From: Rick Higgins [<email address removed>] Sent: March 10, 2016 8:01 PM To: Pacific Northwest LNG / GNL Pacific Northwest (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CEAR, Information Request Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed PNW LNG project. My name is Rick J. Higgins, and I am a retired DFO biologist. In 1973, I co-authored a technical report with W. J. Schouwenburg entitled “A Biological Assessment of Fish Utilization of the Skeena River Estuary, With Special Reference to Port Development in Prince Rupert”. Our focus in that study was to ensure that the proposed coal loading terminal in the Skeena River estuary would be sited in a location that would minimize any adverse environmental impact to salmon production from the Skeena River and most particularly the rearing of juvenile salmonids in their early life stage. The results of our study were conclusive enough that the engineering firm hired for the development of the project recommended the current location, which is situated well away from Flora Bank. This PNW project, as proposed, is located right up against this most valuable habitat in the estuary and while modifications to their earlier design are a significant attempt to reduce adverse impacts to the eelgrass bed on the bank, there is still some potential for a reduction of the productive capacity of Flora Bank. I have attached a copy of my remarks as well as a copy of our technical report for your perusal and adjudication. Rick Higgins

1

Comments by Rick Higgins in his review of the PNW LNG Project

Personal Focus and Bias

My name is Rick J. Higgins, and I am a retired DFO biologist. In 1973, I co-authored a technical report with W. J. Schouwenburg entitled “A Biological Assessment of Fish Utilization of the Skeena River Estuary, With Special Reference to Port Development in Prince Rupert”. From watching the TV news I heard mention that Lelu Island was near the site for the PNW project. I thought "Well surely they will stay away from Flora Bank. They must be going to deep water via Ridley Island.... somehow".

As author of the report, I was contacted by some people who had read my technical report, and who informed me that my report was being relied upon by many people in the environmental assessment of the PNW LNG project. I did some Google searching and had a glance at what existed online. I read and reread our report and was transported back 44 years ago reliving the days of our field work in the estuary. There were many early mornings to get the slack tides when we made our sets and late evening for the same reason. I recall the constant rain and being cold and damp all day. Oh to be young again.

I had an opportunity to review some more of the documents, including reviews of the project by DFO, my former employers, as well as reports and research submitted by other parties. I was initially focussed intently only on those materials, drawings, studies and review comments, relating to Flora Bank. The extensive eelgrass meadow on the bank is the keystone for juvenile salmon estuarine growth and survival, for the salmon stocks of the Skeena River and tributaries. All other fish habitat areas are of secondary importance.

Based on my review of those materials, and my work of 44 years ago, I am providing the following comments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency about their draft report, and the project in general.

Other reviewers.

I had no idea that our brief technical report would have been discovered and quoted in support of the conclusions of other reviewers of the environmental impact of this project. I am greatly encouraged by the recent study, “Salmon science as related to proposed development in the Skeena River estuary” by Jonathan Moore, Charmaine Carr-Harris and Jennifer Gordon. This research confirms the results of, and expands upon our original report, and brings the same conclusions we had made, up-to-date. Significantly, in comparing the juvenile salmon population densities between Flora Bank eelgrass habitat and three more northerly sites, Flora Bank had more than 20 times the number of juvenile salmonids than the other three sites.

The probability of successful habitat replacement/compensation is questioned and from their research, like-for- like replacement of eelgrass as a habitat component will not succeed

2

since different eelgrass sites yielded distinctly different productivity results. The bold conclusions from this report need to be considered.

The T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation and Prince Rupert Environmental Society Report of January 2, 2016 identifies a continuing concern regarding the 3D hydrodynamic modelling. DFO's CSAS was very critical of the modelling results and there were several indications of a bias towards favourable outcomes for the project, by the design of model runs themselves. Earlier in their report they identified serious concerns regarding anchorage for ships that, in their opinion, have not been answered satisfactorily by the proponent in respect to the new berth location.

The report prepared for Skeena Wild Conservation Trust by Ocean Ecology on November 21, 2014 “Impacts of LNG Development to Salmon Habitat on Lelu Island and Flora Bank”, highlights, as do all environmental reports, the significance of Flora Bank. Because of the significance of the new design and the large change in concept from the original proposal, they ask a rather good question, "Should this new design be afforded opportunity for public review and perhaps restart the whole CEAA process"?

This report echoes the T. Buck Suzuki concern about the stability of Flora Bank. They also quote a Dr. Patrick McLaren who has questioned the impacts the large berth structure may have on the stability of Flora Bank.

Lax Kw'alaams Comments on PNW LNG Response to CEAA's June 2, 2015 letter is alarming to me if the statement on page 17 is factually correct that "... in the May 4, 2015 Report on Fish and Fisheries authored by Stantec, they wrote that "salmon do not use Flora Bank eelgrass habitat for nursery habitat or other life dependent processes" and came to the conclusion that Flora Bank and adjacent habitat "has low habitat productivity and value". They have since redacted this report. No reputable biologist would ever make such a claim.

This report provides many helpful comments. The remarks made on page 41 regarding habitat offsetting I found to be very insightful and well worth a conversation between DFO and PNW.

My personal remarks

a) Project Design

The modified design of the suspension bridge, trestle and LNG berths would appear to have reduced the magnitude of fish habitat losses associated with the extensive eelgrass bed on Flora Bank. This redesign, while potentially reducing the impacts on Flora Bank itself, that would have been associated with the numerous steel pilings in the original EIS, has not eliminated all of the potential fish habitat losses. In fact, a series of new considerations have had to be analyzed, most specifically perhaps alteration to sediment transport across Flora Bank

3

related to the southwest tower and massive anchor block, used to support it. In my review of the earlier documents I was left astonished by the supposedly scientific initial conclusions reached by the proponents consultants, in relation to the low value of the Flora Bank eelgrass habitat. Work done by myself 44 years ago and confirmed by recent scientific field research identifies the importance of the eelgrass on Flora Bank and illustrates that its habitat value is more highly significant than other eelgrass beds in the area.

However, a later report by PNG substantiated the value of Flora Bank and associated eelgrass beds and fish utilization of that habitat.

The analyses by NRCan and DFO CSAS of the original 3D hydrodynamic modelling of sediment transport and scouring related to the two main marine structures, the southwest tower and the anchor block, were regarded as being inconclusive. Perhaps this brief comment integrating a very similar conclusion by both Departments says it all, "Taking into account all of the concerns identified in NRCan's and DFO's reviews, the two departments share in the conclusion that the Proponent has not adequately substantiated its conclusions, and the departments share the view that the potential magnitude and extent of physical changes to Flora Bank from the proposed marine structures are uncertain, and likely underestimated."

Again however, upon review of a revised series of modelling runs presented in a report "Pacific Northwest LNG 30 Modelling Update - Supplemental Modelling Report" (Hatch, 201 5b, DFO CSAS feels confident hydrodynamic study results indicate no significant impact to Flora Bank for the tower or the anchor block.

I have not seen the NRCan response to PNG's latest modelling report. Do they concur with DFO?

b) Design of Environmental Studies.

The environmental consultants employed by PNG have attempted to present the results of their studies in a professional and eye-catching manner. However, there are a couple of procedures that defy a rational concept of design. Perhaps the most evident is the determination to deploy fyke nets as a method to capture fish in an estuarine environment. Fyke nets are designed to capture downstream migrating fish where they would be drawn into the net by the current and held there. They are entirely effective in that purpose, because that is what they were designed for. In an estuary with varying currents capture of fish using a fyke net would yield limited results.

The second thing I note, is the attempt to spatially delineate the extent of the Flora Bank eelgrass bed, via walking the boundary using GPS equipment. The low tide on the day the study was done, May 30, 2013 was 1.1 metres at 1130. There were no negative low tides in 2013 but the two lowest tides of the year were only a few weeks later. On June 25 at 0848 and June 24 at 0802 the low tide was 0.0 metres. This difference of nearly four feet in height would increase

4

the drying area of the bank and afford MAXIMUM opportunity to visually define a boundary, using physical methods. There would be light at that time in the morning and it’s not too early to get out of bed to be there.

c) Mitigation and Compensation for Fish Habitat Loss.

Personally, I believe the project would most effectively be mitigated by choosing an alternate site. Some of the original conclusions and study results would cause me to question the seriousness of the proponents efforts to openly identify environmental impacts, particularly fish and fish habitat related AND provide resolution to mitigate them, which would give me confidence in their impartiality. I do recognize that this project, like many large scale projects, goes through a series of modifications in physical design and an accumulation of data at various stages of development. Kudos for the main alteration in the marine structures, specifically the suspension bridge.

However, Flora Bank still has some structures on, or at least immediately adjacent to, the bank. The southwest tower and the anchor block are troublesome to me but I must have confidence that my colleagues having an expertise I do not, are assured of their own conclusions.

