead, cutthroat and chars (Holtby et al. 1994, 1999, Hancock et al. 1983, Cox-Rogers et al. 2004, Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2008).

The historical First Nations salmon interests of the Skeena River are recognized as being linked from time immemorial (Harding 1969, David 1985, Wright 2008). Commercial (DFO 1999,

Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2008, Argue et al. 1986) and sport-fishing (Baxter 1977, Lewynsky and

Olmstead 1990, Ward et al. 1993, Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2008, Hooton 2012) values emanating from the Skeena River are also socially and economically extremely important to the local area.

It is thought that much of the salmonid productivity of this stream is tied to its watershed’s diverse geographic, hydrological and climatic characteristics (Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2008). It is believed, as well, that the streams’ outstanding anadromous-fish productivity arises as a due to its highly productive and complex estuary (Figures 1, 2).

The importance of estuaries to ecosystems in transition between fresh and salt water is extensively documented in the scientific literature and elsewhere. Estuaries are considered to be some of the most productive and biologically important areas in the world and the U.S.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) defines them as “…bodies of water

usually found where rivers meet the sea. Estuaries are home to unique plant and animal

communities that have adapted to brackish water—a mixture of fresh water draining from the

land and salty seawater”.1 Worldwide, however, many estuaries are in trouble due to

anthropogenic impacts and many of the world’s largest cities are built on them (Ross 1995,

Bottom et al. 2005). One taxonomic and life-history group that often rely on this feature are the anadromous trout and salmons. For salmonids Weitkamp et al. (2014) state that: “Estuaries undisturbed by humans are highly productive (Roman et al. 2000, Magnusson and Hilborn 2003) and may enhance smolt survival by providing foraging opportunities, refuge from predation, and a gradual transition to saline conditions (Power and Shooner 1966, Simenstad et al. 1982,

Cunjak et al. 1990, Thorpe 1994, Bottom et al. 2005). However, smolts may also experience

high mortality during the transition to saline environments for reasons that are not well

understood (Pearcy 1992, Kocik et al. 2009, Thorstad et al. 2012). Synchronous timing of smolt

emigration with environmental conditions in the estuary is critical for successful physiological

transition to marine environments. Anthropogenic alterations (e.g. dams, habitat degradation or destruction, temperature and chemical pollution) of rivers and estuaries may alter timing and decrease survival (McCormick et al. 1998, Lotze and Milewski 2004). Weitkamp et al. (2014) also point out that despite their importance to humans and ecosystems, very little is known about estuaries.

The estuary at the confluence of the Skeena River to the marine environment at Chatham

Sound (Figures 1, 2) is a rearing area and a migratory pathway for the large numbers of juvenile

1 http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_estuaries/welcome.html

salmon that pass through here each year and sometimes, possibly, exceeding a billion

individuals (Carr-Harris et al. 2014). The importance of estuaries for salmonid production in

western North America cannot be overstated (Aitkin 1998, Weitkamp et al. 2014) and the

significance of this particular freshwater/marine interface at the terminus of the Skeena River is

overwhelming (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973, Faggeter 2013, Carr-Harris and Moore 2013,

Carr-Harris et al. 2014, Faggetter 2014, Carr-Harris et al. 2015, Lax Kw’alaams’ 2015, Moore et

al. 2015, Stantec 2015b).

In the context of the importance of this watershed for salmonid production, there is increasing

pressure to industrialize the land and water along the perimeter of the Skeena River estuary

(Higgins and Schouwenberg 1973, Moore et al. 2015). In particular, there is now an application

to the federal government to approve a the construction of a liquified natural gas facility and ship-loading facility within the main part of the estuary at Lelu Island. The Proponent of this

initiative, Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership, is proposing to construct, operate, and eventually decommission a liquid natural gas facility within the jurisdiction of the Port of Prince Rupert and of which Lelu Island lies within its boundaries (Figures 3, 4). If constructed, it will allow for the liquefaction, storage, and export of natural gas obtained from the north-eastern portion of British Columbia.

Pacific NorthWest Limited Partnership has proposed this Project to be located primarily at Lelu

Island and on and around the federal lands and waters administered by the Prince Rupert Port

Authority. The Project is expected to last for 30 years and include the construction and

operation of a marine terminal for loading LNG on to vessels for export. Much of this LNG is

expected to be sent to Pacific Rim markets in Asia (CEAA 2016).

The Project is subject to the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2016)

as well as an environmental assessment (EA) under British Columbia’s Environmental

Assessment Act. On November 25, 2014, the Government of British Columbia issued an EA certificate for the Project (CEAA 2016). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

(CEAA) has also conducted an EA of the Project in accordance with the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act. Part of this effort by CEAA has included the solicitation of comments from interested parties including local government, the business community, stewardship groups and First Nations. A Draft Environmental Assessment Report (CEAA 2016) was subsequently written as a result of the input from the public, the regulatory agencies and the Proponent.

The CEAA has purported to do an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the

Project with the support of the expert federal authorities such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada; but the results of those efforts, as will be described in this report, and other submissions (Lax

Kw’alaams’ 2015, Moore et al. 2015; c.f., CEAA 2016), were found to be exceedingly wanting.

A short description of the location and physical aspects of Project within the Skeena River estuary is as follows. The Proponent intends on putting its LNG liquefaction and transportation loading infrastructure onto Lelu Island and across the north and western perimeters of Flora

Bank (Figures 3, 4) within the Skeena River estuary. The natural gas will be piped to Lelu Island across Porpoise Channel to the liquefaction plant. In order to transport this product by ocean- going vessels, a jetty comprised of a combination of suspension bridge and trestle will pipe the

LNG to the berthing dock. There it will be loaded onto sea-going vessels.

Converting the Skeena River estuary and, in particular, Flora Bank into an industrial landscape is

a concern due to the physical changes this will cause to the fish and fish habitat therein. This project causes anxiety for many because of the substantial numbers of juvenile salmonids that have been seen in-and-about Flora Bank by various studies going back almost one-half a century (Higgins and Schouwenburg 1973, Faggeter 2013, Carr-Harris and Moore 2013, Carr-

Harris et al. 2014, Faggetter 2014, Carr-Harris et al. 2015, Moore et al. 2015, Stantec 2015b).

This research suggests that Flora Bank area is the major rearing area and migratory pathway for

Skeena River salmonid smolts leaving the stream and heading towards the Pacific Ocean.

Furthermore, the Project will cause Serious Harm to fish and fish habitat, including fishes that are part of commercial, recreational and aboriginal (CRA) fisheries that is unacceptable. These

fishes and their habitats are protected under the provisions of the Canada Fisheries Act and,

specifically, Section 35. (1) 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 fishery,

or to fish that support such a fishery.

Concerns relating to this project are discussed in this report.

Figure 1 The Skeena River estuary. Figure adapted from: http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_432.pdf Lelu Island is noted by yellow line.

Figure 2 The Skeena River estuary near Lelu Island and Flora Bank at the site of the Project. These photos graphically show some of the physical and water quality diversity in the Skeena River estuary. Top photo: looking towards Lelu Island over Flora Bank; Bottom photo: looking north towards Chatham Sound. Both photos from Faggetter (2014) and taken by Brian Huntingdon. Captions added.

Figure 3 Project location at Lelu Island and Flora Bank. Figure adapted from the CEAA (2015) Figure 2 and provided by Stantec.

Figure 4 Detailed drawing of proposed jetty, trestle, suspension bridge and berth design for the Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership Project at Lelu Island and Flora Banks. Top figure adapted from CEAA (2016) Figure 3 and provided by Stantec; Bottom figure from http://energeticcity.ca/article/cat-lng/2016/02/15/province-not-phased-by-ceaas-draft-report- on-pacific-northwest-lng .

1.2 Fisheries Assessments of Flora Bank and Surrounding Habitats of the Skeena River Estuary Some of the earliest work looking at habitat capability of the fisheries resources of juvenile salmon and other species of the Skeena River estuary was reported in Fisheries Service (1972).

