DOCSLIB.ORG

Pacific Northwest LNG Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pacific Northwest LNG Project Pacific NorthWest LNG Project Environmental Assessment Report September 2016 Cover photo credited to Pacific NorthWest LNG Ltd. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catalogue No: En106-136/2015E-PDF ISBN: 978-1-100-25630-6 This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes, and in any format, without charge or further permission. Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials, in whole or in part, for the purpose of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 or info@ceaa- acee.gc.ca This document has been issued in French under the title: Projet de gaz naturel liquéfié Pacific NorthWest - Rapport d’évaluation environnementale Executive Summary Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership (the proponent) is proposing the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a new facility for the liquefaction, storage, and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Pacific NorthWest LNG Project (the Project) is proposed to be located primarily on federal lands and waters administered by the Prince Rupert Port Authority approximately 15 kilometres south of Prince Rupert, British Columbia. At full production, the facility would receive approximately 3.2 billion standard cubic feet per day, or 9.1 x 107 cubic metres per day, of pipeline grade natural gas, and produce up to 20.5 million tonnes per annum of LNG for over 30 years. The Project would include the construction and operation of a marine terminal for loading LNG on to vessels for export to Pacific Rim markets in Asia. The Project is subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) because it involves activities that are described in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities. Specifically, the Project includes the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a new fossil-fuel fired electrical generating facility, a new facility for the liquefaction, storage or regasification of liquefied natural gas, and a new marine terminal that meet the descriptions and thresholds set out in items 2(a), 14(d), and 24 (c) of the Schedule to the Regulations. The Project was also subject to an environmental assessment (EA) under British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act. The federal and provincial governments collaborated during the technical review of the proponent’s EIS and coordinated public and Aboriginal consultation efforts to ensure an effective and efficient EA and consultation process. On November 25, 2014, the Government of B.C. issued an EA Certificate for the Project. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) conducted an EA of the Project in accordance with CEAA 2012. The expert federal authorities which contributed to the EA were Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, Parks Canada, and the Prince Rupert Port Authority. The EA Report was completed following a technical review of the proponent’s EIS and supplemental materials, and an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the Project by the Agency with the support of the expert federal authorities. In conducting this EA, the Agency considered effects that the Project may have on the following components of the environment: • those which fall within federal jurisdiction, as described in subsection 5(1) of CEAA 2012; • those directly linked or incidental to federal decisions that enable the Project to be carried out, as described in subsection 5(2) of CEAA 2012; • species listed under the Species at Risk Act and their critical habitat; and • species designated by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Valued components are features of the natural and human environment that have the potential to be impacted by the Project. The EA focused on valued components which would enable an assessment of the effects described above, including air quality, vegetation, migratory birds, fish and fish habitat, marine mammals, federal species at risk, human health, socio-economic conditions, physical and cultural heritage and historical and archeological sites, and current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples. Environmental Assessment Report – Pacific NorthWest LNG iii The Agency assessed the potential for the Project to cause significant adverse effects on the valued components. These assessments were completed based on the EIS, responses to information requests provided by the proponent, advice from federal and provincial experts, comments provided by Aboriginal groups, and comments provided by the public. Aboriginal groups submitted many detailed comments about the Project and the EA. The majority of Aboriginal concerns related to impacts to marine fish and fish habitat, harvested foods, Aboriginal use of lands and resources, cumulative effects, physical and cultural heritage, and Aboriginal rights. Key