In regard to the thorny issue of habitat compensation I am not convinced that we are able to adequately measure the productivity of particular habitats so how we can state we are increasing productivity in a particular area, alludes me. I have seen habitat compensation projects here on Vancouver Island and some are still intact and hopefully productive and others are not. Natural processes occur over a very long timeline and to think we can outguess He who has made all things is not something I would wager on. Again, I rely on the integrity and analytical abilities of my colleagues, albeit I'm not sure if the people from DFO reviewing this project have ever been on site.

************************************

PRINCE RUPERT"

MAY, 1973

I

II

II

I'I;

11

I;

and

W. J. SCHOUWENBURG

. ~ ,

Fisheries and Marine Service

Department of the Environment,

Vancouver, B. C.

NORTHERN OPERATIONS BRANCH

·~~~~lES AND OCEANS CANADh:)·555 IN HAS-lINGS ST. 685G;;,NCOUVER, Be CANADA v . -

(04) 666·3851U Technical Report 1973-1

By

R. J. HIGGINS

"A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF FISH UTILIZATION

OF THE SKEENA RIVER

ESTUARY,

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PORT DEVELOPMENT IN

CAN 10N 1973-1

I .o:$!! :p,'-----

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES i i

LIST OF TABLES.................... iii

APPENDI X TABLES i v

INTRODUCTION.......... 1

METHODS AND MATERIALS .............................•.. 9

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................... 13.

a)

b)

c)

d)

Fish distribution, abundance and timing .....I ,

Benthic organisms .

Planktonic organisms ~ ' .

Eelgrass distribution and abundance ..••.•...

13

44

50

55

e) Salinity and temperature 56

f) Di etary components 58

g) Aquatic environment in the Ridley Islandregion 58

CONCLUSIONS ..............•.•••••.•..•... 0·'" I ..... ~... 60

II!II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LITERATURE CITED

APPENDIX TABLES

•••••••••••••••••••••••• I ••••••••• I ••

••••••••••••• " ••• I .

•••••••••••••• " ••• I •••••••••••••••••••

61

62

64

~ ..

- i i -

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ~

1. Purse seining stations in the Skeena Riverestuary 0 •••• 0.0 •••••• 0.0 ••••••• 0 ••••••• 0.. 10

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

~vera~e weekly captures of pink salmonJuvenlles .....................................••

~vera~e weekly captures of sockeye salmonJuvenl1es .. 00.0.000.000 ••• 0 •• 00.00000 •• 000 •• 000.

~vera~e weekly captures of coho salmonJuvenl1es .00.0 ••• 00. 0 •••••••••• 0.0.00 ••••••••• 0.

~vera~e weekly captures of chinook salmonJuvenl1es .00.00 •••• 0 ••••• 0.0 •• 0 •• 00.0. o. 0 •• 0.0 ••

Average weekly captures of chum salmonjuveniles ........•..............................

Daily discharge for April - August 1973 recordedat Usk .

Dredge sampling sites in the Skeena Riverestuary 0 ••••• 0.0 ••••• 0 •••••• 0000 ••• 0.0.000 .•• 0 •• 0

Plankton sampling sites (vertical tows) in theSkeena River estuary ..

1 5

18

21

23

25

27

47

51

- iii -

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

~atch.frequency distribuiton of pink salmonJuvenl1 es ...............•...•...............•...

~atch.frequency distribution of sockeye salmonJuvenlles .

~atch.frequency distribution of coho salmonJuvenl1 es .......................•.•.............

Catch frequency distribution of chinook salmonjuveniles .

~atch.frequency distribution of chum salmonJuvenll es .

Catch frequency distribution of all salmon, '1 ----Juvenl es ..

Catch frequency distribution of herring ..••...•.

Catch frequency distribution of need1efish ..••..

29

31

33

34

36

37

41

45

9. Distribution and abundance of benthic inverti-brates 48

10. Species composition of vertical plankton hauls.. 52

11. Surface sal inities by area...................... 57

12. Depth average salinities for 0, 2, 5, 10 metredepths .....................•...•.....•.....•.... 57

Table

A-l

- i v -

APPENDIX TABLES

List of fish species captured in purse seine 65

I. INTRODUCTION

Prince Rupert is Canada's western-most deep sea

port and is serviced by the Canadian National Railway and

the Yellowhead Highway. These factors coupled with the

continually expanding Japanese demand for Western Canadian

raw materials and the industrial growth now taking place

in northern British Columbia have resulted in considerable

attention being given to the development of Prince Rupert

as a major port for the handling of both general and bulk

cargoes. While most of this interest has been expressed

in the form of reports, there now have been two firm pro­

posals advanced for the actual construction of major port

facilities in the Prince Rupert area. The first of these

originated with Maui Enterprises Ltd., (later known as

Kitson Harbour Developments Ltd.) and entailed the cons­

truction of a bulk loading terminal in the Kitson Island­

Flora Bank area which ultimately would have encompassed

in excess of 3,000 acres within that section of the Skeena

River estuary. During 1972, Prince Rupert was declared a

national port and was placed under the jurisdiction of the

National Harbours Board. The boundaries of the port were

defined in such a way that the Kitson Island - Flora Bank

site could not be developed without National Harbours Board

concurrence and participation. Wright Engineers Limited

was subsequently commissioned by the National Harbours Board

to review and up-date the appropriate earlier studies for

~ - 2-

the purpose of establishing relevant-to-the-need recom­

mendations for development of port facilities at Prince

Rupert. their optimum timing and capacity. Their report

concluded that:

1) the Fairview site was suitable for the

general purpose terminal;

2) there was no need for a bulk loading termi­

nal unti 1 about 1980; and that

3) Ridley Island was the most suitable site for

a bulk terminal.

Tenders have now been called for site preparation at

Fairview.

In view of the extensive site development work in

the form of estuarine filling and dredging entailed with

the original Kitson Island - Flora Bank proposal, the

Fisheries Service, in 1971, initiated a cursory investigation

into the biological significance of Flora Bank. The

results of this study indicated that Flora Bank was of

significance to the maintenance of local fisheries resources.

In 1972, the study was expanded to augment the information

obtained in the previous year and to answer the question

of where a super port capable of handling bulk commodities

such as coal might be located with a minimum of impact on

the fisheries resource.

f!

fII

- 3 -

To those not familiar with the west coast fishing

industry and the fisheries resource maintenance requirements

in general, two principal questions can logically be asked.

These are: "What is the significance of the fishing in­

dustry to the community of Prince Rupert?" and "What

destructive consequences could be imparted on the fisheries

resource by superport construction?"

The answer to the first question is that: fishing is

of overwhelming importance to the people of Prince Rupert.

Prince Rupert has long been the centre of northern British

Columbia's commercial fishing industry, and it is expected

that much of the north coast's tidal sport fishing

activity will take. place in the Prince Rupert area in the

future.

A socio-economic study conducted in 1971 by William

F. Sinclair of the Fisheries Service, showed that commercial

fishing provided approximately 42 percent of Prince Rupert's

basic employment and about 36 percent of its basic income

during 1970. Subsequent development of the fishing industry

in the Prince Rupert area and of the fishing industry

within British Columbia probably has increased the importance

of commercial fishing to the residents of Prince Rupert.

Not only have the returns from the halibut fishery increased

substantially during this period, but also a very lucrative

and promising herring roe fishery has developed.

!.,

- 4 -

Aside from the fact that commercial fishing and its

related activities creates a substantial amount of income

and employment for the people of Prince Rupert. fishing is

important as a way of life for many of Prince Rupert's

residents. The job opportunities provided by the commercial

fishing industry complement very nicely the manpower require­

ments of the Prince Rupert region. Persons employed in

logging operations or in pulp mills often work in the com­

mercial fishing industry when forest closures or labour

disputes occur. Further. the skill requirements and experi­

ence of the Prince Rupert labour force is well suited to

the needs and requirements of the commercial fishing

industry. Thus. commercial fishing is a very important

employment and income stabilizer in this area of the province

where the main economic activities are based on the'

natural resources of the area.

Income from salmon fishing and processing is the

prime contributor to the total income from the fisheries

resource. The Skeena River ranks second only to the

Fraser River as a salmon producer and as such is the major

single source of fishing income to residents of Prince

Rupert employed in the fishing industry.

It is noteworthy that the Fisheries Service upon

examination of the Skeena River sockeye salmon spawning

and rearing areas concluded that these very large natural

salmon stocks could be expanded through the provision of

t

ft

fl,rI·f,~\i\

;,I .

- 5 -

artificial spawning channels. To that end, the Fisheries

Service has, since 1965, expended 10 million dollars on the

construction of spawning channels at Fulton River and Pinkut

Creek on Babine Lake. In the next few years, the returns

from these enhancement facilities will increase the annual

landed value of Skeena River salmon by 2.5 million dollars.