Here areas around the Port of Prince Rupert were sampled using seines and trawl in an attempt to determine species composition and distribution (Figures 5). While this document was long on concerns to the environment relating to proposed port developments, but short on numbers of captured fish, it did provide some summaries of assessment of juvenile salmon and other fishes, plankton composition, diets fish and eelgrass distribution. A primary weakness in regards to this work is that it started quite late in the spring and only lasted for one season.

The late sampling start is acknowledged in the study and it suggested that this accounted for its low numbers of salmonids captured. Another weakness in the study is that the sampling effort was limited and statistically sound conclusions were not possible. Nevertheless, despite its lack of statistical rigor, numerous fish (~1,000 to over 2,000) were, at various times, caught by the purse seine techniques. These were captured over a range of locations, with the largest catches in the estuary being at Flora Bank. The species captured by seining included juvenile herring (Clupea pallasii), surf smelt (Hypomesus preteosis) and needlefish (Ammodytes hexapterus). The Fisheries Service (1972) report speculated that the catches for juvenile salmon were low because of the time of the year and/or the ability to evade the sampling gear.

None-the-less, the scientists involved in this study were impressed enough with the features of

Flora Bank that they mapped its eelgrass beds (Figure 6). And the study came to the conclusion that Flora Bank was so important it should not be touched by industrial activity (Figure 7).

Following from the Fisheries Service (1972) study, Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) undertook a more-detailed assessment of the fisheries resources of the Skeena River estuary the next year with expanded resources and efforts (Figure 8). Unlike the experience of the previous year

(Fisheries Service 1972), Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) had little difficulty capturing substantial numbers of juvenile salmon. Catches of juvenile salmonids were much-more easy to come-by as commercial fishing vessels were chartered and equipped with as large a seine as the vessels could handle. Sampling also occurred earlier and over a much broader geographic area. Higgins and Schouwenburg (1973) caught all five species of salmon including 1,950 individual fish. Surf and longfin (Spirinchus thaleichthys) smelt were also captured in addition to herring and needlefish. These fish were captured via purse seining and surface trawling.

Flora Bank was shown to be a site of high fish use including various salmon species.

Subsequent to the 1970’s studies mentioned above, a significant amount of time passed before any serious amount of fisheries work was conducted on the Skeena River estuary and Flora

Bank.

However, with the Project proposal submitted to government by Pacific Northwest LNG Limited to encroach on the estuary, more recent work has now been undertaken as a result of the concerns relating to the marine-transportation loading facility.

It is not the intention of this report to review the results of various studies in exhaustive detail, showing the extra-ordinary values of Flora Bank in respect to the Project. Nevertheless, specific

mention needs to be made, particularly with regards to the detailed assessments of the eelgrass beds by Faggetter (2013, 2014) and the collaborative work by J. Moore, C. Carr-Harris,

A. Gottesfeld, and others (Carr-Harris et al. 2013, 2014, 2015, Moore et al. 2015). Collectively, the fish habitat values, issues and concerns by these and other interested parties in respect to the Proposal are summarized in Lax Kw’alaams’ (2015) and Moore et al. (2015).

Some of the important points relating to fish and fish habitat on Flora Bank are as follows.

Moore et al. (2015) found that the Flora Bank area had twice as many juvenile coho, Chinook and sockeye salmon than all the other locations assessed in the Skeena River estuary using seining techniques. Specifically they found that:

• Coho salmon were 9 times more abundant in Flora Bank compared with the other sub- regions, on average.

• Chinook salmon were 3.5 times more abundant in Flora Bank compared with the other sub-regions, on average.

• Sockeye salmon were 37 times more abundant on Flora Bank compared with the other sub-regions, on average. (Figure 5).

Moore et al. (2015) also indicate for the ecologically valuable eelgrass beds:

• Coho salmon were 16 times more abundant at Flora Bank sites compared with the other eelgrass sites, on average.

• Chinook salmon were 15 times more abundant at Flora Bank sites compared with the other eelgrass sites, on average.

• Sockeye salmon were 72 times more abundant at Flora Bank sites compared with the other eelgrass sites, on average.

In short, Flora Bank was shown to be of exceptional fish habitat with high densities of juvenile salmonids (Figure 7) and other species of fishes.

The Moore et al. (2015) work also reported on various studies that their group had been

involved in demonstrating the importance of Flora Bank not only as a migratory or transition

habitat but for rearing. Isotope analysis, fish length-frequency distributions and diet studies all

showed that juvenile salmonid use the Flora Bank habitat for varying lengths of time, over the

range of species and populations from the Skeena River and elsewhere, from probably only a

few hours or days, to several months and beyond.

Mention also needs to be made of the Proponent’s fish and fish habitat work relating to this project and undertaken by its consultants (Stantec 2015a, 2015b). In large part, the

Proponent’s work was shoddy, unprofessional and of little scientific merit. In particular, statements made in Stantec (2015a) were simply not credible given the expanding and larger, more rigorous, body of work undertaken by other groups. When compared to the earlier work by the fisheries agencies, stewardship groups and First Nations ((Higgins and Schouwenburg

1973, Faggeter 2013, Carr-Harris and Moore 2013, Carr-Harris et al. 2014, Faggetter 2014, Carr-

Harris et al. 2015, Lax Kw’alaams’ 2015, Moore et al. 2015), the Stantec (2015a) study and its conclusions made little sense. For example, Stantec (2015a) was of the opinion that ”The concept that Flora Bank is crucial as juvenile salmon habitat is largely based on field studies conducted in 1972 and anecdotal observations from more recent studies in waters adjacent to, but not on Flora Bank; which is inconsistent with recent field study results...”. It is not clear what Stantec (2015a) meant by the term “crucial” and if it was meant to have any bearing on the provisions for fish habitat under the Canada Fisheries Act. Many of the recent studies

clearly showed that Flora bank is heavily used by Skeena River salmonids (viz. summary contained with Moore et al. 2015).

Other statements by Stantec (2015a), that are not believable given the extensive amount of evidence to the contrary include: “…the area has low habitat productivity and value…”,

“…[s]urvey data suggest that salmon do not use Flora Bank eelgrass habitat for nursery habitat or other life dependent processes…”, “…[b]ased on the available evidence, the habitat value for

CRA fisheries of the intertidal eelgrass bed on Flora Bank is ranked as low. Low habitat values for marine vertebrates were also assigned to Flora Bank intertidal compact sand…”, “…[t]hese habitats were rated low value based on limited CRA fisheries habitat use, no identified CRA fishery species life dependent processes, limited structural habitat complexity, high connectivity and extent of these similar habitats, and high habitat natural resilience to change…”,

“…[o]verall, Flora Bank exhibits limited habitat diversity type, structural complexity and habitat use by of marine fish, birds and mammals…”. In the world of fisheries habitat management, the

Stantec (2015a) report can only viewed as proponent-biased “junk science”. While this study may have been part of the Project proposal, it appears to have been subsequently redacted

(Lax Kw’alaams’ 2015), perhaps out of sheer embarrassment.

Subsequent to the Stantec (2015a) study, follow-up work was undertaken by Stantec (2015b).

While this second study on fish and fish habitat by the Proponent was more comprehensive, including trawling and hydroacoustics, there remained gaps associated with equipment failure and other problems (Lax Kw’alaams’ 2015). Nevertheless, some of the highest hydroacoustic values of juvenile fish were seen by the Proponent’s consultant on Flora Bank, in the spring or

early summer and this was consistent with juvenile salmon rearing and migration timings.

Some of the largest densities of small fish appeared to be located at the proposed vessel-berth site (Figure 10). While questions have been raised about the credibility of much of the Project’s information in regards to fish and fish habitat on Flora Bank, these data that the very site that the Proponent wants to construct its berthing and trestle facility appears to be the “best-of- the-best habitat” is additional cause for concern.

Figure 5 Sampling stations by Fisheries Service (1972) of Flora Bank between Kitson and Lelu islands, and other areas, at the mouth of the Skeena River. Figure taken from Fisheries Service (1972) and enhanced by encircling the sampling locations.

Figure 6 The July 1971 mapping of eelgrass beds on Flora Bank between Kitson and Lelu islands at the mouth of the Skeena River. Taken from Fisheries Service (1972).

Figure 7 Excerpt from Fisheries Service (1972) indicating the views of the authors as to the importance of Flora Bank to the Skeena River estuary and its salmonid populations.