areas of public concern were effects on fish and fish habitat, greenhouse gas emissions, effects from air emissions, and cumulative effects. The Project’s main potential environmental effects in relation to section 5 of CEAA 2012 include: • effects on human health and freshwater bodies from emissions of air contaminants; • effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions; • removal of terrestrial vegetation, wetlands, and watercourses on Lelu Island; • removal of habitat for migratory birds and terrestrial species at risk; • disturbance of migratory birds, their eggs and their nests; • effects on marine fish and fish habitat from changes to water and sediment quality, loss of habitat, and physical injury or mortality; • disturbance of marine mammals from blasting and underwater noise; • effects on human health as a result of changes to noise, light, and marine harvested foods; • reduced access to recreational activities and commercial fishing activities; • effects on Aboriginal use of lands and resources for hunting, fishing, gathering and cultural practices as a result of changes to access, quantity and quality of resources, and the sensory environment; and • effects on physical and cultural heritage, and archaeological and historical resources, including Culturally Modified Trees, on Lelu Island as a result of land clearing. The proponent’s Project plan and design incorporates mitigation measures to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the Project. Key mitigation measures identified by the Agency to prevent effects considered in this assessment include: • measures to minimize air contaminant and greenhouse gas emissions including a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions; • wetland compensation; • 30 m vegetation buffer around the perimeter of Lelu Island; • fish habitat offsetting; • conducting work in accordance with timing windows and noise thresholds for marine species; • noise and lighting mitigation to reduce disturbance to migratory birds, marine species and humans; • minimizing scour through placement of rip-rap around marine terminal infrastructure; • constructing the southwest tower and anchor block of the suspension bridge to minimize sediment erosion and deposition based on high resolution modelling of the final Project design; • monitoring for marine mammals during in-water construction and adjusting activities when marine mammals are in the area; • bridge design to allow vessels with an airdraft of 11.3 m to pass underneath, thereby maintaining iv Environmental Assessment Report – Pacific NorthWest LNG navigation next to Lelu Island; • measures to handle and manage archaeological and historical resources, including Culturally Modified Trees; and • marine communications committee so that all marine traffic is made aware of Project construction activities and Project-related safety procedures. The Agency also examined the Project’s potential effects on potential or established Aboriginal rights, including: fishing, hunting, trapping, plant harvesting, use of culturally important sites for ceremonial purposes, and other related interests. The Agency believes that the mitigation measures outlined in this report will serve as accommodation for these potential effects. The Agency has identified mitigation measures and follow-up program requirements for consideration by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in establishing conditions as part of the Decision Statement under CEAA 2012 (see appendix 11.4). Conditions accepted by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would become legally binding on the proponent if the Minister ultimately issues a Decision Statement indicating that the Project may proceed. The Agency concludes that the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, on harbour porpoise and as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The Agency also concludes that the Project is likely to result in significant adverse cumulative environmental effects to harbour porpoise. With respect to all other valued components, the Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects taking into account the implementation of the key mitigation measures. Environmental Assessment Report – Pacific NorthWest LNG v Table of Contents Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................iii
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 <Original signed by> 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 1 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Collections of DNA Baseline Tissues from Chinook Salmon in the North Coast of British Columbia in 2004