In addition to its commercial importance, fishing

provides many hours of enjoyment for residents living albng

the Skeena River. The amount of fishing activity which takes

place in this area of the province will likely increase sub­

stantially in the future. As sport fishing develops arid

highways and other transportation systems expand and improve,

it can be expected that recreational fishing will add to

the employment and income base of the area.

Turning now to the question "What destructive con­

sequences could be imparted on the fisheries resource by

superport construction?", this is extremely complex and is

to a very large degree dependent upon the site chosen for

superport construction. In the case of Prince Rupert, all

the potential sites are in or adjacent to the Skeena River

estuary which is one of the two largest estuarine areas in

British Columbia.

Pritchard (1967) has defined an estuary as "A

semi-enclosed body of water which has a free connection with

the open sea and within sea water is measurably diluted with

fresh water derived from land drainage". Estuaries are a

- 6 -

combined interacting system of land, air, water, plants,

animals, minerals and energy resources. They are among the

most fertile areas in the world.

This fertility is due to the trapping of nutrients,

which is manifested in three ways. Vertical and horizontal

circulation patterns. driven by the mixing of waters of

differing densities in concert with tidal forces, entrain

nutrients within the water column. Secondly, estuarine

sediments have high sorptive qualiti.es owing to their fine

composition. The sediments act as a buffer allowing desorp­

tion of nutrients into the water as they are lost to phyto­

plankton (Odum. 1970). The third mechanism for nutrient

enrichment of the sediments is biodeposition of faecal

materials by benthic invertebrates.

The food web in an estuary is unsophisticated and of

low diversity thus extremely susceptible to subtle alter-

ation. Primary production in terms of phytoplankton and

detritus is based on availability of sunlight and an abund­

ant supply of nutrients. If these are available primary

production may be optimal and thus primary consumers

(zooplankton) will be able to thrive. These in turn are

consumed by secondary consumers (larval fish). Destruction

of a single component in a specific trophic level will im­

peril its related consumer in the next level due to the

low number of key organisms available for consumption.

- 7,-

Kinne (1967) has stated that a few organisms find

optimum conditions in estuarines during their life cycles.

It is not a single environmental factor which governs

physiological responses but a combination of factors

impinging one upon another. The result is that degradation

of a single environmental factor may allow another factors'

effect to become disproportionate and perhaps lethal.

Generally, these factors are self-moderating.

As a final comment, estuaries provide nursery areas

for rearing salmonids not only in terms of "super-market"

potential but also as a "halfway-house" for physiological

adaptation. Juvenile salmonids are provided an opportunity

to adapt to a hypertonic environment from their hypotonic

natal stream life. The varied salinity regime in an estuary

allows this. It provides the buffer against physiological

shock.

We can also be certain that not all areas within an

estuary have the same fish productive capacity or biological

significance. Thu~, before the prime question can be

answered, studies must be undertaken to determine the

biological significance of various sub areas within an

estuary. When that information has been obtained, it becomes

possible not only to determine the potential destructive

impacts superport construction will have on the fisheries

resource, but to demonstrate which area could be developed

with a minimum of biological degradation. The Fisheries

Service investigations in the Skeena River estuary were

- 8 -

designed to provide this necessary information.

The 1972 study was initiated and designed to:

a) demonstrate the fish distribution and

utilization patterns within the estuary;

b) relate the fish distribution and utilization

patterns with fish diet and food availability,

and to,

c) obtain, within available resource and time

constraints, some insights into the relation­

ship between the physical and chemical water

characteristics and the distribution of fish

and fish food organisms.

The on-site investigations commenced in early April

and were terminated in late August, 1972.

- 9 -

II METHODS AND MATERIALS

Basic modifications to the 1971 cursory study were

indicated for the 1972 investigations. The initial

program had failed to demonstrate significant estuarine

presence on the part of juvenile salmonids and the scope of

sampling was too limited to facilitate alternative site

selection. Consequently, both the type of gear used and

the number of stations were modified in 1972 and emphasis

was placed on fish distribution especially as related to

juvenile salmon.

Initially, eighteen stations were established and

seining began April 16 utilizing a 10' outboard craft and

a 54 fathom x 6 fathom purse seine. On May 15, the number

of capture sites was increased to 28 with two of the

original stations (Stations 4 and 16) being deleted. To

maintain continuity with existing maps and charts the two

deleted station numbers were not relocated. Thus, as seen

in Figure 1 the stations number up to 30 and are in a

scattered numerical order. On May 18 a local gillnetter,

the M.V. "BREEZEWAY" was chartered and equipped with a 71

fathom x 7 fathom purse seine (constructed with a 35 fathom

lead of 1" mesh, and a purse consisting of 23 fathoms of

1" mesh, 8 fathoms of ~" mesh and 5 fathoms of ~" mesh)

and commenced sampling. On June 15, the M.V. "SILVER TOKEN"

of similar size and like equipped was chartered and began

sampling. Purse seining continued until July 30 with all

stations being sampled twice weekly. This schedule could

not be strictly adhered to due to weather conditions, break-

- 10 -

,-------\@ @I\ I\

F~ I\ I\ @I

KENNEDY ISLAND \ I\ I___ J

o

ISLANDPORCHER

Scal. in mile.

DIGBY ISLAND

rC~\ \\ \\ \\@ \\ \\ \

:,-~O~...:..--,l \ \

\ ® "'-B\ _\--

Figure 1. Purse seining stations in the Skeena River estuary.

, .

- 11 -

downs or utilization of the vessels in the commercial

fishing industry during the regulated salmon fishing openings.

On August 3 the M.V. "THRASHER ROCK" began surface

trawling using a net 30' long having a 10' x 11' mouth

opening. This method of capture continued until August 13.

From April 16 to August 13, 1972 over 9,000 juvenile salmon,

herring, needelfish and smelt were captured and identified

using both types of fishing gear. Of this total, 1,133 fish

were retained for analysis. These samples were obtained

from every set. If less than 10 specimens of each species

were caught in any set, all were retained. If more than

10 fish of each species were caught in any particular set,

10 were selected at random and the remainder were released.

The blotted weight and the fork length of each of these

specimens was measured and recorded. The whole fish was

then preserved in formalin. At a later date, the stomachs

were removed and their contents were analyzed for food

species composition and abundance.

To enable a cursory evaluation of the benthic biota

in the estuary, bottom samples were taken by Ponar dredge

at 13 of the seine stations in the estuary during Apnil.

The species present and their relative abundance was re­

corded. Time and resource constraints did not permit a

repitition of sampling.

Plankton samples were gathered at 10 locations in the

estuary from August 10-13. The plankton was collected by

I .

- 12 -

vertical tows using a 50 cm. diameter simple

oceanographic plankton net with a mesh aperture of

180 microns. The plankton samples were analyzed for species

composition and relative abundance. Resource constraints

did not permit a more frequent sampling of plankton.

In order to quantify the distribution and abundance of

eelgrass, aerial photographs were taken on May 16 and August

26 of Flora Bank. Also of. Inverness Passage and of the

bank between De Horsey and Smith Islands, hereafter referred

to as De Horsey Bank. The photographs were taken using

Kodak false colour infra-red and Kodachrome-X colour film.

Both films were exposed simultaneously from two 35 mm.

cameras equipped with 50 mm. lenses and polarizers. The film

was exposed at an altitude of 1000' from a De Haviland Beaver

flying a pre-determined course.

Nansen bottle casts were made at 26 stations on various

tides and at 0, 2, 5, 10, 15, 25 metre depths from August 15­

21. The specific gravity and temperature at each depth was

measured and the salinity value was determined by cross

comparison in a sigma-T table. This provided a qualitative

estimation of the salinity regime within the estuary during

the period of sampling. Resource constraints did not

permit more frequent sampling for salinity.

- 13 -

III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Inasmuch as it is almost impossible to deal with the

results of the 1972 investigations as they relate to each

of the 28 sampling stations, the data collected from

stations within certain geographical zones was pooled.

Thus, the following presentation and discussion of results

relates to the six geographical zones at Ridley Island

(Area A), the offshore zone (Area B), Flora Bank (Area C).

Inverness Passage (Area D), De Horsey Bank (Area E).

Telegraph Passage-Kennedy Island (Area F) as well as two

"controls" at Digby Island (Station 8) and the Skeena River

(Station 10) as illustrated in Figure 1.

a) Fish Distribution, Abundance and Timing

Totals of 1950 juvenile salmon (5 species

Onchorhynchus), 5861 herring (Clupea pallasi), 806 needle­

fish (Ammodytes hexapterus), and 1087 surf and longfin smelts

(Hypomesus pretiosus and Spirinchus dilatus) were captured

by purse seining and surface trawling. Incidental catches

of small numbers of other species (see list in Appendix A)

were made but are not dealt with in this discussion.