Figure 8 Fish sampling stations by Higgins and Schouwenberg (1973) of the estuary of the Skeena River. Figure taken directly from Higgins and Schouwenberg (1973) and enhanced by encircling the locations.

Figure 9 Purse seine catches in the Skeena River estuary for Chinook, sockeye and coho salmon. Figure adapted from Moore et al. (2015) and which was derived from Carr-Harris et al. (2014).

Figure 10 Stantec hydroacoustic fish survey at Lelu Island by Stantec 2015b. Note the circled location at the pier and berthing area showing some of the highest putative fish densities and their locations.

1.3 Scope of this Review Concerns have, thusly, been raised by First Nations, stewardship groups, as well as the angling

and commercial fishing communities that Lelu Island/Flora Bank is not a good location for this

Petronas/Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership liquid natural gas (PNW LNG) marine-

transportation facility because of the likelihood of the Project being causing damage to

salmonid populations. Furthermore, the view is that the Proponent will not be able to mitigate the environmental impacts, particularly for salmon stocks rearing and migrating within and through the estuary. This opinion holds, as well, for other CRA species. As a result, at the

request of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, I have reviewed some of the issues

associated with this Project and provide some opinions on the likelihood for impacts.

While I provide general comments in regards to the project, in this report I concentrate on a

particular issue that I believe represent the highest likelihood for significant impacts, namely

the effect of the jetty, pier, and berth, as well as the bottom stabilization (rip rap) that the Proponent is proposing to construct on the northern and western portion of Flora Bank. I provide strong evidence that these actions will act to concentrate predators causing substantial incremental predation of juvenile salmonids thus resulting in unmitigated Serious Harm to CRA fish. These structures also have the strong possibility of disrupting normal migratory and feeding patterns within the Flora Bank area of the estuary. The basis for these opinions rest on the emerging scientific literature that shows

that for the construction of jetties, docks, bridges, piers and berths within zones of juvenile salmonid foraging and migration, extensive predation of these fishes can result that would not otherwise occur in an estuarine environment. In order to avoid possible predation, the scientific literature is quite clear that migration delays and re-arrangement of swimming patterns is the norm when faced with these anthropogenic structures. That is, salmon change

27 their behavior to avoid these features because they are associated with high predation threats.

Fish either must risk this higher predation environment, or make changes in their behavior that could include alterations to patterns of feeding and lowered fish growth, less residence time in important rearing habitat, and alteration of migration pathways which negatively can cost the fish energy resources.

I note that the Project intends on extending, over water, a structure that will include a distance from Lelu Island out to Chatham Sound at total of almost 4 km, including over 2 km of berth

(including the footprint-shadow of the ships) and jetty/trestle involving the construction of pilings.

Given that multiple lines of evidence that is presented in this report, I suggest that this part of the estuary is a key rearing and migration route for CRA species. I further submit that the in- water portion of the Project structure (comprised of pilings and berthed ships) may contribute extensively to the incremental mortality of fishes via aggregation of predators into an area that they would not normally be so concentrated as well.

I also point out that CEAA refused to recognize, analyze or resolve this issue in any meaningful way, particularly in the context of the specific concern of increased predation that was brought up by Lax Kw’alaams’ (2015).

2.0 Impact of Piers and Docks on Migrating Juvenile Salmonids

Our knowledge of the importance of estuaries for juvenile salmonids is increasing but still in the

formative stages. Weitkamp et al. (2014) stated that we know enough about juvenile salmon

in estuaries “…to understand that they are critical habitats for both [Pacific and Atlantic salmon], however many of the details of estuarine use or function are poorly understood.” Even more telling, and directly related to the proposed liquified natural gas (PNW LNG) marine- transportation facility in the Skeena River estuary is their statement “…[t]his lack of knowledge has prevented rigorous assessment of estuarine habitat quality or overall health for salmon…”.

Changes to estuaries resulting from the construction of anthropogenic works are thought to often have large-scale effects on salmonid production (Weitkamp et al. 2014). In general, estuaries are not a good place for anthropogenic development if one wants to maintain intact ecosystems. Bulleri and Chapman (2010) summarize many of the negative effects that can be seen to marine ecosystems when anthropogenic changes take place on coastlines, including estuaries.

Locally, the Fraser River has seen, up until the early 1980’s, the construction of five large causeways/jetties across its estuary (Figure 11). The Fraser River estuary is thought to be key to the historically exceptional production of salmon in its watershed. These causeways/jetties have disrupted the migration patterns of juvenile salmonids that spread across and rear in the

Fraser River estuary (Figure 11). While it is not known how extensive the impacts to fish production must have been due to this activity, based on the physical magnitude of the structures it is likely to have been both substantial and significant.

It has long been recognized that fish in both marine and freshwater environments often

associate with anthropogenic structures such as bridges, docks, piers, rip rap and pilings. That

is, some species use these sorts of structures as habitat. Usually these features are important

as cover for predators which use them for ambushing food. However, these anthropogenic habitats are usually much simpler than the natural shoreline and juvenile fishes that would otherwise rear at these locations avoid them to prevent being eaten. Increasingly, scientific studies are now showing that such non-natural shoreline features can have excessive negative impacts to the young of one or another more important species via the predation that occurs by undesirable fishes that congregate at these structures. In other words, docks, piers and bridges can become “predator aggregators”.

Recent efforts in research on anthropogenic effects to fishes in estuaries and lacustrine environments suggest that even partial barriers (docks, piers) or changes to the shoreline

(bulkheads, rip-rap armoring) within migration and feeding habitats of juvenile salmonids can have significantly negative effects to fish behavior and production. Haas et al. (2002) found that the epibenthic prey assemblages used by juvenile salmon in Puget Sound, Washington, can be lowered. Toft et al. (2007) also demonstrated changes to food supplies as a result of shoreline alteration. In addition, Kahler et al. (2000) looked at the issue of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes in the Seattle, Washington area and found there to be impacts associated with the production of these fishes.

But much of the impact of piers, docks, jetties and rip rap to migration patterns and feeding appears to be related to predation on juvenile salmonids with predators using these

anthropogenic structures as cover-habitat for foraging. Some of the earliest work undertaken

along the Pacific coast on this issue was by Simenstad et al. (1999). They found evidence that

some species of juvenile salmon may try to avoid dock areas of ferry terminals in marine

environments. Following work by Southard et al. (2006) came to a more definitive position that

ferry terminals can disrupt migration of juvenile salmonids during their normal coastline and

early ocean-rearing phases. Ono et al. (2010) carried on with this work showing areas of pilings

being avoided by juvenile salmon. In a more-recent study trying to ameliorate the migration

effects on juvenile salmonids by using artificial light, Ono and Simenstad (2014) further reiterate that large overwater structures such as piers affect the migratory behavior of many fish species, including juvenile salmon. They cite Toft et al. (2007) and Tabor et al. (2011) in support of these observations. Their view was that at early life history stages in estuarine waters, species such as juvenile chum salmon (O. keta) may be found preferentially migrating in schools along shoreline in shallow waters, irrespective of tidal stage. When they encounter docks within their migratory paths, in order to avoid encountering predators, they generally have delayed migration or reduced foraging opportunities by avoiding these structures.

For the Columbia River reservoirs, the public utility districts (PUD) are now taking efforts to control overwater and in-water structures that are thought to harbor predators of migrating juvenile salmonids (Douglas Public Utilities Division undated). Chapman (2007) came to the conclusion that docks harbor predators on the Columbia River that will forage on juvenile salmon that are feeding and migrating along the shallow shorelines. He felt that juvenile

Chinook salmon avoid these structures in Columbia River reservoirs, even though they normally often use shallow areas for feeding (where docks and piers are constructed), because they do

not want to be eaten. The speculation is that their migrations are disrupted because they are

attempting to avoid predation by non-native centrarchids and/or northern pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus oregonensis).

In a subsequent review of the impacts on migrating salmonids resulting from the construction of docks and piers on the Columbia River, Rondorf et al. (2010) also suggested that these structures were deleterious to the survival of juvenile salmonids in McNary Reservoir on the due to the potential for mortality via predation. Recognizing that it was impractical to have all docks and piers removed, the authors provided recommendations relating to the design of such structures, to the agencies, with the objective of minimizing the effects of predation on juvenile salmonids by other fishes.