    Collections of DNA baseline tissues from Chinook Salmon in the North Coast of British Columbia in 2004 Ivan Winther Fisheries & Oceans Canada Science Branch, Pacific Region 417-2nd Avenue West Prince Rupert, British Columbia V8J-1G8 February, 2005 A project funded by the Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers Restoration and Enhancement Fund 2004. ii CONTENTS Abstract..........................................................................................................................................iii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................iii List of Figures................................................................................................................................iii Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 2 Results............................................................................................................................................. 2 Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 3 References......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prince Rupert Sub-Area 15 :'- .], :"0'--" ;~
    022182 PRINCE RUPERT AREA COASTAL FISH HABITAT BIBLIOGRAPHY Prepared for: Department of Fisheries and Oceans North Coast Division 716 Fraser Street Prince Rupert, B.C. V8J 1P9 Prepared by: Gary L. Williams G.L. Williams & Associates Ltd. 2300 King Albert Avenue Coquitlam, B.C. V3J 1Z8 March 1991 --' ··'1 ,. j TABLE OF CONTENTS .. -. .j- l Page TABLE OF CONTENTS @f] LIST OF FIGURES IV INTRODUCTION 1 :'j BIBLIOGRAPHIC LISTING BY AUTHOR 3 BmUOGRAPHIC LISTING BY SUBJECT PRINCE RUPERT SUB-AREA 15 :'-_.], :"0'--" ;~.-- . '-. 1.0 General 16 ,. ".,-]-.. ~- 2.0 Habitat 18 2.1 Physical 18 A. Geomorphology 18 n B. Oceanography 18 2.2 Biological 19 c i : f··l. l_ A. Vegetation 19 B. Invertebrates 20 C. Fish 20 -,' 3.0 Water Quality 22 i~-J 3.1 Permitted Discharges 22 3.2 Permitted Refuse Sites 22 3.3 Reports 22 ._\ ,1 J TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 1 '. :1 Page ,~1 I - 1 ; .J DIGBY ISlAND SUB-AREA 24 "'-'-c-_0~_'J 1.0 General 25 I:. 2.0 Habitat 28 2.1 Physical 28 A. Geomorphology 28 B. Oceanography 28 2.2 Biological 30 A. Vegetation 30 B. Invertebrates 30 C. Fish 31 3.0 Water Quality 33 3.1 Permitted Discharges 33 3.2 Reports 33 PORT EDWARD SUB-AREA 35 1.0 General 36 2.0 Habitat 41 2.1 Physical 41 A. Geomorphology 41 B. Oceanography 41 11 J TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page PORT EDWARD SUB·AREA (continued) 2.2 Biological 44 A. Vegetation 44 B. Invertebrates 46 C. Fish 48 3.0 Water Quality 51 3.1 Permitted Discharges 51 3.2 Permitted Refuse Site 51 3.3 Permitted Special Waste Storage Site 51 3.2 Reports 51 SMITH ISLAND SUB-:'AREA 56 1.0 General 57 2.0 Habitat 59 j'l '.,.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Description Table of Contents
    PACIFIC NORTHWEST LNG Project Descripption Prepared for: Prepared by: Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership Stantec Coonsulting Ltd. Oceanic Plaza, Suite 1900 - 1066 West Hastings Street 4370 Dominnion Street, Suite 500 Vancouver, BC V6E 3X1 Burnaby, BC V5G 4L7 Tel: (778) 372-4700 | Fax: (604) 630-3181 Tel: (604) 436-3014 | Fax: (604) 436-3752 Project No.: Date: 1231-10537 July 2013 Pacific NorthWest LNG Project Description Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Nature and Location of the Project ......................................................................... 1 1.2 Proponent Contact Information ...................................................................................... 2 1.3 Overview of Consultation to Date .................................................................................. 2 1.4 Other Relevant Information ............................................................................................ 3 1.4.1 Environmental Assessment Process ............................................................... 3 1.4.2 Regional Study ................................................................................................ 4 2 Project Information ................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 General Description and Objectives .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department Of· Fisheries of Canada Vancouver, B. C
    DEPARTMENT OF· FISHERIES OF CANADA VANCOUVER, B. C. 1968 This booklet lists the names and shows the locat·ions of all main stem salmon spawning streams in British Columbia, exclusive of those streams draining through Southeastern Alaska. Not all tributary streams have been included in the listing. I I This material represents a portion of the information being . ' collected for the preparation of an inventory of salmon bearing streams in the Pacific Region. PREPARED BY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH IN COLLABORATION ·WITH CONSERVATION & PROTECTION BRANCH Edited by C. E. Walker DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES OF CANADA PACIFIC AREA MAP SHOWING PROTECTION DISTRICTS AND STATISTICAL ,l\.REAS '- ·-" " . ~--L~-t--?.>~1> ,j '\ "·, -;:.~ '-, ~ .., -" '.) \ 'Uppe_r Arrow Loire \ ) \ ' ('ZC:t;I ;-Koafenoy ;:Lower (!~ LoJ<e Cranb~~"\ \Arrow ',\ ·• ·~ ·\. 1 i 1.AP NU. P. DIS1 • STA'rI3TICAL lAREAS LOCA'rION ..... ··-· ..... -~ ...... ... ~- ............... .. - . ................. ~ .. - ····-·~ --· ·---' --~ .. -'•··--·--·---- .. ·--""'· .. ..._..