Unlike the previous year's experience (Fisheries Service

Report; A Cursory Investigation of the Productivity of the

Skeena River Estuary, 1972), little difficulty was

encountered in capturing substantial numbers of juvenile

salmon once the commercial fishing vessels were chartered

and equipped with as large a seine as the vessels could

physically accommodate. Juvenile salmon were captured in the

- 14 -

estuary from April 23, though known to be pr~sent earlier,

until August 11. Thus, in terms of demonstrated juvenile

salmon utilization in the estuarine area, the results of the

Skeena River study are not different from the results

obtained in other areas of the North American Pacific Coast

(Goodman and Vroom, 1972; Reimers, 1971; Sims, 1970;

Parker, 1970; Smith, 1972).

Catch per unit of effort calculations were made

utilizing the purse seine catches only: Aside from the

fact that the trawling method of fish capture and the purse

seining method cannot be validly compared, the trawl was

only used to test whether it may be a viable method for fish

captures for studies to be conducted at a later date.

The downstream migration of pink salmon fry (0. gorbuscha)

into the estuary was underway when sampling commenced at

Station 10 in the Skeena River on May 3rd. The out-migration

peaked in the third week of May and was over by mid-June.

Peak of abundance in Inverness Passage coincided with that

at Station 10. This abundance was reflected at Flora Bank and

De Horsey Bank (Areas C and E) during the following week.

Pink salmon abundance by area, as indicated by catch per unit

of effort is shown in Figures 2A and B.

The initial downstream migration of sockeye salmon smo1ts

(O.nerka) and the peak of migration as measured at Station 10

occurred in the last week of May. Abundance at virtually all

sub-areas closely coincided with out-migration from the river.

As of the first week in July virtually all sockeye had left

\-15/' -

--J--..

PINK SALMON

'00AREA A

'00

, 00

0'00

" " " • " " .. • " " '"MAY JUNE ~ULY

10,00

7·50AREA B

~·oo

l·~O

0'00

" " " " " .. ," " .,

MAY JUHE JULY

30·00

f-W(J)

"- 2!l'OO:I:(J)

It.

0 20·00

Z

f-1!l'OO0:

0It.It.W

10·00

t:z=>"-J: 5·00

Uf- 2-50<tU

0-00

," " " • " " .. • ,. " '0

MAY JUNE JULY

7·00STN. 8

I. 21 26 ..

MAYI" 25

JUNE

9162330

JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 2A. Average weekly captures of pink salmon juveniles.

-.16 -

PINK SALMON

WEEKLY PERIODS

i

t

!,1 ;:: AREA D t-

ILlILl II)II) ........ :I::I: II)IJ) G:G: ci~ 1500

Z~

~

t-t-o::

~ ItiOO fC 1000

lJ. lJ.lJ. ILlILl

t- '00 !::: 5,00

Z z::>

::> ........ , :r ,:r uu

~~U MAY JUNE JULY U

WEEKLY PERIODS

MAY JUNE

AREA F

JULY

"00

t- ~

ILl ~ 3000II).... II)

::c ....:r

II) AREA E U) 15.00

iL u::ci ciz z_ 20.00 _ 20.00

t- t-o::0 0::lJ. 15,00

0 "00lJ. lJ.ILl lJ.

ILl

!:: 10,00 t- 10,00

Z Z::> ::>.... ....::c 5.00 :r '00u Ut- ~«u , u ,

MAY JUNE JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS

MAY

STN.IO

JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 2B. Average weekly captures of pink salmon juveniles.

- 17 -

the estuary. Sockeye salmon abundance by area, as indic­

ated by catch per unit of effort is shown in Figures 3A and

B.

The data obtained on pink and sockeye salmon show a

major peak of capture and then a drastic decline. This

strongly suggests that these species move into and out of

the estuary in a very short time span. Due to the

frequency of sampling, (twice a week), it is not possible

to demonstrate this time span is less than three or four

days, although a cross comparison between adjacent stations

within each area suggests this is the case. The peak of

sockeye abundance in the estuary, coincidental with initial

presence indicates movement of a major population into

the estuary at that time. On June 6 a sockeye smolt

tagged at Babine Lake was captured in the Offshore zone

(Area B). This would suggest that the major influx of sock­

eye into the estuary during the previous week originated in

Babine Lake which is the main sockeye producer in the Skeena

River system.

The small captures of sockeye smo1ts and pink fry long

after the pronounced peaks, could either be non-Skeena stocks

migrating through the estuary or progeny from very minor

salmon producers within the Skeena River system.

The downstream migration of coho salmon smo1ts

(0. kisutch) as indicated by seine catches at Station 10,

commenced in the third week of June and peaked immediately.

- 18 -

SOCKEYE SALMON

~ AREA A )0.00AREA C

I-~ooo

i='lJJ

III(f)

"- "-:t: 2~.OO :t: '''''(f) (f)... lL0 20,00 <> ,..,Z ~~

l- I-ll:

~0 15,00...... ...lJJ lJJ

I- 10.00 I- 10.00

~Z::>

"- "-:t: 5.00 :t: ...,(,) (,)

~ ~(,) • (,)

MAY .kJNE JULY MAY .lJNE .kJLY

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

~

I-lJJ(f)

AREA B "- STN. 8~ :t:l- V)

lJJ lLV)

0"-:t: ZV)

lL I-0 ll:

lOOO20,00 0Z ...~ ...I- lJJll: t~QO I-

1500

0... Z... ::>lJJ "- 10,0(1I- 10.00 :t:.Z (,)

::> ~"-:t: .., (,) ,..(,)I-<(,) • •

MAY JUNE JULY MAY JJNE JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 3A. Average weekly captures of sockeye salmon juveniles.

-.19 -

SOCKEYE SALMON

)000 AREA D AREA FI- -I-ILl

ILlCJ)CJ)..... .....:I::I:CJ)CJ)

ii: ii:.; .;z Z

l- I- "..,0::0:: 00 u.u. u.U. ILl ",.ILll-I- Zf Z ::>

I::> ..... '.00.....

:I::I: 0

I 0!:i!:i 0

I 0

" ~I!I WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODSI

- AREA E STN.IOI-ILl

I-CJ)ILl.....CJ):I: .....CJ):I:ii: CJ)

.; ii:z ",.

ci- zl-

I-0:: 15,0015.000 0::

U. 0U. U.ILl U.

10.00 ILl 10.00 •!:: I-Z Z::>::>..... 500 ..... '.00

:I::I:00li 0 !;{ 00 0

" • " ~,

MAY JUNE JULY MAY JUNE JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 3B. Average weekly captures of sockeye salmon juveniles.

I .

- 20 -

A second, less dramatic peak occurred two weeks later. Coho

were within the estuary until purse seining was discontinued

on July 30. This species was not taken in the surface

trawl which operated during the first two weeks of August.

Coho salmon abundance as indicated by catch per unit of

effort is shown in Figures 4Aand B.

Chinook salmon juveniles, (0. tshawytscha) were present

in the estuary from the third week in May until sampling

was discontinued in mid-August. The timing of abundance

peaks varied in the different estuarine areas, but the

overall peak abundance occurred in mid-June. Catch per

unit of effort by area for chinook salmon is shown in

Figures 5A and. B.

Chum salmon fry (0. ketal were not abundant in the

estuary which is not surprising since the Skeena River is

not noted for its chum salmon production. Sparse captures

were made in May and the largest captures were made in the

second week of July. Chum salmon were still in the

estuary in very small numbers in the second week of August

as evidenced by trawl captures.

Catch per unit of effort by area for this species is

illustrated in Figures 6A and B.

It is clear that coho, chinook and chum salmon juveniles

did not exhibit dramatic peaks of abundance. They exhibited

a major peak and several lesser peaks of abundance which was

not the case for the other two salmon species. The peak

of migration for chinook and coho coincided with the very high

discharge period in the Skeena River (Figure 7). However,

- 21 -

COHO SALMON

r­w

'"-...I

'"G:ozr­oooLLLLW 1,00

r­Z::>-...IU!;i ,u

AREA ·A

JUNE

~

r­w!!!::r:<J)

L;:ei l,OQ

Z~

r-~ I.~

LLW

r­Z::>-...::r:u!;i'u

AREA C

JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

JULY'·llu.u'tn

MAY JUNE

r- ,~oooLLLLUJ 1.00

r-~....... 0.:10

IU!;i ,u

E~ STN.8I

'"G:oz~

16 U 30

JULY

AREA B

L-l--,!c.-2! i8 .. II 19 n

MAY JUNE

r-w

'"..... I

'"G:0 2,00

Z

r-'"oo

0LLLLW '"'r-Z::>-... ,~

IUr-«u

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 4A. Average weekly captures of coho salmon juveniles.