For marine environments Able et al. (2013), using highly sophisticated sonar equipment and for the Hudson River in eastern North America, was able to show that the smaller-sized fish assemblages avoided going under piers, particularly when they had little light passing on to the water. It was the view of the authors that the shading probably provided a dangerous environment relating to predation. They found that larger fish were more-often found in these types of habitats than juveniles or smaller-bodies species.

Detailed assessments of juvenile salmon movements in the vicinity of docks and piers has also been undertaken in the Seattle area of Washington State. Fresh et al. (2003) suggest that some species of centrarchids utilize man-made in- or over-water structures that can contribute to juvenile salmonid predation. Tabor et al. (2013) showed changes from otherwise-normal behavior in juvenile Chinook salmon when approaching such anthropogenic structures,

including rip rap, in Lake Washington; these avoidance behaviors were thought to be in response to actual or potential predation. In a similar vein, Celedonia et al. (2008) saw delays in juvenile Chinook salmon migration at bridge structures in Washington State that also had concentrations of centrarchids and northern pikeminnows.

For Puget Sound, in marine environments, recent research by Toft et al. (2007) and Munsch et al. (2014) has shown the effects of seawalls, rip rap and piers on fish assemblages. Juvenile salmonids are in their feeding behavior and appear to avoid such structures and this may be to avoid predation. As with other studies, shade seems to be the common denominator that elicits an avoidance response from small fishes, and which probably provided cover for larger predators of these more-diminutive species.

In Washington State, the information on the negative effects of piers, bridges, docks, wharves and jetties to young salmon is being passed on to the decision-makers in order to minimize the impact on salmon stocks of which some populations are “at risk” in the Puget Sound area

(Figures 12-15). In Washington State, predation on juvenile salmon as a result of the installation of docks and piers in the Puget Sound and lacustrine ecosystems in the area are taken seriously by local governments and advocates (e.g., Frodge 2014). The concerns about the impacts of shoreline change and docks and piers are now being expressed to the public in the form of education and public information2 3 . For King County near Seattle, the position to the public is as follows: “Docks and piers are relatively simple structural elements, providing

2 http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/committees/1205/BeAGoodNeighbor- PSDocks&Piers.pdf 3 http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/archive- documents/wlr/waterres/smlakes/Shorezoneinfo.pdf

very little protection [for juvenile salmonids]. The difference is critical to the survival of small

fish. Scientists have determined that docks and piers provide the ideal shade and overhead

cover for ambush predators.” The Puget Sound shoreline marine authorities have also provided

public information on the issue (Figure 16). To rectify such impacts to juvenile salmonids,

Weitkamp et al. (2014) has also suggested that the removal of cribworks and piers can be an

important restoration tool in order to make it more difficult for predators, which use such

structures for cover, to forage on juvenile fish.

Much of the work that has been undertaken on the issue of anthropogenic structure and their

impacts to feeding or migrating small juvenile salmon on the Pacific coast of North America has

been for situations close to the shoreline, and often in intertidal marine or littoral-lacustrine habitats. However, one study in Hood Canal showed significant, and sometimes substantial, mortality-effects to migrating steelhead smolts at a large anthropogenic structure that extends into deep water environments. This study has even more direct applicability to the Proposal to build these sorts of structures in the Skeena estuary. Moore et al. (2013) used acoustic-

telemetry to track steelhead originating from stocks from the southern portion of Hood Canal,

and on up past the coastline into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These fish were fitted with small acoustic transmitters and tracked, using stationary receivers located at strategic locations, along their journey out to the Pacific Ocean. Quite close to the streams of origin, and exit into marine waters in the southern portion of Hood Canal, is a large, deep-water floating bridge

(Figures 17, 18). This structure is known either as the Hood Canal Bridge or the William A.

Bugge Bridge. The Hood Canal Bridge is the largest floating bridge of its type, in a marine

environment, in the world4 and provides an extensive footprint on the surrounding marine

environment.

Five years of acoustic telemetry data suggested that a high rate of mortality of steelhead

smolts, migrating from Hood Canal to the Pacific Ocean, occurred within several hundred

meters of the Hood Canal Bridge near Seattle. Provided that acoustic-tagged smolts gave an

unbiased representation of the Hood Canal steelhead steelhead-outmigrant population

behavior and mortality, the bridge may directly or indirectly have caused mortality of a minimum of 4.9% (2006) to 36.4% (2010) of the steelhead smolts migrating from the lower

Hood Canal streams (Moore et al. 2013). The researchers hypothesized that the deaths of the steelhead smolts were likely due to predation and this was associated with the bridge structure.

Given that these fish were only a short-time in marine waters, after having recently smolted from their natal streams, such high mortality rates, resulting from a single anthropogenic structure, is concerning.

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hood_Canal_Bridge

Figure 11 Likely changes to juvenile outmigration patterns as a result of causeway and jetty construction in the estuary of the Fraser River.

Figure 12 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds02186 9.pdf

Figure 13 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds02186 9.pdf

Figure 14 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds02186 9.pdf

Figure 15 Selected slides from a presentation of studies in Washington State showing the negative effects of anthropogenic structure and implied predation on migrating juvenile salmonids. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/dpds02186 9.pdf

Figure 16 Part of a Puget Sound shoreline protection information package regarding the negative effects of docks and piers on salmon. http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/committees/1205/BeAGoodNeighbor-PSDocks&Piers.pdf

Figure 17 Location of the Hood Canal Bridge and migration direction of steelhead smolts.

Figure 18 Two views of the Hood Canal floating bridge near Seattle, Washington. This structure appears to be a location of high mortality of steelhead smolts, in some years, possibly due to predation as they pass under or near this bridge (Moore et al. 2013).

3.0 Pier, Trestle, Bridge and Berth Design for the Project

The proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership liquid natural gas (PNW LNG) marine-

transportation facility Project design of the pier, trestle, berth and bridge involves an extensive

intrusion into the western-edge habitats of Flora Bank. Based on the metrics provided by

(Stantec 2015c) and measurements via the figure scales bars (Figure 19), the structural aspects

include 516 pilings, approximately 1.2 km of trestle, about 1.5 km of marine berths and loading

platforms5, as well as around 1.4 km of bridge. Stantec (2015c) calculates that 30,135 m2 of fish

habitat will be lost or permanently altered by the Project. It is not clear how Stantec (2015c)

determined this metric as they do not state so in their report. The extent of Serious Damage to fish and fish habitat may be considerably under estimated by Stantec (20115c) since the habitat influence of an anthropogenic structure, under such circumstances as the Project Proposal, will exceed its physical footprint (e.g., you need to include aspects such as shading, scour, changes to current velocity), impacts of which the Proponent does not appear to have considered. At no point has the Proponent provided any meaningful metrics with regards to how the bridge, trestle marine berths and loading platforms will affect all of these ecosystem attributes vis a vis the extensive science on the subject of juvenile fish avoidance of piers, docks, jetties, and trestles, as well as rip rap, as outlined in Section 2, above, in this report. Furthermore, the effects of predation as a result of piers, docks, jetties, and trestles, and the placement of rip

5 The length of the marine berths and and loading platforms extends to 2km if the vessel footprint is included. Note that Stantec does not include the vessel footprint in its calculations as an impact to habitat even though you cannot load LNG without a ship at the berth.

rap, as provided above in Section 2 of this report may be substantial and far-and-away exceed

what Stantec (2015c) has suggested it will be.

Because of the configuration of the estuary, and the indications that Flora Bank is an important

feeding and migration habitat for salmon and other CRA species (Carr-Harris et al. 2013, 2014,

2015, Moore et al. 2015), it is likely that such a large structure has a much more profound and

damaging impact to the populations of fish that indicated by the Proponent and its consultants

via the disruption of migration patterns and predation. Of major concern is that the structure

will act as a major “wall of death” as juvenile salmonids and other species pass across the Flora

Bank from south to north and are intercepted by predatory fishes. And, as the Washington

State ferry dock studies have shown, juvenile fish may substantially alter their behavior to avoid

these structures, thereby disrupting their normal migration patterns (Figure 20). Large vertical

pilings are not natural features in eastern Pacific Ocean estuaries and so juvenile salmonids

would not be adapted to avoid such unnatural features that will harbor predators. But is clear from the research cited in Section 2 above, juvenile salmonids avoid piers and docks, and particularly those with shadows. As a result, the evidence provided here shows that this

Project has the potential for being a serious concern, and Serious Harm, for juvenile salmonids and other CRA species that use Flora Bank as a rearing and migratory area.