-~ ...-- ....... ..~---·-··-.-·- ... ---·· l 1 Sub-~District Cari boo ') 1 Sub-District Prince GeorGe ') .) 1 3ub-·-DJ.strict Kamloops.--Lj_llooet· 2 ~issioti-Harrison: Chilli.'wa ck--HoyJe Lower Fraser River ~~ 28 & 29 Howe Sound: New Jestminster 6 3 17, 18, 19 & 20 Nanaimo, Duncan, Victoria c.: 'Port San Juan 7 3 l~· Comox 8 3 15 Toba Inlet (~estview) () ,/ 3 16 Pender Harbour 10 Li- 22 & 23 Nitinat & Barkley Sound 11 Li- 24 Clayoquot Sound 12 l+ 25 Nootka Sound 13 l+ 26 Kyuquot Sound 14 5 J.l Seymour - Belize 15 5 12 Alert Bay (Broughton) 16 5 12 Alert Bay (Knight Inlet) , 1 ..... 17 5 --J Campbell River .., () ..L ~) 5 27 Quatsino Sound 6 9 &·10 Rivers Inlet & Smith Inlet ,..., ,.. 20 ( 0 Butedale (Fraser I\each) 21 '7 6 Butedale (Ki tima t Ar::.1) ') ') l.-t·- '7 7 Bella Bella r'"J ( 8 Bella Coola 8 3 Nass ..
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Limiting Juvenile Sockeye Production and Enhancement Potential for Selected B.C
    Fisheries and Oceans Pêches et Océans Science Sciences C S A S S C C S Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Secrétariat canadien de consultation scientifique Research Document 2001/098 Document de recherche 2001/098 Not to be cited without Ne pas citer sans permission of the authors 1 autorisation des auteurs 1 FACTORS LIMITING JUVENILE SOCKEYE PRODUCTION AND ENHANCEMENT POTENTIAL FOR SELECTED B.C. NURSERY LAKES K.S. Shortreed, K.F. Morton, K. Malange, and J.M.B. Hume Fisheries and Oceans Canada Marine Environment and Habitat Science Division 4222 Columbia Valley Highway Cultus Lake Laboratory, Cultus Lake, B.C. V2R 5B6 1 This series documents the scientific basis for 1 La présente série documente les bases the evaluation of fisheries resources in scientifiques des évaluations des ressources Canada. As such, it addresses the issues of halieutiques du Canada. Elle traite des the day in the time frames required and the problèmes courants selon les échéanciers documents it contains are not intended as dictés. Les documents qu’elle contient ne definitive statements on the subjects doivent pas être considérés comme des addressed but rather as progress reports on énoncés définitifs sur les sujets traités, mais ongoing investigations. plutôt comme des rapports d’étape sur les études en cours. Research documents are produced in the Les documents de recherche sont publiés dans official language in which they are provided to la langue officielle utilisée dans le manuscrit the Secretariat. envoyé au Secrétariat. This document is available on the Internet at: Ce document est disponible sur l’Internet à: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/ ISSN 1480-4883 Ottawa, 2001 ABSTRACT In this report we present summaries of our current knowledge of freshwater factors limiting sockeye production from 60 B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Minister of Mines PROVINCE of BRITISH COLUMBIA
    Minister of Mines PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ANNUAL REPORT For the Year ended Rlst December 1947 BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES VICTORIA, B.C. Hon. R. C. MACDONALD, Minister. JOHN F. WALKER, Deputy Minister. JAMES STRANG, Chief Inspector of Mines. G. CAVE-BROWNE-CAVE, Chief Analyst and Assayer. HARTLEY %GGxNT, Chief MinEng Engineer. P. J. MULCAHY, Chief Gold Commissioner. To His Honour CHARLES ARTHUR BANKS, C.M.G., Liezctenant-Governor of the Provilce of British Columbia. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR: The Annual Report of the Mining Industry of the Province for the year 194’7 is herewith respectfully submitted. R. C. MACDONALD, Minister of Mims. Minister of Mines Off&, June, 1948. A6 REPORT OF THE MINI,STER OF MINES, 1947. ILLUSTRATIONS, PHOTOGRAPHS. (After page 52.) I.-A. West side of Asitka Valley, showing cirques and horns. B. Diamond-drill camp, No. 3 level, Rambler mine. IL-A. Emerald mill, near Salmo. B. Atkinson dredge near Princeton. 111.-A. Plant of Clayburn Co., Ltd. B. Richmix Clay Co., fireclay mine at Kilgard. IV.-A. Dozer-loader excavating clay near Grand Forks. B. Power-shovel loading coal at Michel. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MINISTER OF MINES, 1947. Review of the Mining Industry. By Hartley Sargent. The value of British Columbia mineral production in 1947 was more than $113,000,000, a record which far exceeds the value of production in any preceding year. Many factors contributed toward the record value, but by far the most impor- tant was the high price for most products. The price of gold we.9 lower than for any year since 1937, the price of silver, although high, was somewhat lower than the 1946 price, but the price for copper was the highest for any year since 1918, the price for lead exceeded substantially the price in any preceding year, and the price for zinc was much higher than for any year except 1915 and 1916.