- 22 -

COHO SALMON

f-w

AREA D (f) AREA F"-:r(f)

ii:.,;z

I,!I,:1,i

"'I,I,,i

,, .

f­w(f)

"­:r(f)

LA: 2,00

.,;3I- I.~O

a::f;:~ 1.00

t:z::> 0,50

"-:ro~ ,o L

14 21 l8 4 II I' 25 t I' ., n !IO

MAY JUNE ,JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS

~ 1,50

oI.LI.Ll&J 1,00

f­Z:::l"- .~

:ro~ ,o

?1421U4 18~52~16n)O

MAY JUNE .AJLY

WEEKLY PERIODS

~

f­w(f)

"­:r(f)

ii:.,;Z

f­a::oI.Lf±j 1.00

t:z~ (I,W

"-:ro~,o

MAY JUNE

AREA E

JULY

f-

~ '~f'u.. zoo.,;Z~

.... I.~

a::f;:I.LIJJ 1.00

f­Z:::l 0>,"-:ro!;( ,o

MAY

STN.IO

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 48. Average weekly captures of coho salmon juveniles.

- 23 -

CHINOOK SALMON

f-LiJ(f)....J:(f)

ii:dz~

f-a::0"-"-LiJ

f-Z::> ,"J:U

!;i ,u

AREA A

I.ZIU411111,5Z

MAY JUNE

j:"LiJ(f)

" ,~

J:(f)

ii:,; ""t;

'.21184'111

MAY JUNE

AREA C

"MY

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

AREAS STN.8f- ~

LiJ f-(f) LiJ

"(f)

J: "J:!!l (f)

"- ii:,; ,;z~ Z

f- f-a:: ''''0 a::"- 0"- "-LiJ "-

LiJf- f-Z Z::> ::>

" .'" ".,

J: J:0 0

ti f-, .0; ,,0 0

,MAY JUNE JULY MAY JUNE

WEEKLY PERIODS WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 5A. Average weekly captures of chinook salmon juveniles.

- 24 -

._-----_._-----------------------,'00 . AREA D

o

JULYU 30

CHINOOK SALMON

'00 AREA E

JULY

AREA F

JUNE

JUNE

I-- 100ILl(f)

"-J:en oS{)

G:.;z 0I-0:: MAYo"-"-ILl

I-Lz

i:~ ~1 t4 21

MAY

i

!

'00 STN.IO

MAY JUNE916U3O

JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS

Figure 58. Average weekly captures of chinook salmon juveniles.

- 25 -

CHUM SALMON

WEEKLY PERIODS

I~

~ r-r- wI w

AREA A(J)

(J)

"I " :J::J:

~I l/) u.iL 2'00

Idd zz

Il'SO

l-I-~ ~

0 0'I u. u.

I u. 1·00 U. 1·00

W W'I !:: !::I z O·~O Z ..~

:::> :::>'I " ":J: :J:

U 0,00 (.) 0'00

5 J-

" ".-:

" " " " UMAY JUNE JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS

14 II il

MAYII II U

JUNE

AREA C

" IS )0

JULY

1411 11112'291'2530

STN. B5'~O

',00AREA B

5'00

l-I-w

l/) w..... 2'~O (J) 2·50

:J: "l/) :J:iL (J)... ii: 2·00

d dz z-l- I-50I- HtD

ll: ~0 0u. u.U. 100 U. t·OOW W

l- t:Z z:::> 0-50 :::> 0·50

" ":J: :J:U U

~... r- ...

.-:u (.)

" " " " " "MAY JUNE JULY

WEEKLY PERIODS

MAY JUNE

WEEKLY PERIODS

JULY

Figure 6A. Average weekly captures of chum salmon juveniles.

Figure 68.

-.26 -

CHUM SALMON

Average weekly captures of chum salmon juveniles.

- 27 -

'00DAILY DISCHARGE IN 1972

APRILMAYJUNEJULYAUGUST

...............

,"I 'I ': \, .., ,, ,

• •I ', ,t \ :

• \ I: ' ..I , •

, ' I, '\ :, : \ i\ : \I I \. "I I'.\ I",

\ : \ "\ . ,I I \ jI I \ I\ ' \\ . \

; \ .i\ ' I

\ ! \ jI : \ !\ \ I~ • \ !

\ " \ /\!1 I \\ ~ ..

~ i \,:' '\ "I I / \

\ ,........ \ ..' \.... " \ "" ! '\,,'- .......,' \

.~.. \

\ / r··· ..·····. f ".. \ i\ ... __ ./...... ......•... / '\ ""',

,/' I r

.// ..\ , ,'\ ,; \ ! ""'",", \ / \ : \.

../ I ...<....... : \ I/ \, / \. // """'. t··.. ······· ..·· .. · .... ··· ....·:>···.......

..... -._.... ...........-,,' .... / ...~. '"/.... . /.. '-,_.,.t·..,. . .._.-.........., ..../. .."'.......... / '. .•....•.

./ .....-....-........ . ......././... .,~.~_._._._/"'/ ,._.__._-_ .•.,.,._.•._.

/". --.-.-...."..../'"

-_ ...-"-------------------_:---------

60

20

80

40

'60

'00

220

240

'20

200

'80

'40

260

280

tI

1,J

IiIII

I 0z0uIII0:

"'..I-w

"'...uiiia0z...,::>0:I:I-

~

"''"!:j:I:U.,is

DAY OF 1II0NTH

Figure 7. Daily discharge for April - August 1973 recorded at Usk.

I .

- 28 -

the scattered peaks of abundance are most probably a

reflection of the combined factors of a natural scattering

of downstream migrations out of the natal streams in the

Skeena River system and a longer residency within the

estuarine zone. Sims (1970) and Reimers (1971) have noted

lengthy residence periods for chinook and coho juveniles

in the Columbia River estuary and the Sixes River estuary

in Oregon. In the case of the Skeena River, it was not

possible, because of resource constraints, to establish

downstream migrant traps several miles upstream of the

estuary. This would have enabled us to define downstream

migrations more precisely and as consequence to determine

positively if the coho and chinook captures were evidence

of back-and-fbrth estuarine .movements. Such movements

are known to occur with chinook salmon juveniles in the

Fraser River, (K.R. Pitre, personal communication).

The frequency distributions for the juvenile salmon

captures by species and area are shown in TABLES I-V. Due

to the multiplicity of distributions and varied numbers of

species captured, each of the species distributions have

differing results in terms of major areas of residency.

However, the general statement can be made that Inverness

Passage (Area D) yielded the greatest mean captures for all

species except chum salmon.

When all salmon catches were combined (or pooled) the

number of fish caught in a set radically increased and the

number of zero counts diminished (See TABLE VI). This en­

ables a better understanding of the relative salmon utilization

- 29 -

TABLE I. Catch frequency distribution of pink saln'On juveniles.

IArea nAil

StandardCatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

I

0.0 32 91 0.171 0.381 0.618

1.0 1 3

2.0 1 3

3.0 1 3

Area liB"

0.0 37 86 0.605 9.340 3.056

1.0 4 9

2.0 1 2

20.0 1 2

Area "C"

0.0 105 82 3.016 , 459.548 21.437

1.0 9 7

2.0 1 1

3.0 3 3

5.0 2 2

7.0 1 1

11.0 1 1

44.0 1 1

55.0 1 1

230.0 1 1

Arep, "D"

0.0 41 75 2.036 28.665 5.354

1.0 3 5

2.0 3 5

3.0 1 2

4.0 1 2

8.0 1 2

13.0 2 4

!(

- 32 -

TABLE II oont'd. catch frequency distribution of sockeye salnon juveniles.

Standardcatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area tiD"

0.0 36 62 3.891 440.506 20.988

1\1.0 10 17

, 2.0 5 9

3.0 1 3,,, ,

4.0 1 3

34.0 1 3

153.0 1 3

Area "E"

0.0 39 69 3.214 270.062 16.434

1.0 6 10

2.0 4 7

3.0 1 2

4.0 2 4

6.0 1 2

, 7.0 1 2,I 20.0 1 2I 122.0 1 2H,I Area "F"

0.0 22 79 2.286 58.508 7.649

I 1.0 3 11

3.0 1 4

25.0 1 4

33.0 1 4

- 33 -

TABLE III. catch frequency distribution of coho salmon juveniles.

Standardcatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area nAil

0.0 30 86 0.171 0.205 0.543

1.0 4 11

2.0 1 3

Area "B II

0.0 41 95 0.326 2.987 1. 728

3.0 1 2

11.0 1 2

Area "ell0.0 108 86 0.232 0.567 0.753

1.0 12 10

2.0 2 2

4.0 2 2

5.0 1 1

Area "DII

0.0 45 82 0.364 1.051 1.025

1.0 6 11

2.0 2 4

5.0 2 4

Area fiE"

0.0 53 95 0.196 1.215 1.102

1.0 1 2

2.0 1 2

8.0 1 2

Area "F"

0.0 21 75 0.321 0.347 0.612

1.0 5 18

2.0 2 7

..

- 35 -

TABI.E IV. cont'd. catch frequency distribution of chinook salrron juveniles.

Standardcatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area "E"

0.0 42 75 0.536 1.235 1.111

1.0 5 9

2.0 5 9

3.0 2 4

4.0 1 2

5.0 1 2

Area lip"

0.0 27 96 0.071 0.143 0.378

2.0 1 4

- 36

TNJU\ V. Catch frcquenLJ( distribution of chum salmon juveniles.

StandardCatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area "A"

0.0 32 91 0.286 1.269 1.127

1.0 1 3

3.0 1 3

6.0 1 3

Area liB"

0.0 39 91 0.395 3.054 1. 748

1.0 1 2

2.0 1 2

3.0 1 2

11.0 1 2

Area "e"0.0 120 96 0.048 0.062 0.249

1.0 4 3

2.0 1 1

Area "D"

0.0 51 93 0.073 0.069 0.262

1.0 4 7

Area "E"

0.0 53 95 0.107 0.243 0.493

1.0 1 2

2.0 1 2

3.0 1 2

Area "F"

None captured

- 37 -

TABLE VI. catch frequency distribution all salnon juveniles.

StandardCatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area "A"

0.0 19 54 1.914 11.198 3.346

1.0 1 3

2.0 5 14

3.0 5 4

4.0 1 3

5.0 1 3

7.0 1 3

8.0 1 3

17.0 1 3

Area liB"

0.0 31 72 2.861 60.552 7.782

1.0 2 5

2.0 2 5

3.0 2 5

5.0 1 2

6.0 1 2

15.0 1 2

22.0 1 2

24.0 1 2

39.0 1 2

Area "c"0.0 66 52 6.808 1162.317 34.093

1.0 30 23

2.0 9 7

3.0 5 4

4.0 4 3

5.0 1 1

7.0 2 2

11.0 1 1

14.0 1 1

17.0 1 1

- 38 -

TABLE VI. cont'd. Catch frequency distribution all salrron juveniles.

StandardCatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area "e" cont'd.

32.0 1 1

55.0 1 1

112.0 1 1

230.0 1 1

238.0 1 1

Area "DII

0.0 21 36 7.118 488.544 22.103

1.0 4 7

2.0 8 14

3.0 5 9

4.0 2 4

5.0 1 2

6.0 2 4

7.0 1 2

9.0 1 2

10.0 1 2

11.0 2 4

13.0 1 2

14.0 1 2

15.0 1 2

25.0 2 4

38.0 1 2

153.0 1 2

- 39 -

TABLE VI. cont'd. Catch frequency distribution all salroon juveniles.

Catch Frequency Percentage Mean VarianceStandardDeviation

Area nE"

0.0 29 51 5.696 322.724 17.965

1.0 5 8

2.0 5 8

3.0 2 4

4.0 3 5

5.0 1 2

6.0 2 4

7.0 1 2

8.0 1 2

10.0 1 2

11.0 1 2

15.0 1 2

20.0 2 4

56.0 1 2

122.0 1 2

Area "F"

0.0 15 54 2.750 57.380 7.575

1.0 7 25

2.0 2 7

4.0 2 7

25.0 1 4

33.0 1 4

- 40 -

of different areas within the estuary. Itis apparent that,

when all species of salmon are considered together,

Inverness Passage, Flora Bank and De Horsey Bank (Areas

D,C, and E), in that order, produced the greatest mean

captures per set. These areas also have the largest variances

with the Flora Bank area showing the greatest variation

in size of captures. The Ridley Island zone (Area A), on

the other hand, produced the smallest mean captures per set

and yielded the lowest variance. A higher variance is in­

dicative of captures of "groups" of fish which are either

schooled populations or fractions of schooled populations.

Inverness Passage, Flora Bank and De Horsey Bank yielded

captures of these "groups" whereas the Ridley area tended to

produce only individual fish or at best very small groups

of fish in a single set. Manzer (1966) has reported that

juvenile salmon entering the sea move along the coast in schools

during their early sea life prior to offshore movement.

Consequently, the non-schooling distribution at

Ridley Island suggests that these fish are either preparing

for offshore migration in the higher salinity waters or are

displaying, at the very least, an atypical ethological trait.

Possible reasons for such a behavioural response will be

discussed later when the aquatic environment adjacent to

Ridley Island is discussed.

The frequency distribution for herring (Clupea pallasii)

TABLE VII, illustrates that Areas B and A produce the

largest mean captures. Sporadic captures of "Groups" of

herring are shown. There appear to be large captures

TABLE VI I.

- 41 -

Catch frequency distribution of herring.

StandardCatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area "A"

0.0 8 22 35.171 5964.309 77.229

1.0 7 19

2.0 1 3

3.0 1 3

8.0 2 6

11. 0 1 3

17.0 1 3

20.0 1 3

25.0 3 8

30.0 2 6

35.0 1 3

50.0 2 6

100.0 2 6

110.0 1 3

150.0 1 3

425.0 1 3

Area "B"

0.0 11 27 44.372 11,527.383 107.366

1.0 5 14

2.0 2 6

3.0 3 7

4.0 _1 2

5.0 2 56.0 1 2

7.0 1 2

9.0 1 2

10.0 1 2

20.0 4 9

23.0 1 2

25.0 1 2

45.0 1 2

50.0 1 2

,42 -I -

i,i TABLE VI!. cont'd. Catch frequency distribution of herring.

II

StandardCatch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area "B" Cont.

56.0 1 2

90.0 1 2

120.0 1 2

128.0 1 2

225.0 1 2

450.C 1 2

I 500.0 1 2I!I Area "C"

I 0.0 51 40 9.584 608.115 24.660

1. 0' 15 11

I 2.0 6 5)

3.0 9 6,

.l 4.0 5 4I

5.0 4 3

6.0 6 5

i7.0 2 2

8. 0 3 2

I 10.0 2 2

! 11. 0 1 1ir 12.0 ,I 1

15.0 2 2

19.0 1 1

20.0 'I 1

25.0 5 4

30.0 3 2

49.0 1 1

55.0 1 1

60.0' 1 1

63.0 1 1

81. 0 1 1

95.0 1 1

100.0 1 1

200.0 1 1

TABLE VII. cont'd.

- 43 -

Catch frequency distribution of herring.

Catch Frequency Percentage MeanStandard

Variance Deviation

Area liD"

0.0 52 95 0.309 2.069 1. 4392.0 1 27.C 1 28.0 1 2

Area !T.E"

0.0 45 80 1.179 50.004 7.0711.0 7 132.0 3 5

53.0 1 2

Area' ifF"

0.0 25 88 0.357 1. 868 1. 3671.0 1 42.0 1 47.0 1 4

- 44 -

relative to salmon captures but they are not significantly

large herring captures.

The abundance of herring spawn in the general study

area is much lower than historical levels. The only area

immediately adjacent to the study area where spawn was

located in 1972, was the west side of Digby Island,

(F. Dickson, personal communication). Given a varied

salinity regime herring preferentially avoid low salinity

regions (D. Outram, personal communication).

Thus, the larger populations of fish at Ridley Island

and the offshore area, indicate moving schools of fish

seeking a spawning area, yet avoiding low salinity areas in

the estuary, during their meandering.

The frequency distribution of needlefish (Ammodytes

hexapterus), as shown in TABLE VIII, indicates that Flora

Bank (Area C) produced the greatest mean captures of this

particular species. They were not as generally abundant

as herring, which is indicated by the high frequency of

zero captures.

b) Benthic organisms

The small number of samples collected afford only

a coarse assessment of the epifaunal and infaunal community

structure of the estuarine benthos. The locations where

samples were taken are shown in Figure 8. As seen in

TABLE IX the largest number of organisms and greatest

number of taxonomic groups were collected from Stations 1

and 3, both located on Flora Bank. Polychaetes, both

motile and sedentary forms, were represented by the largest

TAIJLE VIII.

- 45 -

Catch frequency distribution of needlefish.

StandardI Catch Frequency Percentage Mean Variance Deviation

Area !.IA It

0.0 32 91 0.186 .080 0.2841.C 3 9

Area ."B u

None captured

a Area "e"IL

0.0 99 77 5.364 533.102 23.0891.0 6 4

2.0 3 2

3.0 1 1

4.0 1 1

5.0 2 2

6.0 1 1

8.0 1 1

10.0 2 2

15.0 1 1

25.C 2 2

35.0 1 1,40.( 1 1I 45.0 1 1

I 85.0 1 1

125.0 1 1! 200.0 1 1

TABLE VIII. cont'd.

- 46 -

Catch frequency distribution of needlefish.

Catch Frequency Percentage MeanStandard

Variance Deviation

Area "D"

0.0 54 98 0.018 0.018· 0.1351. 0000 1 2

Area "Elf

0.0 49 88 1. 804 103.03 i• 10.1511.0 3 54.0 1 26.0 1 2

13.0 1 275.0 1 2

Area "F H

0.0 24 86 0.464 3.0000 1. 732I.e 2 72.0 1 4

i 9.0 1 4I

.~ItIIi

III•

- 47 -

KENNEDY ISLAND

ISLANDSMITH

KITSON I.SITE

ISLAND

2,

PORCHER

DIGBY ISLAND

o

Soal. In mile.