What is most disconcerting is that at no point does the Proponent, or its environmental consultant, even acknowledge that this may be a serious issue or attempt to address it despite the large amount of scientific evidence that this Project is likely to cause a large-scale impact to

Skeena River juvenile salmonids and other CRA fishes.

Even more disturbing is the lack of attentiveness by CEAA, in its deliberations as to whether or not this project will cause extensive Serious Harm as a function of predation and disrupted migration patterns due to the pilings, trestle, berth, bridge and rip-rap placement (CEAA 2016).

Figure 19 Design effects of the bridge, trestle and loading platforms of the Project on fish habitat across the northern and western portions of Flora Bank.

Figure 20 Hypothesized effects of the Project bridge, trestle/jetty and berth via predation on juvenile salmonids and other small fishes, and disruptions in their migratory pathways, in the Flora Bank area of the Skeena River estuary. The structure acts as a large trap causing juvenile salmonids to either delay migration and/or be eaten by predators that are concentrated by the structure and use it as cover.

4.0 CEAA Draft Environmental Assessment Report

4.1 Overview The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) released a Draft Environmental

Assessment Report dated February 2016 (CEAA 2016) assessing the Pacific NorthWest LNG

Limited Partnership liquid natural gas (PNW LNG) marine-transportation facility Project that is being proposed for Flora Bank adjacent to Lelu Island . The CEAA document was released by the Canadian government with the expectation that the public would provide additional comments up until March 11, 2016.

The conclusion of the Canadian Draft Environmental Assessment Report was that “The Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish and fish habitat, including marine plants, taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures.” It is the opinion of this report writer that this position is substantially incorrect and that there are a number of effects as a result of this project that will cause Serious

Harm to fish and fish habitat, and not limited to the ones discussed above. For example, the submission by Lax Kw’alaams’ (2015) details many of the errors and omissions by CEAA in the Project

that were not addressed in the CEAA (2016) draft document and articulates many of the expected and

unaccounted-for impacts to fish and fish habitats. Moore et al. (2015) further articulate the outstanding

issues with regards to the problems with this project. Finally, a letter, and signature of 130

scientists dated March 9, 20166, also supplies a strong summary of supporting evidence that

this CEAA document is profoundly flawed.

6 http://media.wix.com/ugd/efaac5_5fa4bc06c906413e8d18b2e86d4342d7.pdf

It is my opinion that CEAA came to an overwhelmingly incorrect conclusion that there will be no

effects to fish and fish habitat that cannot be mitigated. Furthermore, in my analysis I have concentrated on the Serious Harm aspects of the trestle, pier, jetty, pilings, bridge and benthic armoring (rip rap) on the disruption of migration pathways of juvenile salmon as well as predation following from the development of this on predation of CRA fishes which I believe to be profoundly damaging.

4.2 CEAA Report Impacts to Fish and Fish Habitat In reading the in the Draft Environmental Assessment Report, it becomes immediately clear

that the Agency has completely refused to cite, reference or acknowledge specific points of

information or data provided by the Proponent, or inquiries by the public, leaving the reader

completely in the dark as to how specific conclusions about possible damage to the ecosystem

were derived. The CEAA (2016) refuses explain how it came to its conclusions that there would be no Serious Harm to fish and fish habitats.

This inscrutable nature of CEAA (2016) leaves the reader in the dark as to what is happening, what the Proponent is going to potentially damage, and how mitigation will actually (or not) work and how the Agency came to its conclusions.

One can only draw the conclusion that CEAA is deliberately hiding its analyses because it realizes that they are fundamentally flawed.

What is also particularly problematic is that at the time of writing this document, is that the final fish and fish habitat reporting by the Proponent (Stantec), which was promised by early 2016, does not appear to have been delivered to CEAA or the public for review.

In the CEAA (2016) Draft report the following statements were made: The footprint of the

suspension bridge, marine trestle, marine terminal berths, and associated scour protection

would affect a total of 21 505 m2 of habitat on Agnew Bank, an open water, subtidal, soft silt- clay habitat used by crabs and flatfish. Of this, the proponent identified the infrastructure footprint (8760 m2) as permanent loss of habitat, meeting the serious harm9 definition of the

Fisheries Act. The scour protection footprint (12 745 m2) may also meet the serious harm definition, to be determined based on final engineering designs. Three-dimensional modelling

examined changes to local hydrodynamics and morphology at Agnew Bank and the adjacent

Flora Bank, an intertidal, sand habitat used by eelgrass and a wide range of fish. The model

results indicated that: any seabed changes on Agnew Bank would reach equilibrium over time

and not significantly affect resident fish; any changes to sediment erosion and/or deposition

patterns would occur outside of the spatial limits of eelgrass beds on Flora Bank; water current

speeds around the infrastructure would be unlikely to increase in a manner that would affect

fish; and Flora Bank would be robust and stable following construction of the proposed

structures with no evidence of divergent or run-away effects.

Despite the extensive impacts to fish and fish habitat that could potentially occur over-and- above what was presented in this report, CEAA (2016) appears to take it on faith that the impact metrics provided by the Proponent are correct and, for example, post-construction flow patterns and erosion are correctly modelled. CEAA (2016) provides no critical evaluation that what the Proponent has presented may, or may not be, true. At no point in this CEAA (2016) document does the CEAA address the issues of disrupted migration patterns of juvenile salmonids, or the potential for large-scale predation of CRA fishes as a result of the suspension

51 bridge, marine trestle, marine terminal berths, and associated scour protection along the perimeter of Flora Bank. This is despite having been brought up by First Nations and others.

Following from this, the CEAA (2016) stated: Construction of the Materials Offloading Facility in

Porpoise Channel would permanently destroy 31 569 m2 of intertidal soft bottom habitat, 19

825 m2 of riparian habitat, 1830 m2 of eelgrass habitat, and 6800 m2 of rock habitat. Of these, the proponent identified effects to the eelgrass habitat and rock habitat as serious harm given their use by marine plants (e.g. eelgrass and kelp), juvenile salmonids, herring, surf smelt, sandlance, and crab. The construction of the Lelu Island access bridge and the pioneer dock would affect 3859 m2 of riparian and 16 m2 of intertidal soft bottom habitat at Lelu Slough; the proponent did not identify these changes as serious harm.

Again, there appears to be no critical evaluation by the Agency as to whether the information presented by the Proponent is believable, credible or warranted. Similarly, at no point in this part of their document does the CEAA address the issues of disrupted migration patterns of juvenile salmonids, or the potential for large-scale predation of CRA fishes as a result of the suspension bridge, marine trestle, marine terminal berths, and associated scour protection along the perimeter of Flora Bank.

In regard to mitigation of impacts, CEAA (2016) stated: The proponent identified 90 000 m2 of lower productivity habitats within five potential offsetting sites that could be modified to increase the productivity of fisheries. The potential enhancements to these habitats include the creation of eelgrass habitats, intertidal and subtidal reefs, and intertidal gravel and cobble benches. The enhanced habitats are expected to benefit a range of fish and marine plants

including juvenile salmon, flatfish, forage fish, invertebrates, eelgrass, and kelp. The proponent

would refine calculations of serious harm to fish and the Habitat Offsetting Plan based on final

engineering designs with input from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Aboriginal groups.

Nowhere in the CEAA (2016) draft report does the Agency question whether or not the proposed compensation sites (Figures 21, 22) are already properly functioning, high-quality

habitat. Nor does the habitat being “created” relate specifically to any impact, including the

issues of disrupted migration patterns of juvenile salmonids, or the potential for large-scale

predation of CRA fishes as a result of the suspension bridge, marine trestle, marine terminal

berths, and associated scour protection (rip rap) along the perimeter of Flora Bank. The Agency

seems to be incapable of explaining itself or referencing the logic behind its conclusion of no

Serious Harm.