    [Show full text]
  • Skeena River Showing the Known Dis• Tribution of Rocky Mountain ( ) and Eastern Whitefish (#) 7 Fig
    6,1,-tSn A STUDY OF LIMNOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF SKEENA LAKES AS THEY AFFECT THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF THE 1HITEFISHES COREGONUS AND PROSOPIUM By Harold Godfrey A Thesis submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of ZOOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1949. ii ABSTRACT Limnological conditions in lakes of the Skeena drainage, British Columbia,have been examined to asoertain what factors may be restricting the distribution and/or abundance of the Eastern and Rooky Mountain whitefishes. The Eastern whitefish is known to be in only four Skeena lakes, and the Rooky. Mountain whitefish in all Skeena lakes which have been investigated. It is probable that the Eastern whitefish has not entered other Skeena lakes because the lake conditions are not suitable for its establishment. Such conditions are mainly warm waters, shallow depths, and small area; and are sometimes the heavy silting of the water, and the resultant poor food supply. It is not numerous in any of the four lakes, probably because of the relative poor abundance of bottom food organisms, particularly in the absence of such organisms as the amphipod Ppntoporeia. Conditions are apparently most favourable for Eastern whitefish in oligotrophia lakes. Rocky Mountain whitefish appear to favour eutrophic lakes, and are most abundant in lakes where a good supply of bottom food is assured by the absence of such potential competitors as the Peamouth chub and Squawfish. There is no evidence of any heavy predation on either of the two whitefish. It is improbable that any physioal barrier has limited the distribution of these fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical and Physiographic Reconnaissance of Northern British Columbia
    Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series Volume 14 Number 4 Article 1 9-1971 Botanical and physiographic reconnaissance of northern British Columbia Stanley L. Welsh Department of Botany, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84601 J. Keith Rigby Department of Geology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84601 Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib Part of the Anatomy Commons, Botany Commons, Physiology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Welsh, Stanley L. and Rigby, J. Keith (1971) "Botanical and physiographic reconnaissance of northern British Columbia," Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series: Vol. 14 : No. 4 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib/vol14/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. r?. J Brigham Young University haivm u .UJMlVERSiTvirj Science Bulletin BOTANICAL AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC RECONNAISSANCE OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA by Stanley L. Welsh and J. Keith Rigby BIOLOGICAL SERIES — VOLUME XIV, NUMBER 4 SEPTEMBER 1971 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN BIOLOGICAL SERIES Editor: Stanley L. Welsh, Department of Botany, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Members of the Editorial Board: Vernon J. Tipton, Zoology Ferron L. Anderson, Zoology Joseph R. Murdock. Botany Wilmer W. Tanner, Zoology Ex officio Members: A. Lester Allen, Dean, College of Biological and Agricultural Sciences Ernest L. Olson, Chairman, University Publications The Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series, publishes acceptable papers, particularly large manuscripts, on all phases of biology.