"

j

}II 0t,f,[

Figure 8. Dredge sampling sites in the Skeena River estuary.

TABLE IX.

- AS -

Distribution and abundance of benthic invertebrates.

TABLE IX cont'd.

-.49 -

Distribution and abundance of benthicinvertebrates.

c)

, i .

~

II.

IIII'I

- 50 -

number of taxa. They were most abundant at Stations 1

and 3 (Area C) and Station 14(Area A). Pelecypods were

present in greatest numbers at Stations 1 and 3 and at

Station 16 (middle of Ridley Island shoreline). Echinoderms,

although low in number in Area C, were represented nowhere

else.

Amphipods and isopods were found only in Area C. The

presence of these species on Flora Bank may be related to the

flourishing eelgrass beds on the bank. Goodman and Vroom

(1972) and Gerke and Kaczynski (1972) have reported

amphipods as an important dietary component in the early

sea life of salmon.

Planktonic organisms

Plankton samples were gathered by vertical tows

at the sites shown in Figure 9. The species composition,

vertical distribution and abundance of the zooplankton

collected by the tows is illustrated in TABLE X. No

apparent difference between stations, in terms of species

composition or abundance, exists. Generally, copepods,

specifically calanoid copepods, are extant in the largest

numbers. They also display t~e greatest species diversity.

The juvenile calanoid stages (nauplius and copepodite) are

the most abundant components of the planktonic community.

Stations 26, 20 and la, located nearest the mouth of the

Skeena River, reflect the lowest number of organisms and the

smallest species diversity. This is attributed to the

strong flushing influence of the river and a lower salinity

regime at these particular stations.

~I

Ii - 51 -

o

KITSON f.SIT£

ISLAND

@

2o

PORCHER

Scal, 1ft mil..

N,~

rIi

figure 9. Plankton sampling sites (vertical tows) in the Skeena Riverestuary.

N

o

- 52 -

...o

, .

><Cll...

......CllE

u.~

.0::lU......

-0Cll...::l

......0-

'"U

IltdniluPISrl il4dn3

S!.Jd"<:o~q pad! oJ,J!:)

N'"00

'"•o

N

oN•o

'"o

...oNo

~•o

N

o

N

o

N

o

N

o

N~

• •00

~

•°

...o

'"o

N

o

...•

°No

'"o

oz:

lJl

t:o

......-""t:

'"~

'"U.~

.........Cll>

'I­o

t:o.~

.~

Vlo0­Eou

VlCll.~

uCll0­Vl

><

! ndnllu~!pad! !J.JI:J

'ds'e.Jnaldo>t!O

spodadooPl°:;)!l°ildJRH

'ds1:1 U041!0

1l::>!J. p)'Cdil.J ow9 lA.m3

sn :repnilOS! Psnutq..Jo!

Sl1ilU !,nopq1!96ooo..q uaO

snlnu!wsnUllliloopnasd

s!w9JaBuOlR!l ...Il::>\f

sal! podadooP! outTao

! !ldn 'eUP! ou illll:)

(s'"lOW)41doO

"'~· .00

",00""

dod

'"o

~'"00

00,,"'"

odo

"''''00• • •"'UlN

00

00

o

'"o'"o

"'NOcONUlOO'"• • •NOO

"'N~• • •000

~",Ul· . .~~O

,,""'Ul· . .OO:;a1O

"1M· .00

N•o

N

o

"''''· .00

00",

00

." '"ddNUl

00N

...•

°

...•

°"'N00"'UlM. . .MOO

N"'Ul

cON

""N

",0",· . ."'NN

"''''• •NO

...... 00· . ."'N ...

.... N. .00

"'N"I ••

• '" NUlN

"'0""~~~

~ooll').....",00 ...

NMNddd

,,"N

00N•°

N

o

00"''''000

- 53 -

'"o

u.~

'"o

'"•o

...o

",,,,. .~O

N~. .00

~

•o

~

•o

<Xlo

'"o

'"o

'"•o

'"o

10

o"'o

"'''''''· . .000

"'o

"''''00

"''''dd

'"<5

"'~• •00

'"o

100'"• • •0"'0

'"o

~

•o

<Xl'". .0",

'ds~onl!+ooN

'dsaup'l:lJ\3

! ndn-eu ~

p!sn-e4dn3 d

s!.Jd,.(:)

'll!pad' ... .J!O

!! Idn~utqpad! !.....l!O

'e0LJ.!o'{!d'll.JowalA..ln3

-dsuapod

spodadoopjooll°-ed..l'eH

.a:::>u

-----0OJ'­:::>+'C-

'"Uoz

Ul

+''­OJ>4­o

co

~

"'U.~

.~

,,UloC-~

E~

OC>u~

Snlllpn'l!:)sIPsnUlll..J°J.

"''''10· . .000

...•o

"''''00

'"oUlXOJ

•~ OJu'­OJ+'C-OJV1E

S!"[l~U!wopql!

a6l!do..q uaO

snlnu!wsnu'e11l00pnasd '"o

.'" ~00

"''''· .00

"''''• •00

'" '"00

'"o

s!wa..la6uOl'{! 1l.J'eo II "''''· .

"'~

~

•'"

+'CoU

><

S911podadooPI DUt:!ll!O

! ndnlluP! QUllP!O(SOJjow)

4jdoO

"''''dd

"'Ul

'"~"''''00

10

10•10

'"o'"

....'"

"'''''''000

- 54 -

u.~

.Cl:::>U

.......-clOJS­:::>...,0.n:!U

~ ~

dd

~

o

.~...,S­OJ>'4­o

<=o

1?ll1UOWI"d

! !ldn-euP!snl!ydn]

sl.JdJ:~

1lIpad!j.J!O

I !tdn'l!U'e!'pad! !Jol!O

'dsaUp1!A]

'dsuopod

spodadooPlo0!l0ed ..n:'H

'"oN .........· . . .0000

"''''do

"''''~· . .000

~

o

'"oGO'"00

'"oN~· .00

'"o'"o

N

o~ No 0

~

oGO'"od

.~

.~

VIoo.~

Ew00u~

VlXOJ.~ OJuS­OJ+'0. OJ(/) E

'ds1!'U04+!0

llO!J.!OlldV,JOW8lA.m 3

'd ssnu1!p"o

snl'tpn'l!::l~q Psnu 1Q.J°l

C!tllU!wopql!36t!do..q uaO

"''''~000~ ~

• •00

NlI)C\1"11:fl· . . .0000

~ ~ ...000

......· .00

~

..:~

o

"'~0":

~N

00

N

o

N

0'0° ......: . . .

~"''''

~"l 0l'.'Ot'o­\00 cJ"':~~N

"''''oN

N

~

•co

N

o...•

'"~'"...lo

"'Ndo

"'­. .00

... ",. .00

1.00\00\0• • II •0,....00

S8l!podadooPl°u'e"{'eO

! !ldn l!UP!OUl!l1!O

s !waJoBuol1l1l.Jl!o'g'

snlnu!wsnu-ereoopn9sd-cl

+'<=ou

x

l.LJ--'CO<r:I-

- 55 -

d) Eelgrass distribution and abundance

The two aerial photographic surveys made of the

major bank areas in the estuary illustrated that Flora Bank

supports the largest eelgrass bed in the estuary. This is

in agreement with the 1971 Fisheries Service study of the

area. Infrequent measurements were taken of plant length

in a quadrat situated on Flora Bank, during the months from

May to August and plant growth, in one instance, from

17 em. to a length of 31 em. was recorded during this

period. Burkholder and Doheny (1968) have reported a

vegetative phase for eelgrass during the winter, with growth

occurring during the summer as water temperatures increase.

The study area is located within the "extended range"

for eelgrass distribution (Burkholder and Doheny, 1968) and

as a result the biomass in this region will be less than in

regions located within the area of principal abundance

which would include the Fraser River estuary. Although the

eelgrass population in the study area is not as significant

as in southern areas, it is still beneficial to the food

chain. Decaying plants form a detritus base for consumption

by benthic and planktonic invertebrates. It acts a sediment

stabilizer preventing drifting of sediments and it often

provides a suitable environment for browsing invertebrates

by virtue of its associated epiphytes.

- 56 -

e) Salinity and temperature

The large tidal fluctuations in the Prince Rupert

area and the high discharge of the Skeena River result in a

dynamic salinity regime within the estuary. The surface

salinity values in TABLE XI represent relative differences

between areas under a single set of physical conditions.

Areas D, E and F yielded the lowest mean ?alinity values and

D, E and e had the great~st of salinities.

When salinity values were averaged for 0, 2, 5 and 10

meter depths by area, the range of salinities naturally

increased (TABLE XII). Area D still produces the lowest

salinity value and the greatest range. Areas e and E are

identical in salinity value and range.