Figure 21 Proposed sites for compensation of damage caused by the Project as designed by Stantec (Figure 21). The Proponent provided no evidence that these proposed sites are, in fact, of less quality than the areas being harmed by the Project. Studies conducted in Washington State show extensive use of shoreline perimeter habitats including terrestrial invertebrates that are disseminated from the riparian areas.

Figure 22 Compensation design by provided by the Proponent. From Stantec (2016c). The Proponent provided no evidence that these sites are, in fact, of less quality than the areas being harmed due to the impacts of the Project, nor that these mitigation actions will actually work or have been shown to work along the central-north coast of British Columbia. In habitat- mitigation parlance, this proposal can only be viewed as “consulting gobble-de-gook”.

4.3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada Input to the Process for Fish Habitat

The CEAA also entered into dialogue with fisheries and Oceans Canada in respect to the impacts

to fish and fish habitat as part of the referral process for the Project and the statutory

obligations of the Proponent for the Project. CEAA’s communications with Fisheries and

Oceans Canada was summarized as follows (CEAA 2016): With regard to effects to fish habitat,

Fisheries and Oceans Canada advised the Agency that, subject to a comprehensive, long-term

monitoring program and the implementation of additional mitigation measures, there would be

a low potential of significant adverse effects to fish and fish habitat resulting from the presence

of the marine terminal. Acknowledging that some localized erosion would be expected to occur

at the margins of Flora Bank due to the presence of the south-west tower which may lead to

gradual morphological changes, Fisheries and Oceans Canada advised that the proponent

appears to have adequately predicted impacts to fish and fish habitat, and has identified

appropriate offsetting measures. Fisheries and Oceans Canada recommended that additional

high-resolution modelling be done of the south-west tower and anchor block based on proposed construction ready designs to confirm the preliminary model results. Follow-up program elements recommended include monitoring of the morphology and bathymetry around the marine terminal infrastructure and the extent and density of eelgrass for at least ten years. If the proponent finds that morphological effects continue around the marine terminal infrastructure for a period exceeding five years, additional mitigation measures should be implemented (e.g. additional scour protection material).

In the first sentence in the quote above, CEAA is of the opinion that impacts to fish and fish habitat can

be mitigated through monitoring and proposed mitigation. However, there is no indication that

Fisheries and Oceans Canada engaged in any particular analysis relating to impacts associated with this

project, mitigation techniques, or even how to monitor the project. At no point in the conversation with

CEAA, did Fisheries and Oceans Canada appear to consider the effects of migration-pattern disruption or increased predation of juvenile salmonids as a result of the construction of the suspension bridge,

marine trestle, marine terminal berths, and associated scour protection along the perimeter of

Flora Bank.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada “…advised that the proponent appears to have adequately

predicted impacts to fish and fish habitat, and has identified appropriate offsetting measures…” yet CEAA provided no evidence that the fisheries agency understood what the impacts would be nor how the offsetting measures were appropriate. Again, there is no quantitative accounting by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in these regards or reference by CEAA in respect to any analysis by DFO. Both Fisheries and Oceans and CEAA are deliberately obtuse in the attempt to hide their modus operandi on the issue of effects to fish and fish habitat by the

Project from the public.

4.4 First Nations Input The First Nations communities had considerable amounts of apprehension with regards to the

impacts relating to this project but these concerns were not adequately addressed in the CEAA

Draft Report. Indeed, the CEAA only superficially responded to many of these. In particular the

Lax Kw’alaams’ (2015) had a 53 page document (Lax Kw’alaams’ Comments on Pacific Northwest

LNG’s Response to CEAA’s June 2, 2015 Letter) of concerns, issues and points of difference, yet the

CEAA report had less than two pages of response for all of the First Nations communities’ input.

It should be noted that Lax Kw’alaams’ (2015) had provided specific comment in regards to the issue of increased predation to CRA fishes as a result of the Project. The CEAA (2016) draft document refused to address this important issue that they brought up and that has been the focus of this report.

4.5 Public Input Similar to its responses to the First Nations. CEAA largely refused to consider the concerns by the public. This included groups such as the Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation

Society, the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, World Wildlife Fund-Canada, and the Skeena

Wild Conservation Trust. At no point did CEAA (2016) attempt to adequately explain what the concerns of these public bodies were, or why, or how, the anxieties by these groups for this

Project could or would be resolved.

5.0 DISCUSSION

The mouth of the Skeena River is the last of the largely-intact major North American salmon

estuaries south of the Alaska-BC border to California having limited industrialization and

landscape change. Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership liquid natural gas (PNW LNG)

marine-transportation facility Project has proposed to encroach substantially into one of the

more productive areas of the Skeena River estuary (Flora Bank) in order to load LNG into ships

for offshore markets. In this context the public has being asked by the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Agency to comment on this proposed large-scale project by Pacific NorthWest LNG.

The general view of the public that is opposed to the project on environmental grounds is that

it will permanently and profoundly affect the northern exit of the Skeena River, British

Columbia’s most important remaining-intact salmon estuary. I note that for the large potential

level of impact, CEAA has given Canadians only around a month with which to comment, and a

week-and-so for itself to make a decision on the Project. For these timelines alone, the Project remains one of the most bizarrely managed circumstances in the history of Canadian environmental impact management.

The Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership Project has been viewed by First Nations, scientists and many in the general public as unacceptable due to the extent of damage it almost certainly will inflict on salmon and steelhead stocks of the Skeena River. The list of impacts, and errors and omissions by the Proponent and, ultimately, CEAA, are well summarized by Lax

Kw’alaams’ (2015), Moore et al. (2015) and the letter, and signature, of 130 scientists dated

March 9, 20167. They, and others, have given strong supporting evidence that this CEAA document and the Project are profoundly flawed.

Of the outstanding issues, it is my opinion that the effects of disrupting migration patterns of juvenile salmonids and the likelihood of extension predation, due to the proposed large bridge, jetty, berth pile and loading platforms, and bed armoring (rip rap), that passes along the north and west perimeters of Flora Bank, are high. The dominant impact will be that the Project constitutes a large semi-permeable barrier across the western portion of Flora Bank for fish migration and the impact will be exacerbated by associated predation on juvenile salmonids and other CRA species.

Based on the literature reviewed in this document, the magnitude and orientation of the infrastructure, particularly with regards to the trestle and jetty berth and loading platforms, this will likely act as a predator aggregator impacting on the migration of juvenile salmonids with potentially large and unwanted consequences.

7 http://media.wix.com/ugd/efaac5_5fa4bc06c906413e8d18b2e86d4342d7.pdf

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

Able, K.W., T.M. Grothues, and I. M. Kemp. 2013. Fine-scale distribution of pelagic fishes relative to a large urban pier. Marine Ecology Progress Series 476:186–198. Aitken, J.K. 1998. The importance of estuarine habitats to anadromous salmonids of the Pacific Northwest: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington.

Argue, A.W., C.D. Shepard, M.P. Shepard, and J.S. Argue. 1986. A compilation of historic catches by the British Columbia commercial salmon fishery, 1876 to 1985. Internal DFO Report.

Baxter, J.S. 1997. Upper Sustut, Lower Sustut, and Bear River steelhead: Summary of current data and status review, 1997. Skeena Fisheries Report SK-98. MELP, Skeena Region. Smithers, BC.

Bolding, B., S. Bonar, and M. Divens. 2004. Use of artificial structure to enhance angler benefits in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs: a literature review. Reviews in Fisheries Science 12:75– 96. Bottom, D.L., K.K. Jones, J. Burke, A.M. Baptista, D.A. Jay, K.K. Jones, E. Casillas, M.H. Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river’s end: the role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia River salmon. U.S. Dept. Comm, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- NWFSC-68, U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle.