    [Show full text]
  • DEFINING the MIDDLE PERIOD Fjsoo BP to 1500 BPJ in Tsimshian History Through a Comparison of Archaeological and Oral Records
    DEFINING THE MIDDLE PERIOD fjSoo BP to 1500 BPJ in Tsimshian History through a Comparison of Archaeological and Oral Records ANDREW R.C. MARTINDALE AND SUSAN MARSDEN INTRODUCTION NDIGENOUS ORAL TRADITIONS are compelling sources of information for archaeologists. They represent situated narratives on culture Iand history, which introduce a people's record of their history to the otherwise materialist database of archaeology. Archaeologists routinely make comparisons between indigenous cultures and archae­ ological data, either in the form of generalized analogies or as direct historical analogies between ethnographically known cultures and their archaeologically known antecedents. The use of indigenous oral narratives in archaeology is less common, although much of what is known ethnographically is based on the indigenous oral record. Several successful comparisons are known, however (Klimko andTaft 1990; MacDonald 1984; Marsden 2000; Martindale 1999a; Sharpe andTunbridge 1997). In this paper, we compare archaeological data for the cultural history of theTsimshian people of the northern Northwest Coast of North America to information from their oral histories. Analysis of archaeological data and indigenous oral records presents distinct but comparable views of Tsimshian history. We discuss the history of the Tsimshian from about 3,500 to 1,500 years ago and argue that such a comparison clarifies an evolving pattern of settlement that earlier interpretations of the Tsimshian have not brought into focus. Specifically, we argue that, during the Middle Period between 3,500 and 2,000 years ago, the northern Tsimshian area (Figure 1) consisted of two settlement regions, one on the coast north of the mouth of the Skeena River and the other in the interior around Kitselas Canyon.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific North West LNG Project: a Review and Assessment of the Project Plans and Their Potential Impacts on Marine Fish and Fish Habitat in the Skeena Estuary
    Pacific North West LNG Project: A review and assessment of the project plans and their potential impacts on marine fish and fish habitat in the Skeena estuary. Asit Mazumder Professor Department of Biology University of Victoria Victoria June 2016 1 Table of Contents I. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 II. The Existing Environment ........................................................................................................................ 4 III. Project Design ............................................................................................................................................ 5 IV. Potential Effects on Marine Fish and ........................................................................ Fish Habitat 8 Deleted: 9 Marine Structure Impacts on Sediment Transport ish and F Habitat ........................................................ 10 V. Conceptual Fish Habitat Offsetting ................................................................................. Strategy 16 Deleted: 15 VI. CEAA Assessment of PNW-­‐‑LNG Proposal on ............................................ Marine Resources 20 Deleted: 19 VII. Conclusions of the Review .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental Implications of Sediment Transport in the Waters Of
    Journal of Coastal Research 32 3 465–482 Coconut Creek, Florida May 2016 The Environmental Implications of Sediment Transport in the Waters of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada: A Comparison Between Kinematic and Dynamic Approaches Patrick McLaren SedTrend Analysis Limited Brentwood Bay, BC V8M1C5, Canada [email protected] ABSTRACT McLaren, P., 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, 32(3), 465– 482. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. A Sediment Trend Analysis (STAt) was performed on 2474 grain-size distributions taken from the Port of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada. The analysis was commissioned by the Lax Kw’alaams First Nations Band because of environmental concerns associated with future large-scale development plans, including a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal associated with Flora Bank. Located at the mouth of the Skeena River, Flora Bank has long been considered an important nursery area for juvenile salmon. STA is an empirical technique to determine patterns of net sediment transport, which may provide a qualitative assessment of the possible environmental changes that could be expected following port construction. The patterns of transport revealed that sediments throughout the study area are derived from underlying till which is exposed in areas of strong currents. Flora Bank, a roughly 4 km2 area of intertidal sand, contained the coarsest and most well sorted sand, which was not found elsewhere throughout the study area. Although derived from till, the sand did not form transport pathways from the other sediment types; in addition, pathways could not be determined on the bank itself.
    [Show full text]