Massman (1963) has described the "critical zone" of an Df_.- /ao

est uary as 0 ccur r i ng below sal i ni ty val ues 0 f 18%~;~~ h i-~~~---

adults, but especially in young of many species and with

abundant plankton populations. Low salinity areas with a

wide range of salinity values will allow juvenile salmonids

a chance for physiological adaptation by active and passive

movements to and from differing regions of salinity concentration.

The temperature regimes differed very little by areas

but varied greatly with depth. There was no definite thermo­

cline within the estuarine confines, due to the mixing of

tide and river waters. At a depth of 25 metres there is a

sharp temperature change indicative of a thermocline, but this

was not true in all areas. Average surface temperatures, rose

from 6.l oe. in the first week of May to 12.5 0 e. in the second

week of August.

- 57 -

TABLE XI. Surface salinities by area.

AREA SALI NITY (%0) RANGE(O/OO}

A 21. a 0.8B 23.3 4.4C 21.0 5.0D 7 .9 6.4E 18.0 6.2F 19. 1 4.3

TABLE XII. Depth average salinities for 0,2,5,10metre depths.

AREA AVER. SALINITY (%0) RANGE (%0)

A 25.0 8.9B ·26.4 7.4C 22.4 8.6

D 17 . 5 10.6E 22.5 8.9F 20.2 9.3

- 58 -

f) Dietary components

At this writing, the stomach content analysis of

the 1,133 fish retained for examination, has not been

completed. Preliminary results indicate that sockeye, coho,

and chinook are utilizing amphipods and insect remains as

a food source. Copepods are also major components in the

gut contents of chinook and sockeye. Amphipods were not

utilized by herring and needlefish as a food source. The

major source of food for these species are P. minutus and

Cirripedia cypris.

g) Aquatic environment in the Ridley Island Region

Unlike all the other areas of sampling, the

aquatic environment in waters surrounding Ridley Island is

subject to the severe pollutional effects of effluents

being discharged from the pulpmill complex on Watson Island.

Untreated sulfite and kraft pulping and bleaching effluents

have been discharged to the Wainwright Basin-Porpoise

Harbour system on the east side of Ridley Island for many

years. In the past several years, frequent large fish kills

have occurred as a direct result of these discharges and

the associated de-oxygenation of the receiving waters. In

order to improve the water quality in Porpoise Harbour and

Wainwright Basin, a pipeline was constructed from the sulfite

mill across Porpoise Harbour and Ridley Island to carry the

very high oxygen demanding sulfite red liquor to Chatham Sound

for disposal. As a consequence of this action, conditions

II·I,

I

,I:,::

fr

IlI

- 59 -

within Porpoise Harbour and Wainwright Basin improved

slightly so that a lethal environment no longer exists

as long as pipeline ruptures or pump failures do not

occur. This does not imply that a viable, fish producing

environment has ensured but, rather, that fish may now

migrate through the area successfully. At the same

time, a very localized zone of severe pollution has been

created in Catham Sound immediately adjacent to the northern"end of Ridley Island. Because the outfall discharges into an

eddy area, the bulk of the effluent is dispersed into

Chatham Sound instead of being swept by tidal currents into

Prince Rupert Harbour. In short, the red liquor outfall

location is of strategic importance. The company has now

embarked on a very long term effluent treatment program

which will reduce the red liquor oxygen demand by

approximately 75 percent and initially they requested that

the red liquor outfall be relocated in Porpoise Harbour.

The Fisheries Service has objected to the outfall relocation

on the grounds that conditions in Porpoise Harbour could once

again become lethal to fish despite effluent treatment, and,

that effluents so released could potentially have a

detrimental effect on Flora Bank as a juvenile salmon habitat.

The realization that the aquatic environment adjacent

to Ridley Island is already severely disrupted and affords

only marginal opportunity for improvement is a factor which

cannot be ignored when consideration is being given to

siting industrial complexes which will result in disruption

of the aquatic environment.

- 60 -

IV CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that, when the factors of fish

distribution. food availability. presence of aquatic

vegetation and highly variable salinities are considered

in combination, the shallow estuarine areas between

Porpoise Channel and the mouth of the Skeena River are of

high biological significance as a fish (especially juvenile

salmon) rearing habitat. Inverness Passage, Flora Bank and

De Horsey Bank. in that order. are habitats of critical

importance for the rearing of juvenile salmon. The

construction of a superport at the Kitson Island - Flora Bank

site would destroy much of this critical salmon habitat.

The Ridley Island area does not have any significant

biological life or importance to the Fisheries resource

because it lies within a zone of industrial pollution which

in the long term can only be moderately improved through the

application of currently available waste treatment technology.

Thus. from a Fisheries resource maintenance stand point.

the selection of the Ridley Island site for development as

a superport would bring about the least increment of

environmental degradation. It would also tend to ensure

that the zone of industrially oriented environmental

degradation is concentrated in one relatively small area

within the Prince Rupert district.

- 61 -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their gratitude to the

vessel masters R. Johnson (M. V. "Silver Token"), S.

Kristmanson (M. V. "Breezeway"), J. Reynolds (M. V.

Thrasher Rock") for their assistance; and to Mrs. G.

Sandercock for identification of stomach contents.

R. AND T. E. DOHENY. 1968. The Biology ofDept. Conservation and Waterways, New York,

I·I,.

- 62 -

LITERATWRE CITED

BURKHOLDER, P.Eelgrass.88 pp.

GERKE, R. J. AND V. W. KACZYNSKI. 1972. Food of juvenilepink and chum salmon in Puget Sound, Washington. Tech.Rept., Washington Dept. Fish., No. 10, 27 pp.

-GOODMAN, D. AND P.R. VROOM. 1972. Investigations intofish utilization of the inner estuary of the SquamishRiver. Tech. Rept., Fisheries Service, PacificRegion, 1972-12, 52 pp.

KINNE, O. 1967. Physiology of estuarine organisms withspecial reference to salinity and temperature:general aspects. In G. H. Lauff (ed.) Estuaries.ArneI'. Assoc. Advancement Sci., Washington, D. C.:525-540.

MANZER, J. I. 1966. The sea 'life of Canada's Pacificsalmon. In Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 1966 Studies,No. 1,000-,15 pp.

MASSMAN, W. H. 1963. The "critical zone" in estuaries.Bull. Sport Fishing Inst., 141, August 1963: 1-2.

ODUM, W. E. 1970. Insidious Alteration of the EstuarineEnvironment. l!! Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99(4): 836-847 .

.-PARKER, R. R. 1970. Observations on the 1964 brood yearof Bella Coola pink salmon as juveniles in BurkeChannel and Seaward Channels in 1965. Man. Rept.,Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, No. 1074, 60 pp.

PRITCHARD, D.W. 1967. What is an estuary: physicalviewpoint. In G. H. Lauff (ed.) Estuaries. ArneI'.Assoc. Advancement Sci., Washington, D. C.: 3-5.

REIMERS, P. E. 1971. The length of residence of juvenilefall chinook salmon, in Sixes River in Oregon. Ph. D.thesis, Oregon State University, 99 pp.

SIMS, C; W. 1970. Juvenile salmon and steel head in theColumbia River estuary. In Proc. Northwest Estuarineand Coastal Zone Symposiu~ Bur. Sport Fish. andWildlife: 80-86.

- 63 -

SMITH, H. D. 1972. Juvenile salmon and trout in theNanaimo River estuary in relation to the proposedAssembly Wharf expansion. Man. Rept., Fish. Res.Bd. Canada, No. 1190, 13 pp.

,.

ii

- 64 -

APPENDIX A

A LIST OF FISH SPECIES

CAPTURED IN ESTUARY

BY

PURSE SEINES

TABLE A-I

- 65 -

List of fish species captured in purse seine.

l. Pacific lamprey - Entosphenus tridentatus

2. Eulachon - Thaleicthys pacificus

3. Capelin - Mall otus vi 11 osus

4. Sand sole - Psettichthys melanostictus

5. Lemon sole - Parophrys vetulus

6. Butter sole - Isopsetta isolepis

7. Sta rry fl ounder Platichthys stellatus

8. Sandfish - Trichodon trichodon

i 9. Spinynose sculpin - Radulinus taylorii

10. Padded sculpin - Artedius fenestralis

11. Buffalo sculpin - Enoph rys bison

12. Staghorn sculpin - Leptocottus armatus

13. Grunt sculpin - Rhamphocottus richardsoni

14. Deep pi ttedpoacher Bothragomus swanii

15. Sturgeon poacher - Agonus acipenserinus

16. Spiny lumpsucker - Eumicrotremus orbis

17. Tadpole snailfish - Nectoliparis pelagicus

18. Threespin stickleback - Gasterosteus acu 1ea tus

19. Whitebarred prickleback - Porocl i nus rothrocki

20. Red brotula· - Brosmophycis marginata

2l. Flathead clingfish - Gobiesox masandricus