Brown, A. M. 1998. Shoreline residential development and physical habitat influences on fish density at the lake edge of Lake Joseph, Ontario, Canada. Master‘s thesis. University of Toronto, Ontario. Bulleri, F., and M. G. Chapman. 2010. The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:26–35. Cambria Gordon Ltd. 2006. Eulachon of the Pacific Northwest: A life history. Living Landscapes Program. Royal BC Museum. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). 2016. Pacific NorthWest LNG Draft Environmental Assessment Report. Minister of Environment and Climate Change. COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the eulachon, Nass/Skeena Rivers population, Central Pacific Coast population and the Fraser River population Thaneichthys pacificus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Carr-Harris, C., Moore, J.W. 2013. Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Utilization in the Skeena River Estuary. Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University. Prepared for: Skeena Wild Conservation Trust.

Carr-Harris, C., A.S. Gottesfeld, J.W. Moore. 2014. Migratory bottlenecks as integrators of species- and population-level diversity: the Skeena River estuary, its salmon, and industrial development PeerJ PrePrints http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.375v1 Carr-Harris, C., A.S. Gottesfeld, and J.W. Moore. 2015. Juvenile salmon usage of the Skeena River Estuary. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118988. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0118988. Celedonia, M.T., R.A., Tabor, S. Sanders, S. Damm, D.W. Lantz, et al. 2008. Movement and habitat use of Chinook salmon smolts, northern pikeminnows, and smallmouth bass near the SR 520 Bridge. Final Report to the Washington Department of Transportation. Cox-Rogers, S., J.M.B. Hume, and K.S. Shortreed. 2004. Stock status and lake based production relationships for wild Skeena River sockeye salmon. CSAS Research Document 2004/010. Chapman, D.W. 2007. Effects of docks in Wells Dam Pool on subyearling summer/fall Chinook salmon. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc, Boise, ID. Cunjak R.A., R.L. Saunders, E.M.P. Chadwick. 1990. Seasonal variations in the smolt characteristics of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from estuarine and riverine environments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47:813–820. David, J. 1985. Commission evidence for Delgamuukw et al. vs. the Queen. Vol. 3 and 4. Moricetown, BC. Douglas PUD. Undated. Douglas PUD staff biologist analysis rationale for proposed changes to the District’s dock policy. http://www.douglaspud.org/Documents/Staff%20Biologist%20Analysis.pdf Faggetter, B.A. 2013. Chatham Sound eelgrass study final report. For: World Wildlife Fund. By: Ocean Ecology, Prince Rupert. Faggetter, B.A. 2014. Skeena River estuary juvenile salmon habitat. For: Skeena Wild Conservation Trust and Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, Prince Rupert, British Columbia. By: Ocean Ecology, Prince Rupert. Fisheries Service. 1972. A cursory investigation of the productivity of the Skeena River estuary. Fisheries Service, Canada Department of the Environment. Fresh, K.L., D. Rothaus, K.W. Mueller, and C. Waldbilig. 2003. Habitat utilization by smallmouth bass in the littoral zones of Lake Washington and Lake Union/Ship Canal. 2003 Greater Lake Washington Chinook Workshop, 2002 Update and Synthesis. January 24, 2003. Frodge, J.D. 2014. Bellevue DRAFT Shoreline Master Program Update http://sensibleshorelines.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SLS-Frodge-Ltr-5-23- 2014.pdf Gottesfeld, A.S., and K. Rabnett. 2008. Skeena River fish and their habitat. Portland: Ecotrust.

Haas, M. E., C.A. Simenstad, J.R. Cordell, D.A. Beauchamp, and B.S. Miller. 2002 Effects of large overwater structures on epibenthic juvenile salmon prey assemblages in Puget Sound, Washington. Res. Proj. T1803, Task 30, Washington State Dept. Transportation, Olympia, WA. Hancock, M.J., A.J. Leaney-East, and D.E. Marshall. 1983. Catalogue of salmon streams and spawning escapements of Statistical Area 4 (Upper Skeena River). Can. Data. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 394: xxiii + 324p. Harding, D.R. 1969. The status of the Nanika-Morice sockeye salmon population and the Moricetown native food fishery in 1967 and 1968. Dept. of Fisheries. Vancouver, BC. Hay, D., and P.B. McCarter. 2000. Status of the eulachon Thaleichthys pacificus in Canada. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat, Research Document 2000/145. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Nanaimo, BC. 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. Northern Operations Branch, Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of the Environment, Vancouver, BC. Technical Report 1973-1. Holtby, L.B., R. Kadowacki, and L. Jantz. 1994. Update of stock status information for early run Skeena River coho salmon (through the 1993 return year). PSARC Working Paper S94- 4:44p. Holtby, B., B. Finnegan, D. Chen, and D. Peacock. 1999. Biological assessment of Skeena River coho salmon. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 99/140. Hooton, R.S. 2012. Skeena steelhead: unknown past, uncertain future. Frank Amato Publications, Oregon. Kahler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A Summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Prepared for: City of Bellevue, Bellevue, Washington. Prepared by: Washington Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington.

Kocik, J.F., J.P. Hawkes, T. F. Sheehan, P.A. Music, and K.F. Beland. 2009. Assessing estuarine and coastal migration and survival of wild Atlantic salmon smolts from the Narraguagus River, Maine, using ultrasonic telemetry. Am Fish Soc Symp 69:293–310.

Kotaro, O., and C.A. Simenstad. 2014. Reducing the effect of overwater structures on migrating juvenile salmon: An experiment with light. Ecological Engineering 71:180-189. Lax Kw’alaams’. 2015. Lax Kw’alaams’ Comments on Pacific Northwest LNG’s Response to CEAA’s June 2, letter, December 2015.

Lewis, A. 1997. Skeena eulachon study, 1997. Report prepared by Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. Terrace, BC, and the Tsimshian Tribal Council, Prince Rupert, BC. For Forest Renewal BC. Lewynsky, V.A., and W.R. Olmstead. 1990. Angler use and catch surveys of the lower Skeena, Zymoetz (Copper), Kispiox, and Bulkley River steelhead fisheries, 1989. ESL Environmental Sciences Limited. Vancouver, BC. Lotze, H.K., and I. Milewski. 2004. Two centuries of multiple human impacts and successive changes in a North Atlantic food web. Ecol Appl 14:1428–1447. Magnusson, A., and R. Hilborn. 2003. Estuarine influence on survival rates of coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) released from hatcheries on the U.S Pacific coast. Estuaries 26:1094–1103. McCarter, P.B., and D. E. Hay. 2003. Eulachon embryonic egg and larval outdrift sampling manual for ocean and river surveys. Can. Tech Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2451:33p. McCormick, S.D, L.P. Hansen, T.P. Quinn, and R.L. Saunders. 1998. Movement, migration, and smolting of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:77–92 Moore, J., C. Carr-Harris, and J. Gordon. 2015. Salmon science as related to proposed development in the Skeena River estuary. For: Lax Kw’alaams Band Council. By: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Skeena Fisheries Commission, Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Lax Kw’alaams.

Moore M., B.A. Berejikian, and E.P. Tezak. 2013 A floating bridge disrupts seaward migration and increases mortality of Steelhead smolts in Hood Canal, Washington State. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73427. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073427. Munsch, S. H., J. R. Cordell, J. D. Toft, and E. E. Morgan. 2014. Effects of seawalls and piers on fish Assemblages and juvenile salmon feeding behavior. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34:814–827. Odum, W.E. 1970. Insidious alteration of the estuarine environment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:836-847. Ono, K., C.A. Simenstad, J.D. Toft, S.L. Southard, K.L. Sobocinski, and A. Borde. 2010. Assessing and Mitigating Dock Shading Impacts on the Behavior of Juvenile Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.): Can Artificial Light Mitigate the Effects? White paper prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Pearcy, W.G. 1992. Ocean ecology of North Pacific salmonids. Washington Sea Grant, Seattle.

Power, G., and G. Shooner. 1966. Juvenile salmon in the estuary and lower Nabisipi River and some results of tagging. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 23:947–961. Roman, C.T., N. Jaworski, F.T. Short, S. Findlay, and R.S. Warren. 2000. Estuaries of the northeastern United States: habitat and land use signatures. Estuar. Coast 23:743–764. Rondorf, D.W., G.L. Rutz, and J.C. Charrier. 2010. Minimizing effects of over-water docks on federally listed fish stocks in McNary Reservoir: A Literature Review for Criteria. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia River Research Laboratory. Submitted to: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. Report Number 2010-W68SBV91602084. Ross, D.A. 1995. Introduction to oceanography. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. ISBN 978-0673469380. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom, and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Migrating along Puget Sound Shorelines – Phase I: Synthesis of State of Knowledge. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) Research Report WA-RD-472.1, Seattle, Washington. Simenstad, C.A., K.L., Fresh, E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. In: Kennedy VS (ed) Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, pp 343–364. Southard, S.L., R.M. Thom, G.D. Williams, J.D. Toft, C.W. May, G.A. McMichael, J.A. Vucelick, J.T. Newell, and J.A. Southard. 2006. Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile Salmon movement along Puget Sound shorelines. For: Washington State Department of Transportation. By: Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division. PNWD-3647. Stantec. 2015a. Report on fish and fish habitats: baseline characterization of the fish and fish habitats on Flora Bank and adjacent habitats. May 4, 2015. For: Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership. By: Stantec Consulting, Burnaby, BC. Stantec. 2015b. Pacific NorthWest LNG project marine fish and fish habitat results: December 2014 to August 2015 interim data report. November 3, 2015. For: Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership. By: Stantec Consulting, Burnaby, BC. Stantec. 2015c. Pacific NorthWest LNG mitigation and offsetting commitments for fish, fish habitat and marine mammals. Letter to Alain Magnan, Regulatory Reviews Manager, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, August 19, 2015. Tabor, R.A., K.L. Fresh, R.M. Piaskowski, H.A. Gearns, and D.B. Hayes. 2011. Habitat use of juvenile Chinook salmon in the nearshore areas of Lake Washington: effects of depth, lakeshore development, substrate, and vegetation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 31:700–713. Thorpe, J.E., 1994. Salmonid fishes and the estuarine environment. Estuaries 17:76–93.

Thorstad, E.B., F. Whoriskey, I. Uglem, A. Moore, A.H. Rikardsen, B. Finstad. 2012. A critical life stage of the Atlantic salmon Salmo salar: behaviour and survival during the smolt and initial post-smolt migration. J. Fish. Biol. 81:500–542. Toft, J.D., J.R. Cordell, C.A. Simenstad, and L.A. Stamatiou. 2007. Fish distribution, abundance, and behavior along city shoreline types in Puget Sound. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:465–480. Ward, B.R., A.F. Tautz, S. Cox-Rodgers, and R.S. Hooton. 1993. Migration timing and harvest rates of the steelhead populations of the Skeena River system. PSARC Working Paper S93-6. Wright, M. 2008. Building the great lucrative fishing industry: Aboriginal gillnet fishers and protests over salmon fishery regulations for the Nass and Skeena Rivers, 1950s-1960s," Labour/Le Travail 61:99-130. Weitkamp, L.A., G. Coulette, J. Hawkes, M. O’Malley, and C. Lipsky. 2014. Juvenile salmon in estuaries: comparisons between North American Atlantic and Pacific salmon populations. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 24:713-736.

7.0 APPENDIX

Some Comments on the CEAA Draft Report and Notable Fish Species The CEAA Draft Environmental Assessment Report provides a list of various marine fishes, including anadromous species, that might be affected by the Project: • anadromous fish (fish that spawn in freshwater and migrate to the ocean) – e.g. five species of Pacific salmon, and Dolly Varden char; • marine fish (live their full life cycle in the ocean) – e.g. Pacific herring, flatfishes (sand sole, starry flounder), shiner perch, and surf smelt; • invertebrates – e.g. crabs, prawns, shrimp, molluscs, and orange sea pens; and • marine plants – e.g. eelgrass, kelp, rockweed, sea lettuce, Turkish washcloth, and sea sac.

Steelhead It is notable in this CEAA Draft Environmental Assessment Report that one of the most internationally-high profile salmonids within this watershed, the anadromous Steelhead Trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), are only mentioned once. This is in reference to Section 11.8 Species

Used for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal People in the Project Area. This is a remarkable oversight since the annual returns of Steelhead Trout in the Skeena drainage is thought to range approximately between 20,000 and 50,000 fish. This is, by far, the largest aggregate of stocks north of the Columbia River and has world-wide profile for its sporting characteristics

(Gottesfeld and Rabnett 2008). This failure by CEAA to even mention the importance of this internationally-recognized component of the fishery ecosystem, much less comment on the impacts associated with it, is not understandable.

Sockeye Salmon With the exception of a brief notation, Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) were not

specifically referred by species name in the CEAA Draft Environmental Assessment Report. This

is a fish which has large economic, social and First Nations importance in the area, and the

watershed, and is the second-largest stock aggregate in British Columbia after the Fraser River.

Given that the CEAA to fail to even acknowledge this species and the particular concerns

surrounding it, gives the reader of the Draft Environmental Assessment Report that the Agency

is oblivious to the concerns of the local communities which rely on this fish, including the sport,

commercial and First Nations interests.

Eulachon CEAA also failed to address, in any significant way, the potential Project impacts to the highly-

culturally important (for First Nations), and which is listed as Threatened (COSEWIC 2011),

eulachon (Thaleichtyhys pacficus). Even more perplexing is the statement that “…[n]o critical habitat for marine species at risk was identified in or near the Project area or at the proposed disposal site.” considering the following quotes: “Larval eulachon use estuaries for their early life stage. Estuarine vegetation like sedge grasses, provide shelter from predators and opportunities to forage for food. Eulachon typically enter their juvenile stage of life (8 weeks to

12 months) in this estuarine environment. (Cambria Gordon Ltd. 2006), or “In rivers, newly hatched larvae are flushed to sea rapidly, probably within minutes in some smaller rivers and streams. Once in the sea, Eulachon larvae may be retained in low salinity, surface waters in estuaries for several weeks or longer.” (COSEWIC 2011).

For the Skeena River, little is known about this species in this drainage. This is confirmed by

CEAA (2016). Furthermore, COSEWIC (2011) states: “The Skeena is the second largest river in

BC but it is difficult to monitor for Eulachon. According to Lewis (1997) the Skeena River run has historically been very short-lived and difficult to harvest. The Eulachon historically returned to the Skeen during the first week of March; however, in the last decade, it has occasionally returned earlier, during mid- to late February (Don Roberts pers. comm. 2006). By the mid-

1990’s the run in the Skeena area noticeably declined, with very few Eulachon observed or caught between 1997 and 1999 (Don Roberts, pers. comm. 2006).” This, essentially, confirms the lack of understanding of fish species within the estuary by CEAA. Stantec (2015b) commented on the issues of eulachon larvae in the project area. Specifically: “Several CRA species were notably absent from catches during all surveys including eulachon… Larval eulachon are found primarily in estuaries, or adjacent to rivers, in near shore marine waters

(McCarter 2003). While the Program resulted in catches of larval fish (10.1% of total fish captured), those that have been identified from a single June sample [my emphasis; also, probably wrong time of the year for eulachon larvae—i.e., too late] included surf smelt and

Pacific herring but did not include eulachon larvae. Targeted surveys for larval eulachon (i.e., river and bongo net trawls) at the appropriate time of the year (McCarter and Hay 2003) were not conducted within the local study area as part of this Program.” Given that spawning may take place already in February in the Skeena River for eulachon, larvae would have hatched and moved into the estuary long before Stantec had undertaken the larval sampling.

In short, the Proponents and environmental consultants do not appear to have attempted, in any meaningful way, to try to find how larval or juvenile eulachon use the Skeena estuary or,

69 specifically, the zone of construction. It is inexplicable as to why CEAA can take the position that no damage will occur as a result of these works, when it has no idea of the quantum of the expected resources in within the Project area of the magnitude of the damage.

That is, CEAA is willing to unequivocally state that no critical habitat will be affected even though 1. larval eulachon are known to use the Skeena estuary including, most likely, the Flora

Banks and immediate area, and 2. no directed effort was ever expended by the Proponent or its consultants in respect to determining if eulachon used the habitat in the project area or if any of it (including Flora Bank) is critical eulachon habitat.

These statements by CEAA in regards to eulachon and the potential for Serious Harm are incomprehensible.